XTOL Straight vs. 1:1

[Scott Ridgeway www.Scott]

I just purchased another 5 liter package of XTOL. I usually wait until

I have sixty or so rolls (120 HP5+) before I process-- otherwise it

will most likely go bad before I use it all. Also, I've been using the

XTOL straight. Is there a *NOTICEABLE* advantage to using XTOL 1:1? If

there is, I'd need to save up 120 rolls before I begin processing.

 

Also-- I've been processing with an automated Jobo ATL-3 using the

times listed on the Massive Development Chart. I've been pretty

satified with the results. Just wondering if I'm missing something.

 

Scott

[m0002a]

A little more sharpness and better film speed with XTOL 1:1 dilution. If you invest in some good containers, than I think you can keep it fresh longer. If you like the results of 1:1 better than straight, then throwing the extra away would be advisable if you can't use it all (even though it sounds repugnant).

[robert_phipps]

I've used XTOL 1:1 for HP5+ 120, but in a small tank. What you should see is better acutance, slightly more grain, and about 1/3 stop more shadow density. In 35mm at least, this dilution seems to hit the sweet spot.

Diluted developer is used 1-shot, so assuming you need 400ml per roll, you'll only be able to process 25 rolls from a 5 l package. Kodak gives a time of 9 min. @ 20C for rotary processors for CI .58. If you use the 12 min in the Massive Chart, you'll get a CI of about .72 -- a bit much contrast even for a diffusion enlarger.

On subject of XTOL longevity: I've used XTOL for years, using only distilled water and found that full bottles WILL keep for a year. Apparently the stuff is susceptible to iron in the water; our tap water is so bad, I've never considered using it for mixing developers.

[jorge_oliveira2]

I've seen postings elsewhere re dilluting the 5l packet in only 2.5L of water to increase keeping. One then dillutes it twice more to do 1+1.

[jimvanson]

Scott...I may be missing something here because I've never used a Jobo BUT...Kodak says a <i>minimum</i> of 100 mls of XTOL stock per roll of 35mm/120 or 200 mls per roll of 220.<p>That means a maximum of 50 rolls of 35mm or 120 per 5 liters...<i>no mater what dilution you use</i>.<p>One of the reasons Kodak stopped providing times for dilute XTOL was because people were not using enough stock...the dilute solution they were using didn't have enough grunt (if you will).<p>I use XTOL usually 1+2 for 35mm and 1+3 for 120. My Paterson tanks require 300 mls of solution for 35mm & 500 mls of solution for 120. Therefore I use 100 mls of stock and 200 mls of water (1+2) for 35mm or 125 mls of stock and 375 mls of water (1+3)for 120.<p>Why do I use dilute XTOL? Economics...pure and simple. Kodak says you get increased film speed and sharpness with dilute XTOL...I don't know if that�s true...I've never bothered to test because I'm very pleased with the results I'm achieving.<P>And to close...I make up a 5 liter batch that I store in individual half liter bottles. The bottles are filled right to the very top and sealed. They last 6 months <i>no problem</i>. Doing things that way may be better then saving up 60 rolls of film to do at once...

[henry_a]

HP5 and Xtol 1:3 is wonderful - 14 minutes, 70 degrees, rotary. What Jim said above is good info! Be sure to follow the advice about the minimum amount of stock solution per roll of film. You might want 2500 drums if you go for 1:3 dilution. I keep mine in lots of little 125ml bottles (ready to make a dose of 500ml working solution for one roll). Got 2 rolls? Use two bottles, etc. Xtol will keep just fine so you don't have to wait for a large batch of film and you don't have to throw away what you don't use right away.

[silverhalide1949]

I have used XTOL for about 4 years. I store it in 250ml brown glass bottles filled to the top & seal with saran wrap under the cap. This storage method has enabled me to keep the XTOL for at least 6 months. I use filtered tap water. I mix 1:1 for use. I prefer the enhanced sharpness & slightly greater shadow density at this dilution. I do find the published development times to be a bit long, however, I therefore reduce my times by 20% from the published list. BTW I'm using Ilford Delta 400 in 35mm format with an EI of 400.

[Scott Ridgeway www.Scott]

Thanks for all the help. I just remembered though why I chose to use undiluted XTOL in the first place. Since I am using an automated Jobo (ATL-3,) my chemistry quantities are fixed throughout the process. If I tell the unit to pump in 400 ml of XTOL, it also will pump 400 ml of stop, fix, and permawash. If I only tell the unit to pump 200 ml. (as in undiluted vs. 1:1) I save on the other chemicals. Since chemical disposal is a problem, I almost have to use XTOL undiluted.

 

Scott

[gregory_bell4]

One of the great things about XTOL used neat is that it can be used to replenish itself without the need for special replenishment formulations. Kodak recommend 70 mls of neat XTOL to replenish for each roll developed.

 

I've been using replenished neat XTOL which I keep in an old whisky decanter ( ground glass stopper ). I mix up a 5 liter batch of fresh Xtol from the pack and keep this in 25 x 200ml screwtop bottles filled to the brim. These are used to replenish the XTOL in the decanter.

 

I measure out the quantity needed for the batch I'm developing from the decanter and bring it to the required temperature in another vessel. Then I add to the decanter 70 mls neat Xtol for each roll of film being developed ( from one of the 200ml bottles ), and after developing the roll(s) pour the used XTOL from the developing tank back into the decanter so it is full. The rest of the used XTOL from the developing tank is discarded.

 

This means the decanter is always kept full of replenished Xtol, so it does not oxidize due to air contact. The 200ml stock bottles keep the XTOL used to replenish the decanter fresh for up to 12 months ( I haven't tried longer ).

 

Nett usage is 70mls of stock XTOL per roll of film. I can use the replenished XTOL for rotary or inversion agitation without having to worry about the quantity used in the tank because I can pour as much as I need from the decanter for each batch. I always use at least 100ml per roll of film each time.

 

Replenishment seems to take the " edge " off fresh developer and, to my eye, gives generally smoother tonality. And it is economical.

 

Has anyone else tried something similar, and could perhaps comment on effects they found regarding tonality, acutance and grain size ?

 

Gregory Bell

[dk_thompson]

I ran a small one-gallon tank with a floating lid, and cover of XTOL for a little over a year...

 

I started off with a gallon of it and repl. this after each run based on the figure of 70 ml per 8x10 equivalent. I either added this to the tank or replaced the volume depending on how much carryover I had at the end of the run. I kept the repl.in a spigot tank with a floating lid & cover. Every other month or so, I would filter the working tank out--to get the bromide sludge out of the tank and cleaned the tank out as well. At this point, I would either pour the working solution back into the tank--or based on the contrasts of the film--I would aggressively replenish by dumping half to third the tank and replacing with replenisher.

 

This is sorta like starting over again with a starter solution almost--in that the developer is "seasoned" already. If you run Kodak b&w control strips, you can do the same sort of process control as you do with E6. When you start out a fresh tank, you have the option of adding starter to it, or having the developer slightly "hot" and then taper off in strength as it becomes "seasoned" and the bromide etc.--builds up to slow it down a bit. At this point, as you replenish you keep it (hopefully) at a steady state....with XTOL or TMAX RS, you can't overdo like is possible with D76 or some others ...the beauty of XTOL is theoretically it can be used forever in a tank if replenished properly...I dump out our deeptank of TMAX RS every 4-5 weeks, but the little tank of XTOL I used at home on & off for over a year--in reality the volume turned over several times though. I eventually stuck with TMAX RS though because I never liked the way TMX looked in XTOL.

 

The problem I see with using it in a Jobo, is that the constant rotation might lead to too short of a dev. time. With TMAX RS, it's possible to use it as a replenished developer and actually slow the speed down by adding 28% acetic acid to the dev & the repl. in tiny amounts to tinker with the pH. It would probably be best to use control strips if you used it this way, otherwise RS is a very friendly replenished developer that can be used for a couple of months or more if treated well....fwiw, you can get more info on repl. Kodak developers from Kodak in their process manual for b&w--called "Monitoring and Troubleshooting B&W Processes" this is the Z-133E manual, and is similar to the E6 manual in that it uses control strips to monitor the process & set up starting times. You can theoretically just keep on using XTOL indefinitely as a replenished developer--but RS taps out at about 80-85 rolls. Usually what you do is to dump the working developer once all the replenisher has been added to it, or go on the safe side and dump early. All this stuff is pretty cheap in the end...the thing I like about replenished developers is the predictability of them more than anything.

[silent1]

Say, speaking of replenished developers, does Kodak still make/sell the replenisher for HC-110? When I was in high school (the last time I developed any film, other than one roll of 35 mm in a college photography course), replenished HC-110 was the hot stuff...