The Trouble With Xtol

I have seen a number of comments in this forum about the so called Xtol failure. I have experienced it a couple of times in the past, but it wasn't something that I was watching for and I attributed it to something that I might have overlooked - overuse of the developer or maybe it wouldn't last as long as Kodak said. I stopped using it for a while. The problem is that is can be a nice developer and I wanted to give it another try. I decided to buy enough 1 litre packages that it would come still in the carton as shipped from Kodak. I ordered a dozen packages which arrived as a full box ( 10 Pkgs ) and 2 loose units. I felt that I would have control over the product that way. It would be fairly fresh and not sitting around on someone's shelf for a year or so. The first package worked perfectly. I thought I might be on to a system of control and my confidence was building. On the weekend I shot a couple of rolls of film and mixed a fresh litre of developer. The film was so under developed that the negatives were unprintable. I was shocked. I developed the second film in some ID-11 and it was perfect. I threw the rest of the Xtol ( the remaining full box ) in the garbage. I don't have any films that I want to take another chance on. I am convinced that there is a problem with the product. Too bad. When it works, it works well. I'm going back to and sticking with Ilford's product. I hope Kodak reads this.

I haven't had any problem with XTOL <em>except</em> for like the

second batch I had ever made. It underdeveloped. I attributed it to

using it immediately after mixing. Since then, I have always made

sure that I mixed some hours before I use it, and haven't had a

problem since.

I have heard many good reviews of XTOL and wanted to try it. I have

experienced XTOL failure a couple of times recently. Once it was a

near total failure where the negs where mostly undeveloped and the

images appeared faded, streaked, and clouded. I have developed more

than a thousand rolls of film in my 30+ year interest in photography.

I have screwed up many a roll due to my own mistakes, but I can't

stomach ruining valuable film that I have high expectations for

through some mysterious developer malfunction. I was aware of the

problems with XTOL through various forums like this and was therefore

ultra-careful and processed the film with all the posible XTOL

pitfalls in mind. I am disgusted by XTOL and have dumped it and the

idea of ever using it again. I feel like I have been betrayed by it!

I will use the old standards that behave in a consistent predictable

way. Paul

Get to your trashcan and rescue the Xtol if you can. Then send it to

Dan Carp, CEO of Eastman Kodak, along with some of the screwed up

negatives. Until the top brass of The Yellow Godfather start yelling

down to the line employees, not much will happen.

Xtol shows such promise that to have this happen is real killer, in

more ways than one.

Water quality is important when using Xtol... so I use distilled

water & still experienced the 'dreaded Xtol failure'.

Dilution is important with Xtol, witnessed to date by The Yellow

Peril removing all references to dilutions greater than 1:1... and

which makes one wonder as they get blindsided with the 'dreaded Xtol

failure' using stock or 1:1 dilution.

Caked part 'A' is a sure sign of problems... but now EK, Inc. has

checked their packaging & the problem is solved. So how come we mix

the perfect packages & still face the disappointment of 'ghost

images' after development?

 

<p>

 

 

Somehow EK has screwed up on this one. If everyone who has the

problems starts writing directly to Dan Carp, maybe the Yellow Peril

will rehire some of the 2,000 plus scientists formerly working with

B&W and actually go back to being a committed film company, rather

than a bunch making excuses for which they should be committed.

I have tried everything, and read about every temperamental developer

I haven't tried. I decided that when you do something in total

darkness and have to trust time, temperature, and agitation...and

whoever made the developer...you are better off going with the tried

and true and cutting your losses. I have gone back to D-76. I can no

longer remember what problem(s) I was trying to solve in trying all

the other stuff. To entertain myself I experiment with papers and

toners. I can always do over what doesn't work with them. I'm sure

there are other always reliable film developers as well, but I can no

longer think of any reason to risk precious images playing with film

developers.

Xtol has great potential. I have started processing at 72F degrees in

hopes that the extra energy will stand off the gremlins lurking in

each package. with Xtol, I never know what to expect when I pop the

lid off the developer tank. no failures in a long while, but I am not

convinced that it will not occur once again when I least expect it.

 

<p>

 

as mentioned, TMax in Xtol is worth the efforts to prod Kodak into

investigating this problem.

It seems to be fairly common knowledge that Ascorbic acid or sodium

ascorbate is unstable in solution, but no real explanation other than

simple 'oxidation' is given anywhere.<br>I still think the cause of

failure could be attack by a natural yeast or enzyme, possibly carried

in the gelatine of the film emulsion. It would be informative if the

pH of a failed Xtol bath could be measured, and compared to a fresh

one.<br>If some sort of biodegradation is taking place, then there

ought to be a detectable by-product, such as a gas or an alcohol. This

might give an early warning of an unusable Xtol batch.<br>Could anyone

using Xtol, and who has access to a pH meter, measure a failed batch

if they come across one?

Pete,

 

<p>

 

Ascorbic acid is simply a very active chemical and is easily oxidized,

not only in solutions, but also in air! So store your chemicals

(powders) in a dark brown bottle/container with wax seal (if you can)

in your fridge. Ascorbic acid and sodium ascorbate work as a buffer

(weak and cheap), which maintains your developer's pH at a relatively

stable value (pH = 8.2). If ascorbic acid is oxidized, then the

buffer will lose its "buffering" capability. As a result, the pH of

your developer will shift (go towards alkaline because sodium

hydroxide is a much stronger base) and your film will be "cooked".

You don't need a pH meter to determine pH, a roll of pH paper (less

than a dollar) will last you a long time.

To avoid those failures, one should have freshly prepared xtol,

temperature should be stable, and as Dan pointed out, the water used

to prepare xtol should be high quality. Distilled water is a good

start. I used to prepare my ascorbic buffer with Milli-Q water.

Finally if you see your developer becomes yellowish in datlight, do

not use it. It's so bad! Cheers,

I sure wish someone would try Mytol and see if it has the same

qualities and/ or problems http://www.jetcity.com/~mrjones/mytol.htm

Hi Geoffrey.<br>The oxidation problem is common to all developers,

since they're reducing agents, but the problem with Xtol seems to go

beyond this. People are describing sudden and catastrophic failure of

this developer, sometimes in 24 hrs.<br>The Sodium Ascorbate in Xtol

isn't simply there as a buffer, it's the main constituent of the

developer. It exhibits a superadditive or reactivation effect in

conjunction with Phenidone. The quantity of Phenidone in Xtol is

insufficient to give anything but a very weak, soft image on its own,

so the Ascorbic acid content is vital to its working.<p>Further to my

previous post, it might be worth measuring the specific gravity with a

hydrometer as well.

I have been using Xtol almost exclusively for over three years now to

the tune of about one 1-litre package a week. I have had one

incident of failure with a 5 litre package. I have had to return

perhaps 6 packages to the dealer that part B had "clumped." I think

it is important to use distilled water in both the mixing and the

dilution process. Kodak specifically states that you should use at

least 100ml of stock solution per roll of film. This may be the

source of some of the problems reported by Xtol users. Also, I am

careful to make sure the mixed solution is properly stored. The

bottom line, in my opinion, is that this developer requires more

careful handling than any that I have ever used but the time and

trouble is worth it.

What am I doing right? I love Xtol! Perhaps us happy users are less

likely to write but after reading the above,thought I might add some

perspective. I mix it with our (decent) city water, make sure to stir

constantly while mixing part B, and store it in a brown, plastic

accordian bottle with no air. Develops ten Tri-X or HP5+ 8x10's at

normal times then add 15% more time for the next five, then discard.

Send me your unsed Xtol!

Thanks to everyone who contributed an answer. You're comments have

been welcome. I think that there is a problem with Xtol and I hope

that Kodak resolves it. I'm sure they will. It seems to be one of the

finest developers that I personally have used. The problem is that

right now I can't rely on it and I value the film I shoot too much to

loose it like this. I am aware of the number of comments about using

distilled water. Some friends of mine do and 20 years ago I did also.

But for a long, long time I have used good old Detroit River water

(from the Canadian side) and it seems to have worked just fine. I'm

going to stick with ID-11 for a while.

Dear Pete,

 

<p>

 

First of all, could you please kindly explain to me your

definition/meaning of the sentence you used in your previous posting

"It exhibits a superadditive or reactivation effect in conjunction

with Phenidone" in plain chemistry terms, especially the word

"superadditive"? Secondly, I do not believe that xtol could cause a

"sudden and catastrophic failure" during a developing process. If a

failure should take place, then something bad has already happened to

the xtol developer you use before the developing process even began.

For example, if the developer is prepared using hard water (calcium

content exceeds 200 ppm), you will be ended up with a "catastrophic

failure" (your xtol developer will become bad in minutes). So use

distilled water or filtered water to prepare your xtol stock and keep

some vitamin C handy. For another example, if you dilute the xtol

stock too much, you will be ended with another "catastrophic failure".

So make sure you use 3.5 oz xtol stock per 8x10 sheet and don't dilute

the stock more than 1:1, as a guidence. This is how chemistry works.

 

<p>

 

The following is my guess on xtol because Kodak has not yet published

their trade secrets, therefore please correct me if I'm wrong.

Phenidone (1-phenyl-3-Pyrazolidone, C9H10N2O, molecular weight about

162) is used as a "catalyst" (not a real catalyst but like a catalyst)

to speed up the image developing process, in which silver halide is

converted into metallic silver. Without Phenidone, you can still

develop your image, but the process will be very long. Grant Haist

once said in his famous "Modern image processing" vol. 1 (1960) that

one can develop images in "polluted lake abd river water, old red

wine, citrus fruit juices, and even human urine". He, however, did

not say how long it should take! In short, all you need is a salty

soup!!! Now let's back to Phenidone. In order for Phenidone to work

properly, it requires an optimal ionic strength (total salt

concentration) and pH (Hydroquinone, for example, requires pH = 9 at

72 C to work properly. Lower pH will result in a "very weak, soft

image". You can experiment this by adding some Coke to your D-76

developer). Ascorbic acid and sodium ascorbate fill in here

perfectly. They are low in toxicity, very cheap, and environmentally

sound. I still think that they mainly work as a buffer and also

contribute to the ionic strength needed by Phenidone. I bet my one

cent that you can replace ascorbic acid and sodium ascorbate with TRIS

or TRICINE balanced with LiOH and use Lithium sulfite to fill the

required ionic strength. To further stabilize the developer, add

0.5 % glycerin and 20 mM DTE. It will have a much longer shelf life

even in daylight. Warning: DTE smells very bad!

 

<p>

 

Finally, It's said that xtol is a fine Kodak developer if you know how

to use it properly. I have heard many many successful stories. If

someone likes to play with developer formula(s), here's a place you

can get chemicals and advices:

Photographer's Formulary (800-922-5255)

 

<p>

 

Regards,

Geofrey,

 

<p>

 

I'm no chemist, but "superadditive" is a commonly used term in

regards to photographic developers. It describes the effect where 2

developing agents combine to produce greater development effect than

would be expected by the simple sum of their effects(synergy). It

applies to the combination, not the individual agent. Thus, metol is

super-additive with hydroquinone, and vice-versa, but you don't call

either super-additive all by itself.

 

<p>

 

Some developing agent combinations are sub-additive, some super-

additive, and others simply additive.

 

<p>

 

With super-additive agents, if I understand right, two agents both

act to reduce the silver, but one of the agents acts with the

reduction by-products to regenerate the other agent. It's as if one

agent acts as a catalyst and a developing agent, which is probably

what is going on.

 

<p>

 

In any case, upredictable failure of Xtol appears well documented,

and it's a shame Kodak doesn't have the scientists around to analyze

and fix the problem, if possible, since the developer has many

advantages when it works. For me, I don't want to mess around with

something that even appears to lack repeatability.

Again, I've only had problem with one roll of 35mm film with XTOL when

I used it immediately after mixing - the same batch of developer

worked perfectly the next day. But also, the first two packages of

XTOL I ever bought had the smaller packet of chemicals clumped. Not

knowing any better, I figured that was normal. Since those two

packages, I have never seen it clumped again. So now I think it

abnormal. Anyway - I always mix on distilled water and wait several

hours after mixing to use it, and haven't had a problem.

Hi Charlie,

 

<p>

 

Thanks for your explanation of the word "superadditive". I have no

problem understanding the word per se, and I have heard and used it

for at least 15 years. My trouble is to see ascorbic acid being

classified as a superadditive. A quick search of NEXES database, I

found Xtol under US Pat. # 5,756,271. Its major components are: part

A [sodium sulfite anhydrous, diethylene-triamine-pentaacetic acid

(pentasodium salt), sodium metaborate, 4-hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-

phenyl-3-pyrazolidone] and part B [sodium sulfite anhydrous, sodium

metabisulfite, sodium ascorbates]. Kodak's main claims are : the

developer has no restrainer, highly buffered, not sensitive to

bromide, no skin poisoning, and friendly to the environment. Ideal

working condition: pH 8.2 @ 72 F.

 

<p>

 

Now let's look at individual chemicals:

4-hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidone is a derivative of

Phenidone, and it shares many physical and chemical properties with

Phenidone. Kodak says it's more stable in solution. It's white

powder, very low solubility in water, starting to dissolve in water at

175 F/ 80 C. Soluble in alkaline solutions. Chemically, it's sensitive

to oxidation. Sodium sulfite is used as a preservative to inhibit

oxidation of 4-hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidone. In

addition, sodium sulfite is also an important solvent for silver

halide. Sodium metaborate is used to prevent gas generation. The

function of diethylene-triamine-pentaacetic acid (pentasodium salt)

is not said, but it could be used as a chelator to prevent trace heavy

metals from reacting with

4-hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidone. Sodium bisulfite is

used in part B to prevent ascorbates from being oxidazed by increasing

acidity. Sodium carbonates are commonly used in developers to buffer

pH. Because of its drawback of generating "pinholes" on film (by

depositing tiny air bubbles on film surface), they are not used in

Xtol. Instead, sodium ascorbates are used. They are perfect buffer

candidates.

 

<p>

 

I don't know whether ascorbic acid is a superadditive to

4-hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidone. It's true that

ascorbic acid has its chemical potential to regenerate

4-hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidone at pH 9 and above.

But remember that the Xtol working pH is 8.2. Chemistry literature

indicates that, at pH 8.2, ascorbic acid is INACTIVE

in regenerate 4-hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidone.

Enough said.

 

<p>

 

I called Kodak Imaging products Group regarding my Xtol questions.

The responses are very simple: "it's a good thought" when asked about

ascorbates and "it's your water" when asked about those failures.

Hi again Geoffrey.<br>My immediate reaction on hearing that Ascorbic

acid was actually being claimed as a developing agent was to dismiss

the idea as new-age hype. For a start, it isn't based on a benzene

ring, and doesn't have the hydroxyl, or amine radicles common to all

conventional agents.<br>However, some research showed that one of its

major known properties is a strong affinity for halides, which it

combines with readily.<br>Since I can find no official documentation

of the processes taking place in an Xtol type developer, this is my

hypothesis:<br>The development site on the crystal grain is initially

'attacked' by the Phenidone (or derivative). Once the reduction

process has commenced, and free halogen ions are released into

solution, then the Ascorbate takes over the process, and rapidly

converts the rest of the grain to metallic silver by removing the

halide from the reduction products, and maybe taking part in some

further reaction with the by-products of the Phenidone-Agx reaction.

<br>The strong anti-oxidant properties of Ascorbic acid are also well

known, and it's even possible that the Phenidone is completely

regenerated. (I'm not sure why you say that it needs to be above pH 9

to act as an anti-oxidant, one of the listed incompatabilities with

Ascorbic acid is strong alkalis)<br>Anyway, that's the reason that I

cited it as being superadditive with Phenidone.<p>There is an Xtol

substitute called 'Mytol', which apparently gives identical results.

The full formula of that developer is published. It contains 'plain

vanilla' Phenidone, and no chelating agent. Without the Sodium

Ascorbate content, it exhibits the weak development expected of a

Phenidone and alkali only developer. When the Sodium Ascorbate is

added, the activity is normal, despite the pH actually being reduced.

<br>Case proven, I think.

I work since 2 years only with Xtol and had not one probleme. First I

have a very expensive waterfilter. 2. I use the developer afther one

hour when is new mixed. 3. I always take the same tank for the

developer, the fix and the stop are marked tanks with fix and stop, and

the fix always is in the fix tank etc. 4. I always work in 1:1 5. My

dev. time is about 10-60% longer at 24° C as Kodak states in the

datasheet, because of my enlarger and paper combination, and it depends

also on the contrast of the pictures if shoot!

I almost work with Delta films, sometimes also with the other Ilford

and I was surpriced how good it work with the old Pan F plus.

Just two weeks ago I also did a test with MF 400 TMax and it worked

also very fine!

Actually, the formula of Xtol, or something very close to it, is

published in U.S. Patent 5,853,964 (available free of charge from

www.uspto.gov).

 

<p>

 

I have had several instances of clumping or difficult dissolving but

no failure to develop (yet!). At the same time I can't afford to

lose even one roll of film, so I'm wary.

 

<p>

 

HC-110 is my old standard. It's not a perfect developer, but it is

very, very reproducible and the syrup keeps forever.

Another query. Those of you who have had underdevelopment problems --

Have you been using diluted Xtol? I use it full strength.

> Another query. Those of you who have had underdevelopment problems

Have you been using diluted Xtol? I use it full strength.

 

<p>

 

I've now had exactly one Xtol failure, and it was enough. The developer worked fine, then a couple days later was essentially dead with no color change or any other hint that it went off.

 

<p>

 

It had been mixed with distilled water, was well within Kodak's stated storage life, and was used at a 1:1 dilution with plenty of stock. The film was Delta 3200.

 

<p>

 

Most reported failures I've seen, however, involve TMX and usage at a dilution higher than 1:1.

Here's a method for testing Xtol to make sure it hasn't lost its

strength. I plan to experiment with this.

 

<p>

 

You need a scrap of photographic paper that does not have the

developer incorporated into it; Multigrade IV or Polymax will work

fine.

 

<p>

 

In full room light, put a drop of Xtol concentrate on the paper.

After 30 seconds, put another drop on it in a different place. After

another 30 seconds, wash them off. (For permanence, you can fix and

wash the scrap of paper.)

 

<p>

 

You should have a mid-gray spot and a black spot. I plan to do this

several times and see how well it works as a test of developer

potency.

 

<p>

 

I'm thinking of starting an Xtol resource page similar to my HC-110

page at www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110. If I do, I'll put a

reference to it there.

Geoffrey Chen wrote "Secondly, I do not believe that xtol could cause

a "sudden and catastrophic failure" during a developing process. If a

failure should take place, then something bad has already happened to

the xtol developer you use before the developing process even began.

For example, if the developer is prepared using hard water (calcium

content exceeds 200 ppm), you will be ended up with a "catastrophic

failure" (your xtol developer will become bad in minutes). So use

distilled water or filtered water to prepare your xtol stock and keep

some vitamin C handy. For another example, if you dilute the xtol

stock too much, you will be ended with another "catastrophic

failure". So make sure you use 3.5 oz xtol stock per 8x10 sheet and

don't dilute the stock more than 1:1, as a guidence. This is how

chemistry works."

 

<p>

 

I have had Xtol fail using it stock, 1:1 and 1:3. And, my stock

mixture was a one gallon solution, not the 5 litre due to difficulty

in finding 5 litre containers. My developing times were worked out

using the one gallon stock mix so if anything, I would or should have

had a better chance of strong developer than with the 5 litre mix.

 

<p>

 

Geoffrey further writes, "I called Kodak Imaging products Group

regarding my Xtol questions. The responses are very simple: "it's a

good thought" when asked about ascorbates and "it's your water" when

asked about those failures."

 

<p>

 

Yep, The Yellow Godfather knows all. Trouble is, two of the three

Xtol failures were with distilled water. Only one was with our very

hard tap water.

Add to that over 200 sheets of 4x5 and 5x7 film successfully

developed in Xtol at 1:3 before a failure and 15 rolls of 35mm per

week on the average for a few months during which time I experienced

the failure with these smaller films.

 

<p>

 

Quick answers sound good & keep people pacified even as some of us

experienced the failures with what the Yellow Godfather says will

work without fail.

 

<p>

 

Xtol fails. Unexplainably and unexpectedly. I wish it did not do so

as then I would use it as my main developer for almost all my work.

But I can't afford to play russian roulette and have a bottle of

Rodinal on the shelf to dump in when developing by inspection shows

no image forming in the Xtol. If I have to do that I will use Rodinal

in the first place... one of my solutions to the Xtol failure.

 

<p>

 

Using Xtol is like having a whore for a girlfriend. It may be fun &

exciting but you are in for a nasty surprise one of these days.

What are some alternatives to Xtol? The advantages of Xtol that I'd

like to preserve are, in order:

 

<p>

 

(1) With T-Max films, less highlight contrast than with T-Max or HC-

110 developers. That is, more of an S-shaped rather than an upswept

characteristic curve.

 

<p>

 

(2) Fine grain and full speed.

 

<p>

 

(3) Ease of use. Xtol was supposed to be a very easy-to-dissolve

powder; it doesn't actually work out to be much easier than any of

the competitors, and in general I don't like working with powders.

That's why I don't standardize on D-76 or ID-11.

 

<p>

 

(4) Known development times for a lot of films. I normally use T-Max

100 but occasionally have a roll of almost anything.

 

<p>

 

So... What do people recommend? HC-110, taking care not to

overdevelop, is not bad. What else is out there that might be better

in some way? Ilfotec DD-X? Edwal TG-7 or FG-7? (And what is

Ilfosol-S like?)

 

<p>

 

Thanks!