- Joined
- Aug 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,723
From reading above, are you still using HDP bottles for the working solution and replenisher
-
Thank You For Visiting... Please Click Here and sign up to contribute and reply to posts and download the resources.
Kodak XTOL Replenished Question
- Thread starter Ian-Barber
- Start date
From reading above, are you still using HDP bottles for the working solution and replenisher
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2017
- Messages
- 3,613
I would be if I used Xtol again, the 2.5 litre bottles I have are very thick HDP bottles that contained concentrated Hydrochloric and Nitric acid we used to use for work, the walls are maybe 1/8" or more thick but that's to give strength counter breakage etc, The bottle Ilford use a thinner but just as good in terms of developer storage.
The pre-measured bottle idea is good in theory, glass bottles are the best here. A teacher tried that when I was at school with Promicrol but it didn't last long ( the idea not the developer) as there were variations in the amount actually needed.
Ian
That would have been an impediment.
I assume that in the case of Xtol, the working solution and the replenisher are identical, so precise quantities are not vital, provided they are sufficient. Small glass bottle seem remarkably expensive, but perhaps my brief dive into the bottle world was not deep enough.
A niggling detail that this recalls is that nominal capacity and brimful capacity are not the same, but usually by a very small amount. Consult any convenient wine bottle to see the difference.
Mentioning wine makes me think of wine boxes. The home-brewing trade sells these new and they look very useful. Is the permeability of the bags questionable? Wine is very sensitive to oxidation and is usually (preferably!) more expensive than Xtol.
I assume that in the case of Xtol, the working solution and the replenisher are identical, so precise quantities are not vital, provided they are sufficient. Small glass bottle seem remarkably expensive, but perhaps my brief dive into the bottle world was not deep enough.
A niggling detail that this recalls is that nominal capacity and brimful capacity are not the same, but usually by a very small amount. Consult any convenient wine bottle to see the difference.
Mentioning wine makes me think of wine boxes. The home-brewing trade sells these new and they look very useful. Is the permeability of the bags questionable? Wine is very sensitive to oxidation and is usually (preferably!) more expensive than Xtol.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,723
I have heard of many people using wine bladders with success.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2016
- Messages
- 261
I am one of those who suffered the sudden death with the 1 litre packs so I gave up on Xtol for a few years as unreliable. I recently decided to try it again after a colleague had some success. I mixed the 5 litres and split it into two 2.5 litre bottles that the de-ionised water came in. I used the first and the developer died before I got to the bottom of the bottle. Similar with the second so I lost as least half if not more. Those bottles are HDPE and I am told can allow oxygen to pass through. The recommendation is to use PET or glass bottles.
Regarding the wine box idea there is a chap over on FADU who uses those and he can successfully store Xtol for up to 18 months. There is also the possibility of using polypins such as these https://www.lovebrewing.co.uk/5-litre-polypin/.
Regarding the wine box idea there is a chap over on FADU who uses those and he can successfully store Xtol for up to 18 months. There is also the possibility of using polypins such as these https://www.lovebrewing.co.uk/5-litre-polypin/.
A reasonable and disinterested person, reading this, might suppose that Kodak would include some kind of anti-oxydising ingredient in the developer. This cannot be impossible, but Kodak may not sell enough product to make it worthwhile.
If I read rightly, there are two kinds of sudden death. Firstly the kind that Ian G says is a thing of the past, where the packaging was faulty and the dry ingredients were spoiled. Secondly, the kind that Bill describes, where ostensibly unspoiled developer fails halfway through its expected life. Both equally disconcerting, of course. This might be a misunderstanding on my part and I'm happy to be corrected.
If I read rightly, there are two kinds of sudden death. Firstly the kind that Ian G says is a thing of the past, where the packaging was faulty and the dry ingredients were spoiled. Secondly, the kind that Bill describes, where ostensibly unspoiled developer fails halfway through its expected life. Both equally disconcerting, of course. This might be a misunderstanding on my part and I'm happy to be corrected.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2017
- Messages
- 3,613
The bottles De-Ionised water usually comes in are often Low Density plastics so unsafe, some is in small PET bottles though. The bottles Ilford sell developers in are High Density plastics and safe for at least 3 years - that's how long my Pyrocat HD (Part A) has kept perfectly (no Glycol) and it's very much more susceptible to oxidation than Xtol.
If the de-ionised water bottle allowed oxidation it wasn't HDP.
The Sodium Sulphite restrainer has anti-oxisdising properties and is alkali in solution but most anti-oxidants are destroyed by the alkaline pH of a working developer once in solution. They are often used in small quantities in dry powder packaging in Part A which is essentially the developing agents, Part B is usually the Alkali Sodium Sulphite and sometimes also Sodium Carbonate. So Sodium Metabisulphite is used in Preceptol, Micrphen, and Bromophen but in solution is converted to Sodium Sulphite so is not in the published formulae.
Ian
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2016
- Messages
- 261
I can only go by the cast in mark on the bottom but you could well be right Ian.
Not to disagree with any statements made herein regarding the shelf life of Xtol, but I've also had the 5L packaging die of "sudden death." I quickly gave up on the 1L packages because they were definitely problematic. As full discloser, I did keep the stock solution in clear glass bottles stored in my darkroom--had a cool to cold darkroom at the time--so that might account for the death; wasn't using amber glass bottles at the time. I'm a bit of a diehard Pyrocat-HD user nowadays, but if I was so inclined to try an Xtol type developer, I'd probably try this:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/resources/mocon-xtol-quality-in-a-long-lasting-concentrate.219/
You have to login to see the full content.
Again, I bow to Ian G's photographic expertise, but I've had Pyrocat-HD die on me long before a few years out. At the time, I was buying it from Photo Formulary; the plastic bottles they package it in seem of fairly heavy plastic and are black so I doubt that oxidation through the bottle was an issue. I never knew why it died. For many years now, I mix it myself in small quantities ensuring that I'll use all or most of it over a reasonable length of time. Never had any go bad, since I've mixed it up myself.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/resources/mocon-xtol-quality-in-a-long-lasting-concentrate.219/
You have to login to see the full content.
Again, I bow to Ian G's photographic expertise, but I've had Pyrocat-HD die on me long before a few years out. At the time, I was buying it from Photo Formulary; the plastic bottles they package it in seem of fairly heavy plastic and are black so I doubt that oxidation through the bottle was an issue. I never knew why it died. For many years now, I mix it myself in small quantities ensuring that I'll use all or most of it over a reasonable length of time. Never had any go bad, since I've mixed it up myself.
Does anyone have examples of comparable prints from negatives processed both in Xtol and "middle-of-the-road" developers like D76/ID11/HC110? With the greatest respect to all, we have had only anecdotal evidence. It would be improper to doubt anyone's claims or dispute their personal preferences, but the print must be the final arbiter.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2017
- Messages
- 3,613
It seems the Photo Formulary bottles are an issue, I've heard this quite a few times - their Pyrocat HD has a short shelf life in thei own bottles.
There can be other reasons, a key one being how fresh teh Sodium Metabisulphite is when they make up part A or whether they are using Sodium Bisulphite instead, they aren't the same and Bisulphite has less anti-oxidation effects as there's no free SO2. Part A keeps until the last of the Metabisulphite breaks dow to Sulphite at that point it oxidises quite rapidly.
David, I did comparison tests including prints about 30 years ago of D76/ID-11, HC110, Ilfotec HC Adox Borax MQ and Rodinal, I deliberately used 35mm film for the tests FP4, Tmax 100, and Agfa AP100 as an differences were clearer with the format. At that time I found the best combinations were Rodinal and AP100 or Tmax 100 in terms of fine grain, and sharpness, I also twested for film speed and found Tmax100 best at 50EI and AP100 at box speed 100 ISO. Adox Borax MQ gave me quite similar results, HC100 and Ilfotec HC gave slower film speeds and poorer grain and D76/ID-11 was a slight drop in speed and sharpness, this mirrors Kodak's own comparison chart.
When Xtol was released about a decade later I tested it and the results were comparable to Rodinal, it's far better with T grain and similar emulsions like Delta 100, Acros, compared to D76/ID-11, so I switched to Xtol for my commercial work from Adox Borax MQ.
Now I wouldn't use Rodinal with an old style emulsion, but in conbination with AP100 & AP25 (and later APX25 & APX100) and Tmax100 you get excellent fine grain, in comparison I get similar results with Pyrocat HD but with both old and new style emulsions.
Some aspects don't really show in testing and more is learnt through practical use, this is where I've found that Pyrocat HD gives me the best alround negatives which are very easy to print, and they also scan well (not my primary goal).
Ian
There can be other reasons, a key one being how fresh teh Sodium Metabisulphite is when they make up part A or whether they are using Sodium Bisulphite instead, they aren't the same and Bisulphite has less anti-oxidation effects as there's no free SO2. Part A keeps until the last of the Metabisulphite breaks dow to Sulphite at that point it oxidises quite rapidly.
David, I did comparison tests including prints about 30 years ago of D76/ID-11, HC110, Ilfotec HC Adox Borax MQ and Rodinal, I deliberately used 35mm film for the tests FP4, Tmax 100, and Agfa AP100 as an differences were clearer with the format. At that time I found the best combinations were Rodinal and AP100 or Tmax 100 in terms of fine grain, and sharpness, I also twested for film speed and found Tmax100 best at 50EI and AP100 at box speed 100 ISO. Adox Borax MQ gave me quite similar results, HC100 and Ilfotec HC gave slower film speeds and poorer grain and D76/ID-11 was a slight drop in speed and sharpness, this mirrors Kodak's own comparison chart.
When Xtol was released about a decade later I tested it and the results were comparable to Rodinal, it's far better with T grain and similar emulsions like Delta 100, Acros, compared to D76/ID-11, so I switched to Xtol for my commercial work from Adox Borax MQ.
Now I wouldn't use Rodinal with an old style emulsion, but in conbination with AP100 & AP25 (and later APX25 & APX100) and Tmax100 you get excellent fine grain, in comparison I get similar results with Pyrocat HD but with both old and new style emulsions.
Some aspects don't really show in testing and more is learnt through practical use, this is where I've found that Pyrocat HD gives me the best alround negatives which are very easy to print, and they also scan well (not my primary goal).
Ian
Very interesting, Ian. Thank you. I recall using Rodinal on 35mm when I was making 20x16 prints and valued grain. I certainly got it. I still keep a bottle, but it's the new version.
As this is a Large Format forum, how significant do you think the differences are for the more modest enlargements we make from the bigger neg? I seem to have moved over to hybrid printing, although the darkroom is still intact and with a bit* of tidying, perfectly useable. Consequently, I'm interested in how they scan differently, as well as print.
If anyone has comparison prints, I'm sure it would be helpful to see them.
*Quite a lot of tidying, to be honest. It's a temptingly useful repository.
As this is a Large Format forum, how significant do you think the differences are for the more modest enlargements we make from the bigger neg? I seem to have moved over to hybrid printing, although the darkroom is still intact and with a bit* of tidying, perfectly useable. Consequently, I'm interested in how they scan differently, as well as print.
If anyone has comparison prints, I'm sure it would be helpful to see them.
*Quite a lot of tidying, to be honest. It's a temptingly useful repository.