Tri-x, HP5 and XTOL
janusz...@interia.pl
I start using B&W negatives. I already used ID-11.
I want try Tri-X, HP5 with Kodak XTOL developer.
I overexposed negatives about 0.5-1EV. With ID-11 I used normal
development time, but XTOL increase film speed.
Question: Should I decrease development time (compare to
www.digitaltruth.com). I plan use 1:1 dilution, every film in new bath.
Janusz Kowal
John
> I start using B&W negatives. I already used ID-11.
> I want try Tri-X, HP5 with Kodak XTOL developer.
I strongly suggest you review this groups posts for Xtol and reconsider. I
would recommend Microphen instead.
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?as_q=&num=100&scoring=d&hl=en&as_epq=&as_oq=Xtol&as_eq=&as_ugroup=rec.photo.darkroom&as_usubject=Xtol&as_uauthors=&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=23&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2005&safe=off
--
John - www.puresilver.org
Peter De Smidt
with great results. Since there are so many variables that affect
development results, it's unlikely that the best time for you will be
what they have on digitaltruth.com, although their suggestion would
probably be a good starting place. Even better, Kodak has a pamphlet
with good starting points. Once I bought a very accurate thermometer, my
times became very close to those suggested by Kodak. If you can't find
the Kodak info, let me know. There are a number of ways to do
exposure/development tests, and you might want to search on this topic.
Make sure that you use at least 100ml of stock XTOL solution for every
36 exp. roll (or equivalent) of film that you develop.
-Peter De Smidt
Peter De Smidt
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:54:28 -0500, Peter De Smidt <pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net*> wrote:
>
>
>>Xtol is a great develope
>
>
> If you like blank films you could just cut to the chase and use fixer instead of
> Xtol.
>
> JD - www.puresilver.org
I've never had a blank film with Xtol, well other than the time I mixed
the fix and developer bottles up. How many liters have you used this
year, and when is the last time that you used it? I've used about 32L
this year, and I've used at least that much each year since it's come
out. I use tap water, a Jobo processor, and I store the stock solution
in a plastic 2 gallon container with a floating lid, all of which aren't
"ideal" conditions. Nonetheless, I've never had a problem. Why is that?
Yes, Kodak had a problem with the 1 liter packets, but how many years
has it been since they produced them?
-Peter De Smidt
John
>>>Xtol is a great develope
>>
>> If you like blank films you could just cut to the chase and use fixer instead of
>> Xtol.
>>
> I've never had a blank film with Xtol, well other than the time I mixed
> the fix and developer bottles up. How many liters have you used this
> year, and when is the last time that you used it? I've used about 32L
> this year, and I've used at least that much each year since it's come
> out. I use tap water, a Jobo processor, and I store the stock solution
> in a plastic 2 gallon container with a floating lid, all of which aren't
> "ideal" conditions. Nonetheless, I've never had a problem. Why is that?
> Yes, Kodak had a problem with the 1 liter packets, but how many years
> has it been since they produced them?
You know that the issues goes far beyond the 1L packets and has been
reported by far too many people to state that it's simply a packaging
problem or a problem with the initial batches. Just as surely as you know
that I will never use the product again given the number of times that it
failed for me in the past. To the best of my knowledge there simply has
never been another film developing formula with as many failures reported
in the history of photography.
--
John - www.puresilver.org
UC
some FX-50 about a year ago, and it was DOA from Paterson.
Rod Smith
Peter De Smidt <pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net*> writes:
>
> Blaze wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:54:28 -0500, Peter De Smidt <pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net*> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Xtol is a great develope
>>
>> If you like blank films you could just cut to the chase and use fixer instead of
>> Xtol.
>
Oh, joy; another XTOL debate. A few observations:
- XTOL seems to evoke almost religious fervor on both sides.
- XTOL detractors make it sound like it's got a 50/50 chance of failure,
even if they don't say so explicitly.
- XTOL detractors seem to often be former XTOL proponents who were burned
by one or more failures.
- Gathering valid statistics on product failures (in ANY field) via Usenet
or other forums is impossible.
I've seen many suggestions for what causes XTOL failures, as well as
possible workarounds. I have yet to see definitive proof that any one
thing is really the root cause. It's possible that there are multiple
causes:
- No problem -- Some suggest that XTOL doesn't really fail any more often
than other developers, but that failures are more troublesome because
XTOL doesn't change color when it goes bad, unlike other developers.
This gives no warning, so you're more likely to run a roll through bad
developer without realizing it's bad beforehand.
- 1l packets -- Kodak initially blamed 1l packets for failures, but I've
seen reports of failures with the 5l packets. This doesn't mean that the
1l packets weren't a problem, but it seems unlikely that they were the
SOLE cause of the problem.
- Poor storage -- The usual issues with mixed chemistry storage have been
blamed, like half-full bottles, certain types of plastic bottles, etc.
Storage in completely full, well sealed glass bottles should work around
this problem.
- Water contaminants -- Some blame contaminants in the water, and
particularly certain metals. Using distilled water would work around
this problem.
- Mixing issues -- Some suggest that too much or too vigorous stirring
helps dissolve oxygen in the stock solution. Heating the water to 35
degrees Celsius should reduce the necessary mixing time, thus reducing
the likelihood of running into this problem.
- Too dilute -- Kodak recommends having at least 100ml of stock solution
for each 36-exposure roll of 35mm film (or equivalent). Dilutions higher
than 1:1 or 1:2 are likely to produce less developer than this,
depending on tank size. Using XTOL undiluted or at 1:1 should minimize
this risk.
- TMX film -- Rumor has it that the dilution issues are most common with
Kodak's TMX film. In fact, there was a post a few weeks ago from
somebody who developed several rolls in XTOL in quick succession and had
problems ONLY with the TMX film. This isn't proof of a linkage, but it's
certainly consistent with the idea that there is one.
I'm probably forgetting some suggested causes and associations.
Personally, if you're going to use XTOL, I'd recommend paying extra
attention to these issues, and performing a snip test before developing
any particularly important roll. I wouldn't go so far as to recommend
against using XTOL at all.
Depending on your reasons for choosing XTOL, there are probably
alternatives, too, possibly among commercial developers and certainly
among mix-it-yourself developers. Ryuji Suzuki and Patrick Gainer have
both published phenidone/ascorbic acid developer formulas with
good-sounding stories about why they SHOULD have fewer problems than XTOL.
Unfortunately, I have absolutely no statistics on whether or not they
really DO have fewer problems than XTOL.
--
Rod Smith, rods...@rodsbooks.com
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking
Peter De Smidt
>
> Just as surely as you know
> that I will never use the product again given the number of times that it
> failed for me in the past.
How many times did Xtol fail for you? How long ago did these failures
happen?
If it's such and unreliable developer, why haven't I had any problems in
approximately a decade of regular use?
-Peter De Smidt
John
> Some suggest that XTOL doesn't really fail any more often
> than other developers
What IDIOT would state such a thing ? FYI, I've never, ever, EVER had any
developer other than Xtol fail to develop an image. This includes the
following formulas
Kodak T-Max
Kodak T-Max RS
Kodak HC-110
Kodak Perceptol
Kodak D-76
Kodak HC110
Kodak D-23
Kodak D-76H
Ilford Microphen
Ilford ID-11
Ilford Ilfotech HC
Ilford ID-68
Agfa Rodinol
Agfa 14
PMK Pyro
FX-2
FX-7
Delagi #8
And I have no idea of how many variation of home brews I've played with. I
repeat, NONE have ever failed to develop an image.
--
John - www.puresilver.org
John
> John wrote:
>
>>
>> Just as surely as you know
>> that I will never use the product again given the number of times that it
>> failed for me in the past.
>
> How many times did Xtol fail for you?
3~4 times.
> How long ago did these failures happen?
Way back. When was it introduced ?
> If it's such and unreliable developer, why haven't I had any problems in
> approximately a decade of regular use?
Dunno. Beginners luck ?
--
John - www.puresilver.org
Andrew Price
<pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net*> wrote:
[---]
>I use tap water, a Jobo processor, and I store the stock solution
>in a plastic 2 gallon container with a floating lid, all of which aren't
>"ideal" conditions.
I follow you as far as the tap water and the floating lid are
concerned, but why would you include the Jobo in the list of
conditions which are not "ideal"?
Peter De Smidt
>>How many times did Xtol fail for you?
>
>
> 3~4 times.
>
>
>>How long ago did these failures happen?
>
>
> Way back. When was it introduced ?
>
>
>>If it's such and unreliable developer, why haven't I had any problems in
>>approximately a decade of regular use?
>
>
> Dunno. Beginners luck ?
>
So you had 3 or 4 failures about 10 years ago. By a rough estimate then
you've made 50 or so posts about how unreliable Xtol is for each of your
failures.
I recently talked to a retired bw project manager at Kodak. I asked him
about all of the complaints about Xtol failure. He talked to his
buddies at Kodak. Their response was "What complaints?" Given the large
amount of Xtol in use around the world, especially in labs, if there
were current failure problems these people would complain to Kodak. They
haven't. This lack of complaint combined with the hundreds of rolls and
sheets of film that I've developed in Xtol without a problem is pretty
good evidence that there's not a problem with the developer, and that
there hasn't been for quite a while.
Xtol is the best all around developer that I've used, and I hope that it
stays available for as long as I care to work with film.
Peter De Smidt
John
> I follow you as far as the tap water and the floating lid are
> concerned, but why would you include the Jobo in the list of
> conditions which are not "ideal"?
Air is introduced into the developer by the spinning reels/tanks.
Oxidation is thought to be majority of the problem with Xtol though thoghts
differ on the cause.
--
John - www.puresilver.org
John
> So you had 3 or 4 failures about 10 years ago. By a rough estimate then
> you've made 50 or so posts about how unreliable Xtol is for each of your
> failures.
Probably posted to 50 different threads but certainly more than 50 posts.
> I recently talked to a retired bw project manager at Kodak. I asked him
> about all of the complaints about Xtol failure. He talked to his
> buddies at Kodak. Their response was "What complaints?"
And this surprises you ? Engineering out of touch with tech support ?
Lemme take a big swing at this one and state that this happens in nearly
every corporation in America with more than 10 employees. If you want
somethng designed ask an engineer. If you want to find out why it doesn't
work, ask a tech.
--
John - www.puresilver.org
Rod Smith
John <use...@puresilver.org> writes:
>
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:38:03 -0000, Rod Smith wrote:
>
>> Some suggest that XTOL doesn't really fail any more often
>> than other developers
>
> What IDIOT would state such a thing ? FYI, I've never, ever, EVER had any
> developer other than Xtol fail to develop an image. This includes the
> following formulas
[long list snipped]
I didn't happen to save the references, and I wouldn't denigrate the
mental competence of those making the claim. I believe you're misreading
it, though; the suggestion is that other developers GO BAD as often as
XTOL does, but in ways that are more obvious. Most other developers show
outward signs of going bad that are pretty obvious before you try to
develop a roll. Typically, they turn dark. XTOL doesn't do this, so
without the usual warning signs, a photographer will try to develop film
in XTOL that's gone bad, when the same photographer wouldn't do the same
thing with another developer because it'd be obvious the other developer
had gone bad. The suggestion is simply that the frequency of the developer
going bad isn't any higher with XTOL than with others, but this state is
harder to detect with XTOL.
This suggestion, like all the others I presented, sounds plausible, but I
have no way of either verifying or disproving it.
John
>> What IDIOT would state such a thing ? FYI, I've never, ever, EVER had any
>> developer other than Xtol fail to develop an image. This includes the
>> following formulas
>
> [long list snipped]
>
> I didn't happen to save the references, and I wouldn't denigrate the
> mental competence of those making the claim.
I dunno. Frankly the only other developers that I've heard of failing to
develop an image at all is the ascobic-based Ilfosol-S. Anyone using D-76
and not developing any image at all had better take up another hobby.
> I believe you're misreading
> it, though; the suggestion is that other developers GO BAD as often as
> XTOL does, but in ways that are more obvious.
I understand the point however it's simply not supported by anything and
there is a great deal of opinion to the contrary. Let's put it this way,
has anyone you know of ever developed BLANK film using D-76 that was the
color of espresso ? No. Because it will still develop an image even after
the hydroquinone is oxidized completely.
> Most other developers show
> outward signs of going bad that are pretty obvious before you try to
> develop a roll. Typically, they turn dark. XTOL doesn't do this, so
> without the usual warning signs, a photographer will try to develop film
> in XTOL that's gone bad, when the same photographer wouldn't do the same
> thing with another developer because it'd be obvious the other developer
> had gone bad. The suggestion is simply that the frequency of the developer
> going bad isn't any higher with XTOL than with others, but this state is
> harder to detect with XTOL.
I understand your point but this is irrelevant to the conversation on the
actual stability of the product. I don't care if it looks good or looks bad
or whatever. I care if it is going to develop film. "Bad" T-Max will still
usually develop an image albeit somewhat low in density.
> This suggestion, like all the others I presented, sounds plausible, but I
> have no way of either verifying or disproving it.
One thing I would recommend is to review the numerous posts on this issue
in Google Groups. I imagine it's over 2000 posts. Also take a look at those
that have run into this problem and you will find that most have a good
deal of experience in darkroom techniques.
--
John - www.puresilver.org
Rod Smith
John <use...@puresilver.org> writes:
>
> > the suggestion is that other developers GO BAD as often as
> > XTOL does, but in ways that are more obvious.
>
> I understand the point however it's simply not supported by anything and
> there is a great deal of opinion to the contrary.
I've already SAID as much....
> > This suggestion, like all the others I presented, sounds plausible, but I
> > have no way of either verifying or disproving it.
("opinion to the contrary" is implicit in the fact that I posted six other
hypotheses along with this one.)
As I've said, this is a *SUGGESTED EXPLANATION* -- a hypothesis, with (to
the best of my knowledge) no evidence either supporting or disproving it.
The same lack of evidence applies to other hypotheses about XTOL failure.
I'm not trying to advocate this particular idea, just toss it out as one
of many hypotheses concerning XTOL.
> One thing I would recommend is to review the numerous posts on this issue
> in Google Groups. I imagine it's over 2000 posts.
I have reviewed Usenet posts on the issue via Google Groups; that was a
large part of the basis for my summary post that I made earlier. (I don't
claim to have read every post on the subject, but I've read a large number
of them, along with posts in non-Usenet forums and Web pages.)
Udie Lafing
rods...@nessus.rodsbooks.com (Rod Smith) wrote:
<snip>
> I have reviewed Usenet posts on the issue via Google Groups; that was a
> large part of the basis for my summary post that I made earlier. (I don't
> claim to have read every post on the subject, but I've read a large number
> of them, along with posts in non-Usenet forums and Web pages.)
Nothing beats actually doing a test....., then you can claim to be an
expert like so many of those other NG posters, instead of a here say
forwarder ;^D
--
In my book its another pointless post from another
nameless nobody. I hope it made you feel better.
--
LOL.
Rod Smith
Udie Lafing <banisha...@wastedtime.com> writes:
>
> In article <s57vo2-...@speaker.rodsbooks.com>,
> rods...@nessus.rodsbooks.com (Rod Smith) wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> I have reviewed Usenet posts on the issue via Google Groups; that was a
>> large part of the basis for my summary post that I made earlier. (I don't
>> claim to have read every post on the subject, but I've read a large number
>> of them, along with posts in non-Usenet forums and Web pages.)
>
> Nothing beats actually doing a test....., then you can claim to be an
> expert like so many of those other NG posters, instead of a here say
> forwarder ;^D
I'd be glad to do a test. Please give me several tens of thousands of
dollars to conduct a scientific test of the various theories of XTOL
failure. It'll take hundreds, if not thousands, of batches, mixed in
waters from various parts of the US (and other countries) with assorted
types of contaminants, stored for varying times and in varying ways,
stored alongside at least a couple of other developers mixed in the same
way as controls, and used to develop several different types of film. This
isn't something that can be resolved by some guy mixing half a dozen
batches of the stuff in his basement. If it were that simple, there'd be
no XTOL debates.
> In my book its another pointless post from another
> nameless nobody. I hope it made you feel better.
ROTFL. I'm not the one hiding my name or e-mail address -- or is your name
really Udie Lafing? ("You die laughing?") If so, my condolences.
Travis Porco
Udie Lafing <banisha...@wastedtime.com> wrote:
>In article <s57vo2-...@speaker.rodsbooks.com>,
> rods...@nessus.rodsbooks.com (Rod Smith) wrote:
><snip>
>> I have reviewed Usenet posts on the issue via Google Groups; that was a
>> large part of the basis for my summary post that I made earlier. (I don't
>> claim to have read every post on the subject, but I've read a large number
>> of them, along with posts in non-Usenet forums and Web pages.)
>Nothing beats actually doing a test....., then you can claim to be an
>expert like so many of those other NG posters, instead of a here say
>forwarder ;^D
>In my book its another pointless post from another
>nameless nobody. I hope it made you feel better.
>LOL.
Coming from somebody who calls himself "Udie Lafing" and who contributes
nothing other than bile, this is precious. What the heck do you want
anyway; this is USENET, not Physical Review D!
eric...@yahoo.com
>Question: Should I decrease development time (compare to
>www.digitaltruth.com). I plan use 1:1 dilution, every film in new bath.
My times end up being slightly longer than the digital truth times. So I
might just start at their time and then adjust. For the first time, it's
all just a stab in the dark, anyway. :)
I prefer Xtol at 1:3. Here's an unofficial faq that I compiled:
http://canid.com/xtol_faq.html
As far as Xtol failures go, I've had 132 successes in a row over the past
four years. That's one batch shy of seven 5 L packets. (Slightly over 500
rolls: I develop 4 at a time in a liter tank.) The oldest Xtol I've used
was slightly over a year old from time of mixing. No failure, but I did
notice a slight loss of contrast with that batch.
--
Eric
http://canid.com/
Gregory Blank
tcp...@transbay.net (Travis Porco) wrote:
& You are contributing? If that is so we should call it UseNut.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Richard Knoppow
have obvious problems which it seems could not be fixed reliably.
According to Kodak the 5 liter package _is_ reliable but I had a
failure of Xtol mixed from the new style(all plastic) package not long
ago. I mixed the developer but it was about three weeks before I used
it. I used a 1:1 dilution in a large roll film tank where there was
plenty of developer. The resulting negatives were seriously
underdeveloped. I then tested the developer against D-76, both at full
strength, by developing fogged clips of 35mm T-Max and measuring the
resulting density. Both samples were developed at the recommended time
for the particular developer. The samples were fixed and washed. The
density of the Xtol negative was well below the D-76 negative and well
below what fogged film should be, i.e. nearlly the D-max for the film.
Kodak very kindly sent me a replacement package but I was told they
have not been having such problems. I also don't know the cause of the
problem. The developer did have a problem going into solution. There
were quite a few crystals of something that resisted quite extended
stirring. However, everything seemed to have gone into solution by the
time the developer was used.
The water in this part of Los Angeles is of good quality, mineral
content seems to be reasonably low according the the periodic assay
provided by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. I have
never had a problem with any other developer, or for that matter, any
other photo chemical. I
I have been reluctant to try the new Xtol package but I supposed I
will mix it in the next few days and see what I get. In theory it
should be superior to D-76 but D-76 never fails, which is a plus
indeed.
Richard Knoppow
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Richard Knoppow
for print developing. This is an Ascorbic acid developer. I don't know
for certain what the other agent is but think its Phenidone. If it was
Metol it would show up on the MSDS.
It has been completely reliable and is a very satisfactory
developer.
Richard Knoppow
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Travis Porco
Gregory Blank <bugst...@gregblankphoto.com> wrote:
>In article <11bro4a...@corp.supernews.com>,
> tcp...@transbay.net (Travis Porco) wrote:
>> In article <banishalthought-85...@news.verizon.net>,
>> Udie Lafing <banisha...@wastedtime.com> wrote:
>> >In article <s57vo2-...@speaker.rodsbooks.com>,
>> > rods...@nessus.rodsbooks.com (Rod Smith) wrote:
>> ><snip>
>>
>> >> I have reviewed Usenet posts on the issue via Google Groups; that was a
>> >> large part of the basis for my summary post that I made earlier. (I don't
>> >> claim to have read every post on the subject, but I've read a large number
>> >> of them, along with posts in non-Usenet forums and Web pages.)
>>
>> >Nothing beats actually doing a test....., then you can claim to be an
>> >expert like so many of those other NG posters, instead of a here say
>> >forwarder ;^D
>> >In my book its another pointless post from another
>> >nameless nobody. I hope it made you feel better.
>> >LOL.
>> Coming from somebody who calls himself "Udie Lafing" and who contributes
>> nothing other than bile, this is precious. What the heck do you want
>> anyway; this is USENET, not Physical Review D!
>& You are contributing? If that is so we should call it UseNut.
I think not, Mr. Blank, or "Udie", or whatever. Usenet is a democratic
forum. And that means you take the good from that and the bad. Somebody
posts a reasonable question, and people say what they think. For the most
part people put the usual
disclaimers on what they post, and you eventually get an idea of who
knows what they're doing--and is willing to share their knowledge (often
thanklessly). Because the fact is that nobody is owed an answer at
all, and people who do try to contribute deserve bettter than to be
called a "nameless nobody" in derision. Not many people are going to do you a
randomized experimental design just for the heck of it--as I say, this is
not a scientific journal. In general you cannot expect that kind of
time, energy, and funding. You will get some casual responses, and some
of that information will be helpful.
I've learned a lot here on UseNut. 8-)
There are a handful of folks here who really
know what they're doing and share their knowledge (and even they get hassled
by the usual egotists and pests).
Then there's a penumbra of beginners like me who make no pretension
otherwise, and contribute what they can.
I try to mark posts like this as OT, so you can filter out this sort of
thing (as I usually do). If you don't want to talk to folks you consider
beneath you, the beauty of a democratic forum is you don't have to do that
either. That's what the kill file is for--I suggest you use it. On my
system this is how you killfile me:
/^From:.*tcporco@.*/h:j
Please, do so as soon as possible; anybody who would defend
"Udie"'s snotty arrogance isn't someone I want to talk to either, no matter
who they are or how much they know. Bye now. Flame war over.
Richard Knoppow
filled, capped, 5 liter jug. It was only three weeks old when it was
tried. It _may_ have been N.G. right after mixing but I didn't test it.
I am sore puzzled because none of the theories of what causes this
failure makes any sense.
Richard Knoppow
dick...@ix.netcom.com
UC
FX-50 arrived DOA. Sealed, fresh, but dead.
Keith Tapscott
"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119887251.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
nospam
>> Richard Knoppow wrote:
>>> How do you explain the failure of my Xtol? It was just stored in a
>>> filled, capped, 5 liter jug. It was only three weeks old when it was
>>> tried. It _may_ have been N.G. right after mixing but I didn't test it.
>>> I am sore puzzled because none of the theories of what causes this
>>> failure makes any sense.
>>>
>>> Richard Knoppow
>>> dick...@ix.netcom.com
>>
>
Udie Lafing
tcp...@transbay.net (Travis Porco) wrote:
Re read my response and you"ll probably understand it was stated tongue
in cheek. As for the nameless nobody its me "Udie" and yet is also in
reference to the usual trolls I respond to: in essence a double ontondre
<sp> :-) at the very least its my sig. It is not a personal jab at the
poster.
As for testing for ones own personal usage nothing beats trying
something under the conditions on is working. Then one can evaluate
wether the chemistry will meet, one's purpose. As others have stated
using distilled water to mix sensitive chemicals is a good start, by all
accounts Xtol is one such chemical.
--
In my book its another pointless post from another
nameless nobody. I hope it made you feel better.
--
LOL.
tony wingo
rods...@nessus.rodsbooks.com (Rod Smith) wrote:
>
> Oh, joy; another XTOL debate. A few observations:
>
>
> I've seen many suggestions for what causes XTOL failures, as well as
> possible workarounds. I have yet to see definitive proof that any one
> thing is really the root cause. It's possible that there are multiple
> causes:
>
> << List Clipped >>
Yes, this is a pretty complete summary of the various ideas being tossed
around.
> Depending on your reasons for choosing XTOL, there are probably
> alternatives, too, possibly among commercial developers and certainly
> among mix-it-yourself developers. Ryuji Suzuki and Patrick Gainer have
> both published phenidone/ascorbic acid developer formulas with
> good-sounding stories about why they SHOULD have fewer problems than XTOL.
> Unfortunately, I have absolutely no statistics on whether or not they
> really DO have fewer problems than XTOL.
Ryuji Suzuki in particular has studied this with some rigor, see
<http://silvergrain.org/Photo-Tech/ascorbate-dev.html>,
and his theory is that the problem is metal ions, particularly iron,
catalyzing the oxidation of the ascorbic acid. Kodak uses a chelating
agent called DTPA, which Suzuki argues is ineffective against iron
contamination. His XTOL-like developer, DS-10, uses Salicylic Acid as a
chelator, specifically for its effectiveness against iron.
I'm rather fond of DS-10, and I haven't had any problems with it, but my
sample is way too small to draw any conclusions from. For anyone who is
interested, the formula is at
<http://silvergrain.org/Photo-Tech/film-dev-recommend.html#t004>
A couple of notes: I mix mine up with Phenidone rather than Dimezone-S,
since Dimezone-S is almost impossible to come by in less-than-industrial
quantities, and I almost always use mine within 24 hours of mixing it
up, so I have no idea what it's keeping properties are.
-t
Udie Lafing
rods...@nessus.rodsbooks.com (Rod Smith) wrote:
> >
> > Nothing beats actually doing a test....., then you can claim to be an
> > expert like so many of those other NG posters, instead of a here say
> > forwarder ;^D
I was specifically referring to this from you:
> I have reviewed Usenet posts on the issue via Google Groups; that was a
> large part of the basis for my summary post that I made earlier. (I don't
> claim to have read every post on the subject, but I've read a large number
> of them, along with posts in non-Usenet forums and Web pages.)
This was my point:
As for testing for ones own personal usage nothing beats trying
something under the conditions on is working. Then one can evaluate
wether the chemistry will meet, one's purpose. As others have stated
using distilled water to mix sensitive chemicals is a good start, by all
accounts Xtol is one such chemical.
> I'd be glad to do a test. Please give me several tens of thousands of
> dollars to conduct a scientific test of the various theories of XTOL
> failure. It'll take hundreds, if not thousands, of batches, mixed in
> waters from various parts of the US (and other countries) with assorted
> types of contaminants, stored for varying times and in varying ways,
> stored alongside at least a couple of other developers mixed in the same
> way as controls, and used to develop several different types of film. This
> isn't something that can be resolved by some guy mixing half a dozen
> batches of the stuff in his basement. If it were that simple, there'd be
> no XTOL debates.
>
There really is no need to utilize every sample to detect wether ones
own water causes a problem, just compare the results of distilled versus
the native water your using. That's all.
> > In my book its another pointless post from another
> > nameless nobody. I hope it made you feel better.
>
> ROTFL. I'm not the one hiding my name or e-mail address -- or is your name
> really Udie Lafing? ("You die laughing?") If so, my condolences.
Well its my sig and refers to myself as much as anyone else,....whats it
to ya if I answer your question. Actually I like to think of it as an
amusing acronym as opposed to a pseudonym.
--
In my book its another pointless post from another
nameless nobody. I hope it made you feel better.
--
LOL.
Gregory Blank
tcp...@transbay.net (Travis Porco) wrote:
> I think not, Mr. Blank, or "Udie", or whatever. Usenet is a democratic
<Snip>
> "Udie"'s snotty arrogance isn't someone I want to talk to either, no matter
> who they are or how much they know. Bye now. Flame war over.
I have not a clue what your talking about, but you are the one changing
the subject line to issue a personal attack.
Rod Smith
Udie Lafing <banisha...@wastedtime.com> writes:
>
> In article <o0f0p2-...@speaker.rodsbooks.com>,
> rods...@nessus.rodsbooks.com (Rod Smith) wrote:
>
> As for testing for ones own personal usage nothing beats trying
> something under the conditions on is working. Then one can evaluate
> wether the chemistry will meet, one's purpose.
For something that's consistent and repeatable, yes. The problem is that
XTOL failures are *NOT* consistent and repeatable. There have been plenty
of reports from people who've run many rolls of film through XTOL with no
problems before encountering a failure, and who have no idea why the
failure occurred.
>> I'd be glad to do a test. Please give me several tens of thousands of
>> dollars to conduct a scientific test of the various theories of XTOL
>> failure.
>>
> There really is no need to utilize every sample to detect wether ones
> own water causes a problem, just compare the results of distilled versus
> the native water your using. That's all.
Unfortunately, XTOL sudden failures are rare enough that such a simple
test just won't do. The true cause of these failures is, AFAIK, unknown,
at least to the general public. (Perhaps Kodak knows but isn't publicizing
the information.) The failures are rare enough that a simple test of a
single batch of developer in each of two conditions (tap water vs.
distilled water, vigorous mixing at room temperature vs. careful mixing at
35 degrees C, etc.) will not yield definitive answers. Perhaps you'd get
lucky both times, experience no failures, and (possibly incorrectly)
conclude that you'll never have problems. Perhaps some variable you didn't
control for is the real cause and will create a failure in one condition
or the other, which you'll then mistakenly attribute to the variable you
did manipulate. For instance, failures might really caused by water
getting dissolved in when you mix the stuff, but you might do a test of
distilled vs. tap water. If you mix the tap water more vigorously or for
longer than the distilled water, thus mixing in more air, then you might
get a failure of your tap water XTOL for this reason and incorrectly
attribute it to the fact that it's tap water. If you subsequently mix
another batch using distilled water but stir it too vigorously, it might
fail unexpectedly. In other words, under this scenario, a simple test is
useless -- arguably WORSE than useless, because it's led you to a false
conclusion which will ultimately lead to ruined film.
To get a real answer, rather than conclusions based on unacceptably
incomplete data, you'd need to perform an extended, and expensive,
research program. Failing that, reviewing the postings on Usenet is the
next-best option. This doesn't yield a definitive answer, but it does
yield several reasonable hypotheses, which is better than a conclusion
drawn from an overly simplistic personal test. You criticized me for
presenting the hypotheses I've gleaned from reading Usenet posts and other
sources rather than performing a flawed test myself. I maintain that your
criticism is unjustified.
>> > In my book its another pointless post from another
>> > nameless nobody. I hope it made you feel better.
>>
>> ROTFL. I'm not the one hiding my name or e-mail address -- or is your name
>> really Udie Lafing? ("You die laughing?") If so, my condolences.
>
> Well its my sig and refers to myself as much as anyone else,....whats it
> to ya if I answer your question. Actually I like to think of it as an
> amusing acronym as opposed to a pseudonym.
It wasn't at all clear that this was intended to refer to yourself. Given
the tone of your post, it read like a continuation of your attack. I
humbly suggest you change your sig to something that's less easily
misinterpreted.
Rod Smith
tony wingo <wi...@spamcop.net> writes:
[My post and good elaboration of some of what I glossed over snipped.]
> I'm rather fond of DS-10, and I haven't had any problems with it, but my
> sample is way too small to draw any conclusions from. For anyone who is
> interested, the formula is at
> <http://silvergrain.org/Photo-Tech/film-dev-recommend.html#t004>
> A couple of notes: I mix mine up with Phenidone rather than Dimezone-S,
> since Dimezone-S is almost impossible to come by in less-than-industrial
> quantities, and I almost always use mine within 24 hours of mixing it
> up, so I have no idea what it's keeping properties are.
FWIW, a couple of sources for Dimezone S in the United States are:
http://www.digitaltruth.com/store/rawchemicals.html
http://www.techcheminc.com
Both sell it in 100g quantities for about $34, which is more expensive
than phenidone from most suppliers, but not preposterously so. Given how
you mix and use it, switching to Dimezone S wouldn't offer much of an
advantage, but somebody else might find this information useful.
Udie Lafing
rods...@nessus.rodsbooks.com (Rod Smith) wrote:
>
> For something that's consistent and repeatable, yes. The problem is that
> XTOL failures are *NOT* consistent and repeatable. There have been plenty
> of reports from people who've run many rolls of film through XTOL with no
> problems before encountering a failure, and who have no idea why the
> failure occurred.
Lots of people make mistakes, then blame the chemistry. Consider a
mistake using some chemistry past its useful life, or some other
unforeseen variable.
You might try using a PH meter, After each batch is mixed.
Less expensive than several 1,000 tests.
> It wasn't at all clear that this was intended to refer to yourself. Given
> the tone of your post, it read like a continuation of your attack. I
> humbly suggest you change your sig to something that's less easily
> misinterpreted.
Since when does a person have to explain themself to strangers.
--
In my book its another pointless post from another
nameless nobody. I hope it made you feel better.
--
LOL.
Keith Tapscott
the use of developers such as Xtol and even FX-50 kept over several weeks or
months that is of concern. Professional processing labs must have some
concern of these reports of Xtol if it is their standard developer, imagine
the reaction of disappointed and angry clients who have sent several very
important rolls of film for processing, only to find that they have been
ruined because of a sudden loss of developer activity. This must be very
worrying for some lab proprietors.
I`ll stick with D-76, it`s not perfect and it`s not a magic formula, but at
least it`s reliable and has been tried and trusted over several decades.
A pity really, because Xtol is otherwise a good developer.(When it`s working
right).
"tony wingo" <wi...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:wingo-837546....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Gregory Blank
"Keith Tapscott" <keith_t...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> Mixing a developer from scratch and using it within 24 hours is fine, it is
> the use of developers such as Xtol and even FX-50 kept over several weeks or
> months that is of concern. Professional processing labs must have some
> concern of these reports of Xtol if it is their standard developer, imagine
> the reaction of disappointed and angry clients who have sent several very
> important rolls of film for processing, only to find that they have been
> ruined because of a sudden loss of developer activity. This must be very
> worrying for some lab proprietors.
> I`ll stick with D-76, it`s not perfect and it`s not a magic formula, but at
> least it`s reliable and has been tried and trusted over several decades.
> A pity really, because Xtol is otherwise a good developer.(When it`s working
> right).
Unless its a "very" Custom Lab Xtol would never be used for BW films,
most would use something like Tmax RS in the dip and dunk equipment
as a standard.
Keith Tapscott
whether they`ve had any problems, I don`t know. They`re a good colour.
"Gregory Blank" <bugst...@gregblankphoto.com> wrote in message
news:bugstopped_-9D34...@news.verizon.net...
Keith Tapscott
"Keith Tapscott" <keith_t...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42c14684$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>I forgot about T-MAX RS, there is LAB 35/120 in the UK who use Xtol though,
>whether they`ve had any problems, I don`t know. They`re a good
Nicholas O. Lindan
> XTOL failures are *NOT* consistent and repeatable. There have been plenty
> of reports from people who've run many rolls of film through XTOL with no
> problems before encountering a failure, and who have no idea why the
> failure occurred.
I have had cases of "Sudden Developer Death" [SDD] with Dektol, D-76,
HC 110-B, Microdol-X and lots of others: the bottle is good one
week and bad the next; the powder looks kinda-OK but when it
hits the water I know something is really wrong.
In each case the developer turns brown and stinky, so I know to
chuck it and mumble "I wonder why that happened?".
I view developer to be a bit like wine in that it sometime
goes off for 'no reason at all'; all the bottles in the
case are good and then bottle #8: "Yeech". Who knows:
the truck delivering the case broke down outside of Tucson
and sat in the sun for two days; something fell into the vat/
bottle when it was being filled; the bottle is from another batch
- all of which are bad and destroyed - except for this bottle
which found its way into my case; the wine was blessed by
St. Murphy; or just 'because'.
Kodak needs to add some chemical that changes color when the
XTOL goes bad. Maybe as simple as something that just indicates
the presence of oxygen [assuming this is the failure mechanism].
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
Rod Smith
Udie Lafing <banisha...@wastedtime.com> writes:
>
> In article <bjp6p2-...@speaker.rodsbooks.com>,
> rods...@nessus.rodsbooks.com (Rod Smith) wrote:
>>
>> For something that's consistent and repeatable, yes. The problem is that
>> XTOL failures are *NOT* consistent and repeatable. There have been plenty
>> of reports from people who've run many rolls of film through XTOL with no
>> problems before encountering a failure, and who have no idea why the
>> failure occurred.
>
> Lots of people make mistakes, then blame the chemistry. Consider a
> mistake using some chemistry past its useful life, or some other
> unforeseen variable.
*SIGH* That's not under debate. For **WHATEVER** reason, XTOL has
developed a reputation for failing suddenly. The question is what causes
this -- bad water, micro-punctures in XTOL packets, user error, gremlins,
etc. Identifying that cause is tricky because the problem is sporadic.
>> To get a real answer, rather than conclusions based on unacceptably
>> incomplete data, you'd need to perform an extended, and expensive,
>> research program.
>
> You might try using a PH meter, After each batch is mixed.
> Less expensive than several 1,000 tests.
AFAIK, there's no evidence that the XTOL failures are associated with
incorrect pH. Perhaps they are, in which case a pH meter would be a useful
accessory (but wouldn't really identify the root cause); but perhaps the
failures are not associated with pH changes, in which case a meter would
be useless, and relying on one would lead you astray.
>> It wasn't at all clear that this was intended to refer to yourself. Given
>> the tone of your post, it read like a continuation of your attack. I
>> humbly suggest you change your sig to something that's less easily
>> misinterpreted.
>
> Since when does a person have to explain themself to strangers.
Since expecting to be taken seriously when posting to Usenet, which is,
after all, a medium for communicating with strangers. Since you clearly
don't want to do that, this will be my last post to this subthread.
Rod Smith
Gregory Blank <bugst...@gregblankphoto.com> writes:
>
> Unless its a "very" Custom Lab Xtol would never be used for BW films,
> most would use something like Tmax RS in the dip and dunk equipment
> as a standard.
I thought I heard somewhere that XTOL was popular in commercial labs, I
believe because of its reduced environmental impact compared to most other
developers. Googling on 'XTOL "commercial labs"' turns up some hits that
refer to specific commercial labs that use XTOL, but I didn't find any
statistics on how many do.
Udie Lafing
rods...@nessus.rodsbooks.com (Rod Smith) wrote:
> In article <banishalthought-62...@news.verizon.net>,
> Udie Lafing <banisha...@wastedtime.com> writes:
> >
> > Lots of people make mistakes, then blame the chemistry. Consider a
> > mistake using some chemistry past its useful life, or some other
> > unforeseen variable.
>
> *SIGH* That's not under debate. For **WHATEVER** reason, XTOL has
> developed a reputation for failing suddenly. The question is what causes
> this -- bad water, micro-punctures in XTOL packets, user error, gremlins,
> etc. Identifying that cause is tricky because the problem is sporadic.
Maybe not under debate but certainly a factor for determining how valid
the complaints of failure are, my point was typically people whine
before exploring their own deficiency in the matter.
> >
> > You might try using a PH meter, After each batch is mixed.
> > Less expensive than several 1,000 tests.
>
> AFAIK, there's no evidence that the XTOL failures are associated with
> incorrect pH.
I guess the question is has anyone considered it, and does anyone
know what the ph should be? From what I understand Ph is a very
critical aspect of ascorbic acid developers.
>Perhaps they are, in which case a pH meter would be a useful
> accessory (but wouldn't really identify the root cause); but perhaps the
> failures are not associated with pH changes, in which case a meter would
> be useless, and relying on one would lead you astray.
Coupled with the use of distilled water you could pretty much determine
whether one's own water supply is usable.
> >> It wasn't at all clear that this was intended to refer to yourself. Given
> >> the tone of your post, it read like a continuation of your attack. I
> >> humbly suggest you change your sig to something that's less easily
> >> misinterpreted.
> >
> > Since when does a person have to explain themself to strangers.
>
> Since expecting to be taken seriously when posting to Usenet, which is,
> after all, a medium for communicating with strangers. Since you clearly
> don't want to do that, this will be my last post to this subthread.
Seems like you didn't want help, typically when I ask for help I don't
like to attach stipulations on the people I ask it from. Oh well maybe
if you don't post at least you might by chance read-& think.
Take Care.
Gregory Blank
rods...@nessus.rodsbooks.com (Rod Smith) wrote:
> In article <bugstopped_-9D34...@news.verizon.net>,
> Gregory Blank <bugst...@gregblankphoto.com> writes:
> >
> > Unless its a "very" Custom Lab Xtol would never be used for BW films,
> > most would use something like Tmax RS in the dip and dunk equipment
> > as a standard.
>
> I thought I heard somewhere that XTOL was popular in commercial labs, I
> believe because of its reduced environmental impact compared to most other
> developers. Googling on 'XTOL "commercial labs"' turns up some hits that
> refer to specific commercial labs that use XTOL, but I didn't find any
> statistics on how many do.
I would certainly be interested where you heard that, not so much to
discredit you but simply to know whether it was a credible source.
I relatively question Xtol usage on a large scale use because I wonder
about its value to a lab where replenishment is a important
consideration.
Rod Smith
Gregory Blank <bugst...@gregblankphoto.com> writes:
>
> In article <io38p2-...@speaker.rodsbooks.com>,
> rods...@nessus.rodsbooks.com (Rod Smith) wrote:
>
>> I thought I heard somewhere that XTOL was popular in commercial labs, I
>> believe because of its reduced environmental impact compared to most other
>> developers. Googling on 'XTOL "commercial labs"' turns up some hits that
>> refer to specific commercial labs that use XTOL, but I didn't find any
>> statistics on how many do.
>
> I would certainly be interested where you heard that, not so much to
> discredit you but simply to know whether it was a credible source.
Unfortunately, I don't recall. As I said, though, a Google search does
turn up several hits regarding commercial labs that use XTOL. Most of
these are forum reports ("My photofinisher gave me back my film that they
developed in XTOL..."), but I did find one or two Web pages for labs where
they said they use XTOL. I have no idea how big any of these outfits are.
> I relatively question Xtol usage on a large scale use because I wonder
> about its value to a lab where replenishment is a important
> consideration.
According to Kodak, XTOL can be used as its own replenisher. Here's a
relevant URL:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.jhtml
This page has general use information on XTOL; search on "replenish" to
find relevant information. It basically says that straight (not diluted)
XTOL can be used as its own replenisher, then gives details of how much to
replenish.
Gregory Blank
rods...@nessus.rodsbooks.com (Rod Smith) wrote:
FWIW
Upon Googling Xtol, labs:
A&I Lab (One of the bigger ones does in fact use Xtol, but they
specifically state they process monitor and have a custom built Dip and
dunk machine for the process.)
UC
system with boric acid and borax added to it might be worth exploring
for those who are curious.
John
> A&I Lab (One of the bigger ones does in fact use Xtol, but they
> specifically state they process monitor and have a custom built Dip and
> dunk machine for the process.)
There are four reasons that a lab would be able to avoid the ol' Xtol
bonk.
1) As you note above, most labs use process strips to monitor their
chemicals potency and adjust if needed..
2) The volume of chemistry they retain in their processors is much higher
than the average user will ever store in a tank. 10 gallons of stock would
be minimal.
3) They use the stock concentration.
4) The water in most labs is heavily filtered. We used 3 micron filters on
all water lines.
--
John - www.puresilver.org
Richard Knoppow
"Rod Smith" <rods...@nessus.rodsbooks.com> wrote in message
news:rtquo2-...@speaker.rodsbooks.com...
> In article <jzlr07dekvim.k...@40tude.net>,
> John <use...@puresilver.org> writes:
>>
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:38:03 -0000, Rod Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Some suggest that XTOL doesn't really fail any more
>>> often
>>> than other developers
>>
>> What IDIOT would state such a thing ? FYI, I've never,
>> ever, EVER had any
>> developer other than Xtol fail to develop an image. This
>> includes the
>> following formulas
>
> [long list snipped]
>
> I didn't happen to save the references, and I wouldn't
> denigrate the
> mental competence of those making the claim. I believe
> you're misreading
> it, though; the suggestion is that other developers GO BAD
> as often as
> XTOL does, but in ways that are more obvious. Most other
> developers show
> outward signs of going bad that are pretty obvious before
> you try to
> develop a roll. Typically, they turn dark. XTOL doesn't do
> this, so
> without the usual warning signs, a photographer will try
> to develop film
> in XTOL that's gone bad, when the same photographer
> wouldn't do the same
> thing with another developer because it'd be obvious the
> other developer
> had gone bad. The suggestion is simply that the frequency
> of the developer
> going bad isn't any higher with XTOL than with others, but
> this state is
> harder to detect with XTOL.
>
> This suggestion, like all the others I presented, sounds
> plausible, but I
> have no way of either verifying or disproving it.
>
> --
> Rod Smith, rods...@rodsbooks.com
> http://www.rodsbooks.com
> Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking
Rod, I would have agreed with you before my experience. I
mixed Xtol from a 5 liter package of the new type, purchaced
a few days before from Freestyle (went there, not mail
order). Mixed in tap water at about 80F as recommended in a
clean plastic bucket with gentle stirring with a plastic
stirring rod. There was a residue that would not dissolve
even after extended mixing time, perhaps 15 minutes. I
bottled the mixture plus residue in a new but washed 5 liter
container also purchased at Freestyle. The container will
filled nearly to the cap and was tightly capped. It was
stored in a dark cabinet that stays reasonably cool.
I had intended to test the developer the next day but the
exigencies of life prevented me from doing so for about
three weeks. I developed a single roll of 120 film in an 8
oz Nikor tank using Xtol diluted 1:1. The roll was seriously
underdeveloped. As detailed in another post to this thread I
then tested the developer against D-76 using clips of T-Max
100. Development of both tests were in about 1 oz of full
strength developer the film being about 1 frame of 35mm
film. After fixing and washing I measured the density of
both. The Xtol film was less than logD 1.5, the D-76 film
was logD greater than 2.0. I have never had a failure of
any other developer. I have not used as wide a range of
developers as John but have used several including D-76 (my
standard), Microdol-X, Microphen, Rodinal, probably some
others, plus three or four print developers.
I am very puzzled by this. I don't think the package was
damaged but, of course, I threw it out before discovering
the problem. When I contacted Kodak customer service I was
told that the person n charge of Xtol technical problems was
on vacation. Some weeks later I received a reply saying that
they simply had not gotten complaints about Xtol in the 5
liter size. They sent me a new package promptly on getting
my original complaint but I've been reluctant to try it
again.
So, I can testify that the problem does exist but I have
no explanation of it nor do the chemists who have looked at
it seem to be able to explain it, only speculate.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Richard Knoppow
"Udie Lafing" <banisha...@wastedtime.com> wrote in
message
news:banishalthought-62...@news.verizon.net...
> In article <bjp6p2-...@speaker.rodsbooks.com>,
> rods...@nessus.rodsbooks.com (Rod Smith) wrote:
>>
>> For something that's consistent and repeatable, yes. The
>> problem is that
>> XTOL failures are *NOT* consistent and repeatable. There
>> have been plenty
>> of reports from people who've run many rolls of film
>> through XTOL with no
>> problems before encountering a failure, and who have no
>> idea why the
>> failure occurred.
>
> Lots of people make mistakes, then blame the chemistry.
> Consider a
> mistake using some chemistry past its useful life, or some
> other
> unforeseen variable.
>
>
I _could_ have made some sort of mistake in mixing it, but
there isn't much that can go wrong; perhaps mixing the wrong
packet first, but I don't think I did that. I can't _prove_
I did or didn't make a mistake. That's frustrating.
One problem with all this is that Kodak no longer has a
research laboratory, at least not like the famous one of the
past, so no one is going to do proper research to find out
if there is, indeed, a problem. There have been enough
sporadic reports to smell a rat but it could be as you say,
individual mistakes of some sort manifesting themselves as a
problem with the developer.
I would have agreed with you if it had not happened to
me.
Richard Knoppow
The pH is listed in the patents, and also, I think, in a
Kodak publication. Its at least something to look at. I am
not so sure about pH meters and developers. Developers tend
to be hostile to many pH electrodes but probably a close
enough test could be made in another way.
Of course, another factor here is the sensitivity of Xtol
to changes in pH. Also, Xtol seems to have a reasonably good
buffer system. I always think its better to look than to
guess but my instinct is that pH is not a factor.
Xtol patents are: USP 5,702,875 and 5,853,964
Richard Knoppow
replenisher. It can be used in a bleed system to maintain
relatively uniform activity so, apart from the concern for
the sudden failure, its a good developer for continuous
developing machines. Also, Xtol is supposed to have long
shelf and working life. Its low environmental impact is
another benefit for photofinishing use.
Richard Knoppow
I don't think the custom built machine is specific to
Xtol. Process monitoring is a necessity in any
photofinishing operation, or, indeed, where replenished or
regenerated developers are used. Certainly color developing
machines are monitored. The usual method is to process
special test strips with the film. The test strips are then
analysed using a densitometer to determine the functioning
of the machine. In large scale motion picture processing the
chemicals are also analysed periodically to indicate their
condition and the operation of whatever replenishment or
regeneration system is being used.
Richard Knoppow
"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120054240.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> It's possible that Xtol suffers from a sudden drop in ph.
> A buffered
> system with boric acid and borax added to it might be
> worth exploring
> for those who are curious.
The alkali in Xtol is essentially Sodium metaborate
(Kodalk) combined with Sodium metabisulfite which is a
pretty good buffer.
Here is the formula from the second patent (USP
5,853,964).
Part A
Sodium Sulfte 10.0 grams
Diethylenediaminepentacetic acid, pentasodium salt
1.0 gram
Sodium Metaborate (8mol) 4.0 grams
1-hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidone
(Kodak Dimezone) 0.2 grams
Part B
Sodium Sulfite 75.0 grams
Sodium Metabisulfite 3.5 grams
Sodium Isoascorbate 12.0 grams
Dissolve Part A in 850.0 ml of water at room temperature.
The pH should be 10.19 +/- 0.05
Then add part B at room temperature and when dissolved bring
the total volume up to 1.0 liter.
The pH of the mixed solution should be 8.20 +/- 0.05.
This is probably close, if not identical, to the packaged
product.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> Developers tend to be hostile to many pH electrodes but
> probably a close enough test could be made in another way.
There was 'pH Strip': a coil of paper in a plastic case.
It went from yellow to dark blue depending on pH. There were
several ranges. Tried to find it at the drugstore once, hopeless.
Ah:
http://www.healthtreasures.com/ph-paper.html
Overpriced, I am sure. These loonies believe in altering
blood chemistry to control the body's pH. Don't try this
at home kids. Don't try this anywhere...
Reasonable pricing:
http://www.indigo.com/science-supplies/ph-paper.html
Indigo... I have some indigo growing in the garden, have to
look this up. Blue/red litmus paper is do-it-yourself: dip
strips of paper in red cabbage juice.
> Also, Xtol seems to have a reasonably good
> buffer system.
That's what I would say, but then the Xtol _is_ broke ... though
I can't see how anything would upset the buffer ... I mean,
that's why God invented buffer - so the pH won't change.
pH is just a wish, it would be so easy to do: "Dip a broccoli
floret in the Xtol and compare it against this color chart ..."
Nicholas O. Lindan
> So, I can testify that the problem does exist but I have
> no explanation of it nor do the chemists who have looked at
> it seem to be able to explain it, only speculate.
I make half my money nowadays fixing industrial/product problems.
This is how I would attack it:
The first step in fixing this problem is to find all the
ways to make Xtol go bad on command [using methods outside
adding a cup of Tide].
As no one can find the answer, experience says the situation
is similar to:
_Good_ problems like this have maybe 5 or so independent
causes, none of which cause any great failure but when
any 3 of the five are combined the whole thing stops working.
One-at-a time testing will never uncover the causes.
And:
It is _never_ just one thing...
Thor Lancelot Simon
Richard Knoppow <dick...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> That's true, but I know in my case the package was fresh.
What was the production date stamped on the package? I recently bought
some Xtol at a local photo store and was horrified to notice _while
developing film in it_ that it was from 1999.
It didn't develop the film very much, for what that's worth.
I wonder just what kind of laboratory (and staff) Kodak has left. The
current version of J-109 is missing numbers for some films (notably
new TMX sheet film) at some speeds for no obvious reason except that
they seem to have published it without running the entire series of
tests they had planned. It's almost like someone was laid off in the
middle of the project, in fact.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@rek.tjls.com
"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be
abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky
at @the-wire.dotcom Lloyd Erlick
Knoppow" <dick...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
... perhaps mixing the wrong
>packet first, but I don't think I did that. I
...
jul105 from Lloyd Erlick,
I have mixed the two packets of Xtol in the
wrong order. You would be in doubt about what
you had done if this had been your error. The
whole thing goes wrong, solids remain
undissolved indefinitely. The result is not a
developer and you would have concluded it had
to be thrown away. It's a one-trial-learning
experience.
regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: port...@heylloyd.com
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--
sho...@trailing-edge.com
> Should I decrease development time
Tri-X is not as forgiving of overexposure as, say, T-Max, but for half
or one stop it is pretty forgiving. If you like the toe of Tri-X then
overexposing will get you out of the toe. If you don't like the toe of
Tri-X then overexposure will get you out of the toe.
> compare to www.digitaltruth.com
What does that website have to do with it?
Just do a ring-around to find the exposure and development time that
give the best prints in your darkroom. Don't worry what anybody else
says you should do.
Tim.
Dana H. Myers
> Hello,
>
> I start using B&W negatives. I already used ID-11.
> I want try Tri-X, HP5 with Kodak XTOL developer.
>
> I overexposed negatives about 0.5-1EV. With ID-11 I used normal
> development time, but XTOL increase film speed.
>
> Question: Should I decrease development time (compare to
> www.digitaltruth.com). I plan use 1:1 dilution, every film in new bath.
Xtol 1+1 and Tri-X: sweet; I started with Kodak suggested times
and shortened about 10% to reduce contrast for printing with condensor
enlarger.
Xtol and HP5+: seemed to raise Dmin a fair bit and raise the grain
a bit. Not a good combo for me.
Fair warning: I think Xtol 1+1 and TMY (in controlled lighting) is
the sweetest ever combo.
Dana