Xtol stock v 1:1 v 1:2 v 1:3 and Acros 100

[Gerald C Koch]

There is a valid argument for using a "seasoned" MQ developer like D-76. The hydroquinone monosulphonate ion formed from the oxidation of hydroquinone is a soft-working developing agent. It slowly builds up in a replenished system and changes its character. However, there is no hydroquinone in Xtol and nothing similar is produced by the oxidation of ascorbic acid. All its oxidation products have no developer activity. So any benefit of a seasoned Xtol solution is really unsupported and somewhat illusionary in my estimation. It is illusionary in that it can only be done with reuse and not by any other means. Want to experience seasoned Xtol just add some potassium bromide. With this particular developer that is the only effective thing which changes.

Well what about the Dimezone? It is either regenerated by the ascorbate or if not its oxidation products have no developing activity. Self replenished Xtol changes rather slowly because a rather large amount of fresh developer must continually be added. This is usually not the case with other developers like D-76 or Autophen where a small amount of a special replenisher is added. It is instructive to look at the differences between D-76 and D-76R. D-76R contains no bromide and increased amounts of Metol and hydroquinone to replace that used up for each roll. The amounts arrived at were only found after long and exhaustive tests.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

OT: Does anyone know if new XTOL can be chemically 'pre-seasoned'?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Easily done by adding potassium bromide. However the correct amount is another question. A "seasoned" sample of known usage could be sent to a lab and the bromide concentration measured.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Replenished Xtol - a search of this site will find Ian Grant, myself, and others touting its virtues. The benefits that I saw from printing negs processed in replenished Xtol, compared to diluted 1:1 or 1:2 were:
1. Sharper negatives, especially compared to stock developer
2. Finer grain
3. A tonality that pleases my eye better than the other ways of using Xtol.

The drawbacks are:
1. You do lose film speed compared to 1:1, about 1/3 to 1/2 stop.

Make of it what you will.

The most important thing in my opinion is, that it probably doesn't even matter one bit what I just said. If you like the general demeanor of Xtol with slightly held back highlights, great midtone separation, incredible shadow detail (film speed), and if you like working with it, all the ways of using it in this thread will give amazing results.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Kodak specifies several methods to season a new system for replenishment using such products as Kodak Developer Starting Solution. Curiously they seem to have paid little attention to home use with replenishment other than providing information for self replenishment (use 70 ml per roll of file). Nothing about pre-seasoning (starting) a new system.

Replenished Xtol - a search of this site will find Ian Grant, myself, and others touting its virtues. The benefits that I saw from printing negs processed in replenished Xtol, compared to diluted 1:1 or 1:2 were:
1. Sharper negatives, especially compared to stock developer
2. Finer grain
3. A tonality that pleases my eye better than the other ways of using Xtol.

The drawbacks are:
1. You do lose film speed compared to 1:1, about 1/3 to 1/2 stop.

Xtol is an uncomplicated formula. All the above can be explained by the addition of bromide. In an early paper on D-76 (1922) Kodak found that the addition of 0.7 g/l of potassium bromide produced the same results as given for Xtol. However one must ask if that were the case for Xtol why wasn't some bromide included in the formula.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Kodak specifies several methods to season a new system for replenishment using such products as Kodak Developer Starting Solution. Curiously they seem to have paid little attention to home use with replenishment other than providing information for self replenishment (use 70 ml per roll of file). Nothing about pre-seasoning (starting) a new system.



Xtol is an uncomplicated formula. All the above can be explained by the addition of bromide. In an early paper on D-76 (1922) Kodak found that the addition of 0.7 g/l of potassium bromide produced the same results as given for Xtol. However one must ask if that were the case for Xtol why wasn't some bromide included in the formula.

That's my 'insinuated' question... exactly.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I just started my replenishment system for Xtol about four months ago and it's working just fine for me. I like the results and it's very easy to work with. For my starter I had four old rolls of 120 B&W film that ran through the developer and then topped off the jug with 30ml of my concentrate. My concentrate is equal to around 80ml of stock. I mainly use pyro developers, but like this stuff for 35mm. John W

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Which brings up a question for those that advocate replenished Xtol. How many rolls does it take to season it and do you use scrap film? Since it originally contains no bromide it is going to be "slow to get up to speed."

Having been burned once with a replenished system I am not really a fan. The replenished system behaved rather erratically and I dumped it after given it a good try. The stock contained bromide and it had a special replenisher. Still no cigar.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Just start using XTOL with the film you have shot and then keep on moving. It does not take many rolls to see the difference.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I just started my replenishment system for Xtol about four months ago and it's working just fine for me. I like the results and it's very easy to work with. For my starter I had four old rolls of 120 B&W film that ran through the developer and then topped off the jug with 30ml of my concentrate. My concentrate is equal to around 80ml of stock.X

Sorry I see what I missed.

 

[MattKing]

You don't really need to use a starter with replenished X-Tol because the difference between using X-Tol used one shot and replenished X-Tol is quite subtle. It is worthwhile noting as well that the replenishment regime involves a fairly large amount (70 ml) of replacement of developer for each roll developed, which in turn involves less bromide buildup than some other replenishment regimes. As a comparison, my HC-110 dilution E replenishment only involves 15ml of solution replacement.

 

[mnemosyne]

post deleted because I had missed a point

 

[Gerald C Koch]

You don't really need to use a starter with replenished X-Tol because the difference between using X-Tol used one shot and replenished X-Tol is quite subtle. It is worthwhile noting as well that the replenishment regime involves a fairly large amount (70 ml) of replacement of developer for each roll developed, which in turn involves less bromide buildup than some other replenishment regimes. As a comparison, my HC-110 dilution E replenishment only involves 15ml of solution replacement.

This summarizes my point. While replenished D-76 does contain a chemical not present in fresh D-76 (that being hydroquinone monosulphonate, a developing agent) all Xtol receives is a small amount of bromide. In addition D-76 is poorly buffered and one would expect a change in pH whereas Xtol is well buffered. So the old admonishments to season a fresh developer and using a replenished system produce better results is valid for D-76 but rather weak for Xtol. Hence my use of the word illusionary. In the case of Xtol nothing is gained thru seasoning that could not be achieved by the addition of a small amount of potassium bromide. The chemistry is straight forward. Ascorbic acid just does not produce any thing useful thru use. I know that this runs counter to what photographers have been taught for decades. But that is what I see - marginal gain at best.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Jerry,
I'm not one of those that are claiming a great visual difference in my Xtol replenished negative / prints, but I will say it is easier to work with and I pour much less down the drain than with one-shot. I will say also that somethings in life are unexplained and not always the way our minds think they should be. "I don't know why things work, but they just seem to work" probably fits here just perfect. John W

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Jerry,
I'm not one of those that are claiming a great visual difference in my Xtol replenished negative / prints, but I will say it is easier to work with and I pour much less down the drain than with one-shot. I will say also that somethings in life are unexplained and not always the way our minds think they should be. "I don't know why things work, but they just seem to work" probably fits here just perfect. John W

Appreciate you comment and point of view. My perspective is to shorten darkroom work as much as possible. So I always use one-shot developers. The consistency of their results literally takes a load off my feet.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Jerry,
I understand your perspective, but for me the darkroom is my second "Man cave" and I enjoy a little more time away from the boss. Don't tell her I said that! As for consistency? I don't see where Xtol replenished would be any worse. You see it on this forum all the time where folks can't figure out why their negatives are different from one time to the next, even with one-shot developers. Of course those one-shot developers do have a shelf life that's dependent on conditions and they often don't take that into consideration. Also, everyone has different "consistency" standards too. I do understand what you are saying

 

[Sirius Glass]

This summarizes my point. While replenished D-76 does contain a chemical not present in fresh D-76 (that being hydroquinone monosulphonate, a developing agent) all Xtol receives is a small amount of bromide. In addition D-76 is poorly buffered and one would expect a change in pH whereas Xtol is well buffered. So the old admonishments to season a fresh developer and using a replenished system produce better results is valid for D-76 but rather weak for Xtol. Hence my use of the word illusionary. In the case of Xtol nothing is gained thru seasoning that could not be achieved by the addition of a small amount of potassium bromide. The chemistry is straight forward. Ascorbic acid just does not produce any thing useful thru use. I know that this runs counter to what photographers have been taught for decades. But that is what I see - marginal gain at best.

I cannot see any significant added time using replenished XTOL over one shot XTOL. At most I could account for maybe 10 to 15 seconds if I am moving really s-l-o-w-l-y.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

To clarify my previous post consistent negatives save me time in the darkroom. Replenished systems can be t rolling average.

I cannot see any significant added time using replenished XTOL over one shot XTOL. At most I could account for maybe 10 to 15 seconds if I am moving really s-l-o-w-l-y.

I need to clarify what is meant by consistent. What I meant were negatives that are always consistent translate to shorter times in the dark room.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Consistent negatives come from consistent exposure and consistent development. They go together.

 

[ritternathan]

Acros is really nice with Xtol 1+3, shot at EI 50 in full sun and in shady, EI 100. The digital truth time of 14 min. is a good place to start. Xtol full strength or 1+1 are really easy to get densities that are hard to print in the darkroom. I also really like Acros with Rodinal and Pyrocat. My Acros negatives developed in Pyrocat are a dream to print. YMMV

 

[Zelph]

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/xtol/ An older page with Xtol information.

When Xtol first came out it was touted to be robust and work with most any water around, especially with hard water and less than ideal conditions. Kodak folks encouraged 1:3 development and some of us used it and liked it. Then Kodak started hearing of problems with sudden death of Xtol. The problem cropped up without warning, one batch of negatives came out fine, the next batch from the same stock solution was totally blank - the developer died. Kodak laid the blame on 1 litre packets and faulty sealing. Some reported the death from 5 litre packets as well but Kodak never publicly acknowledged it. Instead, they started telling us it was the dilution and the water quality. Odd, as they had touted the developer as a solution to mediocre water quality.

In talking with Sylvia Zawadski it seems apparent Kodak changed her original formula a bit. (Sylvia came up with Xtol. Dick Dickerson helped) The commercial version is no longer available in 1 litre packets.

Replinishing works for some but the risks of contamination, particulate matter and whatnot is too big for some of us. One shot is easier to control.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Xtol is an uncomplicated formula. All the above can be explained by the addition of bromide. In an early paper on D-76 (1922) Kodak found that the addition of 0.7 g/l of potassium bromide produced the same results as given for Xtol. However one must ask if that were the case for Xtol why wasn't some bromide included in the formula.

It all actually doesn't matter much. I just like using replenished Xtol because of the results. It suited how I worked and printed, in the lighting I enjoyed, and that's really all there's to it.
Whatever Kodak intended with it is purely academic, and while that may interest some, it still doesn't make any practical difference. It is what it is.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

One thing you're not considering is that since you have two solutions:
- Working solution
- Replenishing solution
...both of which are of different age, you will notice when the developer starts to drift in activity, so that if replenishment isn't getting the developer up to normal activity it's time to mix a new batch. It's actually safer than using diluted stock for that reason.

A replenished system does require a little bit more care than diluted stock. For example, if film isn't processed one should replenish for one film every two weeks. I once had my Xtol batch sit for 9 months without processing any film (during my divorce), but I kept replenishing it, and when I came back to photography it worked just like it did before. Of course I tested it first, to make sure after such a long hiatus.
Two rules:
1. Never let the stock concentrate sit for more than six months.
2. Keep it secure in a dark and cool place.

I used Xtol for 5 years, only ever mixed one single batch of Xtol working solution that I kept alive with replenisher for all that time, and with over 1,000 rolls going through it, it never skipped a beat. Never used distilled water either, only hot water from the water heater.

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/xtol/ An older page with Xtol information.

When Xtol first came out it was touted to be robust and work with most any water around, especially with hard water and less than ideal conditions. Kodak folks encouraged 1:3 development and some of us used it and liked it. Then Kodak started hearing of problems with sudden death of Xtol. The problem cropped up without warning, one batch of negatives came out fine, the next batch from the same stock solution was totally blank - the developer died. Kodak laid the blame on 1 litre packets and faulty sealing. Some reported the death from 5 litre packets as well but Kodak never publicly acknowledged it. Instead, they started telling us it was the dilution and the water quality. Odd, as they had touted the developer as a solution to mediocre water quality.

In talking with Sylvia Zawadski it seems apparent Kodak changed her original formula a bit. (Sylvia came up with Xtol. Dick Dickerson helped) The commercial version is no longer available in 1 litre packets.

Replinishing works for some but the risks of contamination, particulate matter and whatnot is too big for some of us. One shot is easier to control.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I should say first that I have never used X-Tol (that I can remember) but-

I have used replenished developers (mostly the Edwals, 10/12 and Bluegrass/Defender 777) and they do have a little something extra after replenishment. To be completely honest, the replenished developers gave the best overall image quality. If I wasn't so lazy I would keep using them. But I am lazy so I stick with Rodinal and Pyrocat. I think the best developer I ever used was Edwal 12 FWIW.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Hi Patrick,

I really loved Edwal 12 for its incredible highlights. Shooting in the Midwest often (not always) takes place in rather flat lighting. Edwal 12 was specifically made by Dr. Lowe to make a developer that would give those flat lighting scenarios a little more life. That was the whole purpose.
I too love that developer, and just added a couple of 2-liter kits to my B&H order since I miss having it around. I too used it replenished and it was rock solid for years, even with extended periods of not developing film.

Xtol is an incredible developer for replenishing schemes. Since one only needs the standard developer itself to replenish, we have choices. But I almost always used it replenished unless I was push processing, which was very rare. In my opinion the replenished developer looked noticeably better in terms of tonality (thanks to the bromide), it was incredibly flexible how it changed the results based on changes in agitation (like two different developers with 1 minute intervals and 5 minute intervals); the higher sharpness and finer grain were added bonuses, the slight loss of film speed was never missed.
All told, Xtol is a very fine developer, especially when light strikes the subject directly, and Xtol holds amazing amount of highlight detail which tends to result in a lot less darkroom gymnastics come printing time.

Anyway, this horse feels kind of beaten beyond recognition, and the little time I have left for photography today I'd rather spend printing.

I should say first that I have never used X-Tol (that I can remember) but-

I have used replenished developers (mostly the Edwals, 10/12 and Bluegrass/Defender 777) and they do have a little something extra after replenishment. To be completely honest, the replenished developers gave the best overall image quality. If I wasn't so lazy I would keep using them. But I am lazy so I stick with Rodinal and Pyrocat. I think the best developer I ever used was Edwal 12 FWIW.