How Reliable is Xtol

[david_chananie]

It's been some time since I gave up on using Xtol because of the

unreliable results I got with it. So, I researched the archives. It

would appear that Xtol's reliability has been improved by a) using

the 5 liter packaging and b) using distilled water for mixing.

However, some people commented they still sometimes unexpectedly

experienced Xtol failure when they used the 5 liter packaging. So,

my question is "What is the community's judgment today on the

reliability of Xtol?" Thank you.

[bruce watson]

I started with the 5 liter package, and have always mixed with distilled water (at least, the mfg. puts a distilled lable on the outside of the jug ;-)

 

I've never had a failure, and I always use XTOL at 1:3.

[henry_a]

Never a problem with Xtol here either.

[deanmeeks]

Never a problem with me either; it's my favorite developer. I've even found it reliable after being stored for 3 months in a hot closet at summer time in a half empty plastic container.

[jorge_oliveira2]

- there are some people that mix Xtol 5L packets in 2.5L of water, then dillute twice more to use;

 

- here's a link to the LUG resident Xtol guru:

 

http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v25/msg00367.html

[d_poinsett]

Trouble free so far. I mix stock from 5L package with distilled water and use 1:1 with distilled water. I store the stock as I would any other developer and make no effort to purge air from the plastic storage bottle. The bottle itself, like most, is also permeable to air. I have used Xtol up to several months after mixing the stock. These are less-than-ideal conditions so I have a fair amount of confidence in it.

 

However, given the seemingly numerous reports of failure, I always test a snip of film before a session to make sure it's still working.

[jon_porter1]

I quit using Xtol when Kodak dropped the 1L package, but I never had a problem with

it once I started vigorously mixing it in 100 degree water. I used both tap and bottled

water and both worked fine, even at 1:2 and 1:3.

[hans_beckert]

There are some other ascorbate developers around, though I have not tried any of them them. The trouble is that I prefer liquid one-shot developers. Paterson makes one, called FX-50, but given the troubles some people have reported having with Xtol, I am reluctant to try FX-50 or any of the others. As for Xtol, I simply cannot deal with a 5-litre volume.

 

Anyone here use FX-50 or any of the others?

[danny_spence]

I've never had a problem with it in years of use either. I use the five liter packages, yet I lament the loss of the one liter packets as that size was so useful. I prepare the stock solution with distilled water and store in sealed glass bottles. Just a few weeks ago I found a eleven month old 250ml bottle of Xtol in the back of my cabinet that I forgot about. I tried it on a whim and amazingly it was still good! I wouldn't want to keep any developer that long on a regular basis, but the reliability of Xtol has been flawless for me.

[jay_de_fehr]

I've used Xtol for several years and have never had a problem. It's an excellent developer, and produces virtually grainless negs from Tmax 100.

[hans_beckert]

Could the Xtol powder be dissolved in a 1 litre volume and dilution adjusted accordingly?

[dennis_oconnor2]

I am in the process of trying to get Xtol to fail... The half full gallon jug is now two and a half months into it.. Still develops test clips to normal density... We will see how long it takes to go bad..

 

For those who don't use 5L in a reasonable time, I suggest going to Patrick Gainer's vitamin C developer from the Unblinking Eye article... It is mixed up at the time of developing (takes about 3 minutes) from powders and one or two long lasting stock solutions <depending on which formula>, and dumped out after use... Cheap, excellent quality, no worries about it going bad...

 

Cheers ... Denny

 

ps, did I mention cheap?

[kab]

Xtol is extremely reliable. There was one problem in the past with it's manufacture that may have caused some early failures. That has long been rectified.

 

The most common problem is that people have been double and triple diluting it, and in smaller tanks, like Jobo with a rotary processor, there may not be enough active delevoper to process the film. Just make sure you have at least 100cc (pref 125cc)stock developer for each roll of 36exp. or 120...and mix with distilled H20.

[steve_s.]

Like the posters above, I have nad no problems with Xtol in the 2-3 years I have been using it. I would like to add that I have stored stock solution for quite awhile (8-9 months, I think) with no ill affects. I store the stock Xtol in several smaller full containers to reduce the time it is exposed to air. I would guess I rarely have a partially filled bottle for more than a month or so.

 

I use 150-200 ml of stock for each roll of film, so at most I am going to get 25-30 rolls out of a 5 liter batch of Xtol. So I never get to the point where a 5 liter batch is around for longer. At B&H prices, I figure it costs me 30 to 40 cents per roll. Pretty cheap for an easy-to-mix developer that gives great speed and sharpness.

[jorge_oliveira2]

Denny

 

I'm testing Patrick's new 'alchemy' - acorbic and phenidone in propylene glycol, plus a second solution of alkali or alkali+sulfite (my case).

 

This formula has the potential to have a shelf life longer than HC-110.

[dennis_oconnor2]

Hmmm, missed that one... Where does Pat have it published/posted?

 

Denny

[jorge_oliveira2]

Denny

 

Sorry, but I didn't bookmark it, so you've to find it. Search here and RPD for ascorbic, propylene glycol and gainer. The total formula maybe spread in more than one post.

 

I remember clearly he used 10% of ascorbic, but do not remember his phenidone (I did an E76 clone).

 

You have to warm up the Pglycol almost to 100C for the ascorbic to dissolve. I've used a boiling water water bath to do it. Phenidone dissolves at about 50C.

 

Now my phenidone stock solution is no longer in alcohol...

[jorge_oliveira2]

Denny

 

If you haven't found it yet, it's here at photo.net.

 

The article title is

 

Heating sodium bicarbonate to produce sodium carbonate

 

Very much related... (-:

[jordan_w.]

Hans: I've tried FX-50 and wasn't thrilled. The results were decent but somewhat foggy in my hands, for some reason. The main drawbacks for me were availability (not very good around here) price (too expensive) and longevity (mine went sour in about six weeks). I've since been using Patrick Gainer's formulas (as Denny and Jorge have been discussing above) and have been getting great results. The propylene glycol modification makes the stock solution extremely long-lived.

[jorge_oliveira2]

Citing a post by Patrick in RPD:

 

"I did an oxidation test of phenidone and ascorbic acid

dissolved in Propylene glycol to make the first part of a split stock. After sixteen days of storage in a layer less than 4 mm deep in a 4 inch diameter container open to air, it showed no sign of deterioration."

 

 

How many devs would stand that test?

[donnydarko]

I'm following this discussion with interest... the funny thing is that Kodak extols XTOL as an extremely powerful developer. In a comparison chart labeled "Selecting a Kodak Professional Film Developer" it is clearly shown as the best overall developer.

 

And what I am looking for is the best overall 400-ASA-and-up couple. I like Tri-X for the tones and the shadow details (and the price) but dislike the grain, I like T-Max for the grain but hate the tones. I would not like to carry two sorts of film with me - one for available light, the other with 50 ASA, or to store two different developers... oh, by the way, I shoot with 35mm cameras only.

 

Today I use Ilford XP2 which is not bad in many respects, but I want to develop films on my own as a dumb 1-hour-photo lab dope has ruined some of my rolls. In general, the XP2 negatives lack a little contrast, and I need grade 2 1/2 to 3 (MG IV) to get the prints I like. This is in part due to the fact that I use an enlarger with a variable contrast head (Leica V35), giving slightly less contrast than an enlarger with a condenser head.

 

***Apart from reliability issues discussed here that I think can be overcome - what are your experiences with XTOL?***

 

I am especially interested in those of you who use Tri-X or similar films and switched from, let's say, D76 or similar to XTOL, and those who use their film-developer couple at very low light conditions.