XTOL burned me !!
Steve1chsn
week changed everything. Suddenly right in the middle of a 5 litre batch the
negs got real thin. The stock solution was only 2 weeks old and was divided
between 5, one-litre bottles so they were stored full. When I started the
third bottle - BAM there it went. I may have suspected a mixing or processing
error but as I said, it was the third bottle of a divided 5 litre mix. I ran a
few more test films and got the same result - very thin negs. Even the edge
markings were thin. Frankly, I am scared to trust another batch of the stuff.
Before Xtol I used good old D76 1:1 and was quite happy with the results and I
may go back to this. But, the convienence of useing liquid concentrate appeals
to me so I was thinking of trying some Tmax developer. Could anyone give me
the rundown on this stuff? Any major plusses or minuses?
Thanks in advance....
**** steve ****
ele...@home.com
: I have been using Xtol since it has been out without any problems. But this
: **** steve ****
I have not had that problem with Xtol (always mixed from a 5L package). In
fact, last week I processed some Tmax 100 in Xtol that had been mixed
about 14 months earlier. I mixed the stock with distilled water and
diluted it (1:1) with distilled water. I had stored the stock Xtol in a 5L
bag-in-box wine container. In the past, I have gotten thin negatives with
it diluted 1:3, even though I developed only one 36exp roll in 500ml of
diluted developer.
I have absolutely nothing to base it on, but I wonder if trace impurities
in tap water may catalyze developer oxidation in storage. Distilled water
is cheap so I always use it when mixing developers.
Ray
--
E. Ray Lemar ele...@home.com
John Hicks
>stored full.
In what environment were they stored?
---
John Hicks
John's Camera Shop
Steve1chsn
in a plastic environment about 72 deg F
**** steve ****
ArtKramr
>From: steve...@aol.com (Steve1chsn)
>Date: Wed, 16 June 1999 09:03 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19990616210317...@ng-cg1.aol.com>
>
>>In what environment were they stored?
>
>in a plastic environment about 72 deg F
>
> ****
Steve,
Have you called Kodak and told them the problem? That might be the most
productive way to get answers.
Arthur Kramer
Las Vegas NV
John Hicks
SPECTRUM
>I have been using Xtol since it has been out without any problems. But this
>week changed everything. Suddenly right in the middle of a 5 litre batch the
>negs got real thin. The stock solution was only 2 weeks old and was divided
>between 5, one-litre bottles so they were stored full. When I started the
>third bottle - BAM there it went. I may have suspected a mixing or
>processing error but as I said, it was the third bottle of a divided 5 litre
>mix. I ran a few more test films and got the same result - very thin negs.
>Even the edge markings were thin. Frankly, I am scared to trust another
>batch of the stuff. Before Xtol I used good old D76 1:1 and was quite happy
>with the results and I may go back to this. But, the convienence of useing
>liquid concentrate appeals to me so I was thinking of trying some Tmax
>developer. Could you give me the rundown on this stuff? Any major plusses
>or minuses? I looked at your website and noted that in your development
>charts the times for Tmax developer are all the same(75 deg. 6.5 min) no
>matter what the emulsion (everything from HIE to APX25) isn't this odd?
>Thanks in advance for help you might offer.
>-Steve
Hi Steve !
Sorry to hear of your troubles with Xtol. A nasty thing to
have happen.
As far as liquid concentrate developers, I tend to think that
T-Max RS is the way to go. T-Max developer is pretty good but the RS
version is higher buffered and will be more stable on the shelf. As
you've probably read I'm a Microphen fan and T-Max RS is essentially
Microphen in a liquid concentrate. Kodak has somehow found a way to
keep from listing the Phenidone in the ingredients on the MSDS sheet.
Got that from one of the engineers at Ilford.
About those development times, I'm not too surprised. There is
a point at which the tonal relationships will all develop to a
specific CI in a given developer and will yield very similar results.
You'll find that TMX, TMY, APX25, D100 & D400 will all develop at
nearly identical times in T-Max and T-Max RS developers. Actually the
only surprise to me is the length of time it takes APX25 to develop. A
little long in my opinion.
Regards,
John S. Douglas Photographer, webmaster & darkroom wizard !
Fine wedding and portrait photography Black & White our specialty.
Spectrum Photographic Inc. Temp: http://www.cybercomm.net/~spectrum
Bringing the fine art of photography to your wedding !
SPECTRUM
>Steve,
>Have you called Kodak and told them the problem? That might be the most
>productive way to get answers.
>
>Arthur Kramer
Believe me . They are aware of the problem !
Richard Knoppow
>Regards,
>
>John S. Douglas Photographer, webmaster & darkroom wizard !
>Fine wedding and portrait photography Black & White our specialty.
>Spectrum Photographic Inc. Temp: http://www.cybercomm.net/~spectrum
> Bringing the fine art of photography to your wedding !
>
I suspect the Ilford guy was indulging in a little Kodak bashing.
Check the MSDS for T-Max RS on the Kodak site. Its
at:http://www.kodak.com/cgi-bin/webCatalog.pl?cc=US&lc=en&product=KODAK+T-MAX+RS+Developer+and+Replenisher
It lists the Penidone-like reducer, which is:
4-hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidinone I think this is
Kodak Dimezone, which is also used in several color developers and is
also used in Xtol.
Microphen is essentially a Phenidone version of buffered D-76. T-Max
RS seems to be something a bit different despite seeming to be a
Phenidone-Hydroquinone developer. It certainly is not as fine grain as
Microphen, which in my experience with it seems to be at least as fine
grain as D-76, maybe finer. T-Max RS is noticably coarser than D-76.
There is some pretty interesting stuff in the Xtol patent and in
following up the references made in to other patents.
The main Xtol patent appears to be USP 5,756,271 and reference is
especially made to USP 5,236,816 which contains a long discussion of
Ascorbic acid and Phenidone type reducing agents including the effects
on various types of emulsions and prefered anti-oxidents.
The main reason for the development of Ascorbic acid developers
seems to be the elimination of Hydroquinone and related chemicals for
environmental reasons. Ascorbic acid has been known as a reducing
agent for generations but only recently used as a practical reducer in
commercial developers.
It is interesting, BTW, to search for patents assigned to the major
photographic companies. Kodak has by far the largest number. Agfa
patents seem to be mostly stuff aimed at digital and graphics work.
Both the US patent and trademark office and IBM have sites with
patents on them. I find the patent office site the easiest to work
with but both should be tried. Unfortunately for historical research
both data bases go back only to 1976.
The US patent office is at: http://www.uspto.gov
The patent searches are free but downloads in PDF form are charged
for. You can download TIFF files free. A free viewer plug-in can be
downloaded from the Patent office site.
An interesting patent I found by browsing this way is one assigned
to Ilford USP 5,358,832 This covers the making of fixing baths using
a combinatin of Sodium and Potassium Thiosulfate. According the the
patent claims a fixing bath made with equal molar amounts of Na and K
thiosulfate has faster fixing time than either alone. For emulsions
with large amounts of Iodide in them, typical of fast film, the
clearing time is claimed to approach that of Ammonium Thiosulfate.
The purpose here is again the avoidance of an environmental hazard
since Ammonium has undesirable effects on organisms in the water which
niether Potassium or Sodium do.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
ArtKramr
>Date: Thu, 17 June 1999 04:01 AM EDT
>Message-id: <376eab56....@news.cybercomm.net>
>
>On 17 Jun 1999 01:54:11 GMT, artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>Steve,
>>Have you called Kodak and told them the problem? That might be the most
>>productive way to get answers.
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
> Believe me . They are aware of the problem !
>
>Regards,
>
>John S. Douglas
What did they say when you spoke to them. Did they suggest anything at all? Did
they admit the problem exists?
SPECTRUM
Knoppow) wrote:
> I suspect the Ilford guy was indulging in a little Kodak bashing.
>Check the MSDS for T-Max RS on the Kodak site. Its
>at:http://www.kodak.com/cgi-bin/webCatalog.pl?cc=US&lc=en&product=KODAK+T-MAX+RS+Developer+and+Replenisher
> It lists the Penidone-like reducer, which is:
>4-hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidinone I think this is
>Kodak Dimezone, which is also used in several color developers and is
>also used in Xtol.
Actually it was my fault. I forgot that Kodak has just
recently updated that sheet. Also I originally meant the regular
T-Max, not the RS version.
BTW, I've often wondered how T-Max developer can develop
better shadow detail when it is a "Q" only formula and the "RS"
version has Phenidone in it ?
SPECTRUM
>What did they say when you spoke to them. Did they suggest anything at all? Did
>they admit the problem exists?
>
>Arthur Kramer
"We're looking into it." ! Sounds like a government issue
answer ! But seriously T.B. says that the boys in R&D are giving it
serious consideration. Seems to me that they would give it a little
extra scrutiny as neither Dick Dickerson or Sylvia (whatshername ?!)
are with the company any longer and both were instrumental in the
formulation and testing of Xtol.
xx
this from others.
Rick
In article <376fac56....@news.cybercomm.net>,
spec...@cybercomm.net says...
Gerald Walden
boards who have ended up with nearly blank films from this dev. Kodak say
that they had a faulty batch, but it has been going on for longer than that!
I will never use the stuff again.
Gerry (UK)
www.gerrywalden.co.uk
ArtKramr
>Date: Thu, 17 June 1999 02:44 AM EDT
>Message-id: <7kbnvv$j7k$1...@epos.tesco.net>
I underytsadn your feelings. I have had noproblem so far. But maybe we can
figure some of this ut. Have any of those who refirgerate XTOL had this
failure? Have any of htose who use XTOL styraigth had this failure or was it
just those who used diluted XTOL. Did the failures occur equally to those who
worked 1:1? 1:2? 1:3? Let's see if we can locate a common thread. Anyone on
this NG have data to add to this search for a cause or a condition?
Moreno Polloni
>figure some of this ut. Have any of those who refirgerate XTOL had this
>failure? Have any of htose who use XTOL styraigth had this failure or was it
>just those who used diluted XTOL. Did the failures occur equally to those who
>worked 1:1? 1:2? 1:3? Let's see if we can locate a common thread. Anyone on
>this NG have data to add to this search for a cause or a condition?
I'd like to know if anyone has had problems with XTOL stock mixed with distilled
water.
John Hicks
>figure some of this ut.
I've never had an Xtol failue, refrigerated or not, distilled water
or not, at any dilution. Otoh I've never had stock sitting around more
than a month.
Lee Carmichael
HC110 and Microdol-x. Old stand by's that have treated me kindly.
xx wrote:
--
As usual,
Lee Carmichael
mailto:cl...@flash.net
check out http://www.pgtopg.com/filmbytes
SPECTRUM
>Do you find TMAX RX to be a bit more sharp than TMAX? I have heard of
>this from others.
>
>Rick
Sharper appearing and grainier. But I like the tones with
T-Max RS. Just think that Microphen is a little better.
SPECTRUM
>I underytsadn your feelings. I have had noproblem so far. But maybe we can
>figure some of this ut. Have any of those who refirgerate XTOL had this
>failure? Have any of htose who use XTOL styraigth had this failure or was it
>just those who used diluted XTOL. Did the failures occur equally to those who
>worked 1:1? 1:2? 1:3? Let's see if we can locate a common thread. Anyone on
>this NG have data to add to this search for a cause or a condition?
>
>Arthur Kramer
>Las Vegas NV
I had 3 different batches with very different results but each
went dead around two months on the shelf stored in glass bottles that
were at least 2/3rds full and at a temp of 55-65 F. . Working
dilutions were 1:2 and 1:3 generally. I once used 1:1 and found little
difference in negative contrast or density so didn't see any need to
bother with it.
The worst case was when I developed TP at EI 25. Almost
completely blank.
Joseph O'Neil
<m...@lightstream.ca> wrote:
>I'd like to know if anyone has had problems with XTOL stock mixed with distilled
>water.
i have the exact opposite problem myself - I HAVE to use
distilled water to mix Xtol, as there's somethign about my local tap
water (too hard maybe?) that gives me inconsistance results with Xtol.
joe
http://www.multiboard.com/~joneil/store.html
London, Ont, Canada
LMG50
>just those who used diluted XTOL. Did the failures occur equally to those
>who
>worked 1:1? 1:2? 1:3?
This topic has been much discussed before. I had a problem with thin negatives
using Xtol at 1:3. Since I started using 1:1 dilution, I have had no problem,
regardless of the age of the stock solution.
Lee
LMG50
>went dead around two months on the shelf stored in glass bottles that
>were at least 2/3rds full and at a temp of 55-65 F.
Storing in partilally filled bottles could be your problem. I always keep Xtol
stock in completely filled bottles, and if there is not enough stock to fill a
bottle, I fill the rest of the bottle with marbles to displace all of the air.
Under these circumstances, Xtol seems to last almost forever.
Lee
SPECTRUM
developer should deteriorate in so short a time under those
conditions. Particularly in so short a time. HC 110 is far more active
than Xtol and yet it keeps much better.
Regards,
John S. Douglas Photographer, webmaster & darkroom wizard !
Fine wedding and portrait photography Black & White our specialty.
Spectrum Photographic Inc. Temp: http://www.cybercomm.net/~spectrum
Bringing the fine art of photography to your wedding !
Paul Butzi
(SPECTRUM) wrote:
> I had 3 different batches with very different results but each
>went dead around two months on the shelf stored in glass bottles that
>were at least 2/3rds full and at a temp of 55-65 F.
I'm just curious. You imply that you've discussed your problems
in detail with various people (all implied to be very important in
the development of XTOL).
During these extensive discussions with people at Kodak, has
anyone ever pointed out to you the claimed storage properties
from Kodak publication J-108 (and, I assume, also in J-107):
"Full, tightly closed container: one year"
"partly full, tightly closed container: at least two months".
Perhaps the reason others don't have problems is that they both
read the directions and follow them. Why would a professional
use developer *after* the date the manufacturer suggests it will
be at risk of going bad? It just doesn't make sense.
I've got some sympathy for the people who unwittingly mixed
up batches of XTOL which were DOA because of moisture in
one packet. I've got little sympathy for people who ignore
the documentation and the manufacturer, get shitty results,
and then blame the product.
Especially when they badmouth the product in public, and it
turns out they've been ignoring the directions the whole
time.
-Paul
--
Web site under (slow) construction at http://www.halcyon.com/butzi/
GBreault
>Date: Fri, 18 June 1999 08:36 AM
I had the same experience using highly filtered well water. 1:1 dilution was
without problem. I've recently switched to TMAXrs at 1:7 due to all the
traffic on Xtol.
Jerry Breault
Steve1chsn
>turns out they've been ignoring the directions the whole
>time.
Excuse me Paul. I mixed a 5 litre package, separated that into 5, 0ne-litre
bottles(plastic). Bottles 1 and 2 were fine. Bottle 3 was bad. This was only
2 weeks old solution. I had been using XTOL for about two years before this
happened with no problems whatsoever and until it happened I was of the same
opinion as you. I agree that there are a lot of inconsistent and ignorant
darkroom workers out there that probably account for the bulk of the
complaints, BUT there are also quite a few other stories that can't be
explained by stupidity. Kinda like UFO sightings, eh? <g>
**** steve ****
ArtKramr
>Date: Sat, 19 June 1999 01:23 AM EDT
>Message-id: <376c2704....@news.halcyon.com>
>Perhaps the reason others don't have problems is that they both
>read the directions and follow them. Why would a professional
>use developer *after* the date the manufacturer suggests it will
>be at risk of going bad? It just doesn't make sense.
>I've got some sympathy for the people who unwittingly mixed
>up batches of XTOL which were DOA because of moisture in
>one packet. I've got little sympathy for people who ignore
>the documentation and the manufacturer, get shitty results,
>and then blame the product.
>
>Especially when they badmouth the product in public, and it
>turns out they've been ignoring the directions the whole
>time.
>
>-Paul
>--
Of course you are right. The more I hear of the XTOL problems, the more I
suspect pilot error.
Myron Wellan
I would like to see a thread started about all who LIKE XTOL. Some
people must be buying and using it to keep Kodak producing it. As for
myself - I've used it for over a year and have no problems -- as long as
I follow the directions.
Paul Butzi wrote:
> I'm just curious. You imply that you've discussed your problems
> in detail with various people (all implied to be very important in
> the development of XTOL).
>
> During these extensive discussions with people at Kodak, has
> anyone ever pointed out to you the claimed storage properties
> from Kodak publication J-108 (and, I assume, also in J-107):
> "Full, tightly closed container: one year"
> "partly full, tightly closed container: at least two months".
>
> Perhaps the reason others don't have problems is that they both
> read the directions and follow them. Why would a professional
> use developer *after* the date the manufacturer suggests it will
> be at risk of going bad? It just doesn't make sense.
> I've got some sympathy for the people who unwittingly mixed
> up batches of XTOL which were DOA because of moisture in
> one packet. I've got little sympathy for people who ignore
> the documentation and the manufacturer, get shitty results,
> and then blame the product.
>
> Especially when they badmouth the product in public, and it
> turns out they've been ignoring the directions the whole
> time.
>
> -Paul
> --
SPECTRUM
>On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 05:38:32 GMT, SPECTRUM <spec...@cybercomm.net>
>(SPECTRUM) wrote:
>
>
>> I had 3 different batches with very different results but each
>>went dead around two months on the shelf stored in glass bottles that
>>were at least 2/3rds full and at a temp of 55-65 F.
>
>I'm just curious. You imply that you've discussed your problems
>in detail with various people (all implied to be very important in
>the development of XTOL).
Well, Pro Products was kind of the intermediary actually.
Unfortunately by the time I found out that Sylvia and Dick were
responsible for the formulations, they had retired and went on tour.
Tom Weber and Michael D' D'Avignon were my main channels of
communication but I did have one lengthy conversation with one of
their engineers. Quite an interesting fellow actually.
Unfortunately MDD and Tom Weber have left the employment of EK
and all my negs seem to have went into the round file.
>During these extensive discussions with people at Kodak, has
>anyone ever pointed out to you the claimed storage properties
>from Kodak publication J-108 (and, I assume, also in J-107):
> "Full, tightly closed container: one year"
> "partly full, tightly closed container: at least two months".
Actually I pointed out these, what I consider to be more than
overly optimistic, claims.
>Perhaps the reason others don't have problems is that they both
>read the directions and follow them.
And just perhaps there is some variation in the packaging that
is at present un-accounted for. The very minute amount amounts of
Dimezone necessary in Xtol are very hard to measure and mix into a
homogeneous batch.
> Why would a professional
>use developer *after* the date the manufacturer suggests it will
>be at risk of going bad?
Who did this ?
> It just doesn't make sense.
>I've got some sympathy for the people who unwittingly mixed
>up batches of XTOL which were DOA because of moisture in
>one packet.
To the best of my knowledge that only happened with the 1
liter packets.
> I've got little sympathy for people who ignore
>the documentation and the manufacturer, get shitty results,
>and then blame the product.
Would seem a little incongruous.
>Especially when they badmouth the product in public, and it
>turns out they've been ignoring the directions the whole
>time.
Well I for one am quite aware of the "directions" and stored
my developer in a glass bottle and it went south sometime between the
date I mixed it up and developed several TMY negs and 8 weeks later
when I went to develop another batch of TMY. Considering that there
was only 300 ml of stock missing out of a 2.5 liter glass bottle, I
hardly think that oxidation was the problem.
In my opinion Kodak has grossly over-estimated the shelf life
and the total development potential of Xtol in an attempt to produce a
developer that is "environmentally friendly" and has some remarkable
characteristics. And when one is using such small quantities of
developing agents, you must pay particular attention to the mixing of
the compounds when making large batches.
BTW, I'm assuming that you read my rather lengthy post where I
explained to Kodak my opinion as to why their Xtol was an inconsistent
failure ?
Regards,
John S. Douglas Photographer, webmaster & darkroom wizard !
Fine wedding and portrait photography Black & White our specialty.
Spectrum Photographic Inc. http://www.spectrumphoto.com
Bringing the fine art of photography to your wedding !
Regards,
John S. Douglas Photographer, webmaster & darkroom wizard !
Fine wedding and portrait photography Black & White our specialty.
Spectrum Photographic Inc. http://www.spectrumphoto.com
SPECTRUM
>Of course you are right. The more I hear of the XTOL problems, the more I
>suspect pilot error.
>
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
Then how do you ignore the number of reasonably skilled people
reporting problems ?
SPECTRUM
<mwe...@mail.iamerica.net> wrote:
>I would like to see a thread started about all who LIKE XTOL. Some
>people must be buying and using it to keep Kodak producing it.
Such really isn't the case. They will make a product available
for a fairly long time anticipating a demand they may never appear.
But I'm sure that Xtol is sold in high enough quantities to keep it
profitable for Kodak to produce. After all, it's street price is
nearly 2X anything else.
BTW, I recommend doing a Dejanews search for Xtol and see what
percentage of users are satisfied. I don't think that D-76, Microphen
or Rodinal have anything to worry about !
Paul Butzi
>>In what environment were they stored?
>
>in a plastic environment about 72 deg F
What sort of plastic? HDPE, PET, or something else?
Roger Cole
(SPECTRUM) wrote:
Well, Paul's point was that your problem that occured at the eight
week point was right on the limit of the storage life according to
Kodak for the storage conditions you used, a partially full bottle.
Maybe not over, but right at the limit.
Again, that is right at the Kodak limit. Of course, they make no
distinciton as to _how_ much air space it takes to be considered
"partially full" but I think 300 ml missing would be enough to
qualify.
> In my opinion Kodak has grossly over-estimated the shelf life
>and the total development potential of Xtol in an attempt to produce a
>developer that is "environmentally friendly" and has some remarkable
>characteristics. And when one is using such small quantities of
>developing agents, you must pay particular attention to the mixing of
>the compounds when making large batches.
That may be. Then again, I think at least _some_ of the problem could
be that, in all their other storage life recommendations, Kodak is
conservative to the point of absurdity, at least in my experience. It
could be, at least in part, that a lot of people are just so used to
everything lasting at least twice as long as Kodak's claims, that they
are shocked when Xtol doesn't. If this is indeed part of the problem,
the blame is partly with the users and partly with Kodak, as they
would then have set up the situation by apparently using different
criteria for judging the shelf life of this product from those they
use for their others.
>
> BTW, I'm assuming that you read my rather lengthy post where I
>explained to Kodak my opinion as to why their Xtol was an inconsistent
>failure ?
>
>Regards,
>
>John S. Douglas Photographer, webmaster & darkroom wizard !
I am stil rather interested in any possible connection with distilled
water vs. any other type. Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall anyone
who mixed with distilled having problems. One person did mention
"highly filtered" water but that is very different from distilled. I
started using distilled water for all developers two decades ago when
I had very hard well water, and with it costing only $0.59/gallon at
Wal Mart I have continued doing so ever since.
I mix my Xtol, and all other developers, with distilled water for
stock, and dilute it with distilled as well. I store it in Falcon
Air-Evac bottles. Plastic yes, but easy to keep completely full. So
far, no problems, but I haven't kept a batch for long either. I tried
it with 1 liter packs, then used a few more since I knew I didn't have
time for much darkroom work. I have a 5 liter package I'm going to mix
up when my current 1 liter is gone, so maybe I'll see. I could be the
next "furious at Xtol" guy, but then again maybe not.
There DO seem to be enough otherwise experienced folks with problems
though to suspect something strange going on. Too much smoke not to be
at least a little flame.
Roger Cole
Paul Butzi
>>Especially when they badmouth the product in public, and it
>>turns out they've been ignoring the directions the whole
>>time.
>
>Excuse me Paul. I mixed a 5 litre package, separated that into 5, 0ne-litre
>bottles(plastic). Bottles 1 and 2 were fine. Bottle 3 was bad. This was only
>2 weeks old solution. I had been using XTOL for about two years before this
>happened with no problems whatsoever and until it happened I was of the same
>opinion as you.
Yes, I understand. I'm not trying to place you in that category
because:
1. Your storage period was two weeks, not two months.
2. You were storing it in full bottles.
John, on the other hand, was discussing episodes that he had
where the storage period (as cited in his post) was two months
and in partly full bottles. Since Kodak specifically state that
two months is the safe period for storage in those conditions,
I claim that's not a particularly interesting failure. It's like
complaining that D-76 goes bad after two months in a partly-filled
bottle. It's just expected - that's what the storage guidelines
are for.
It does no good at all to discuss failures that are at the bounds of
what Kodak suggest in their usage guidelines. Those reports are
just noise that make it hard to detect what is really going on.
> I agree that there are a lot of inconsistent and ignorant
>darkroom workers out there that probably account for the bulk of the
>complaints, BUT there are also quite a few other stories that can't be
>explained by stupidity. Kinda like UFO sightings, eh? <g>
Exactly. If you spend all your time sorting the expected failures
from the unexpected ones, you make no progress.
Personally, I wonder about the wisdom of storage in plastic, which
is certainly gas permeable to some degree for most ordinary plastics,
particularly HDPE, which is what most people store darkroom chemicals
in. Were your bottles HDPE or PET or something else?
Has anyone experienced an XTOL failure that was:
1. not the 'dead right out of the one liter packet' problem.
2. Storage conditions were full glass bottles.
Steve1chsn
I don't know the designation but they are the ubiquitous brown plastic photo
bottles.
**** steve ****
SPECTRUM
>Well, Paul's point was that your problem that occured at the eight
>week point was right on the limit of the storage life according to
>Kodak for the storage conditions you used, a partially full bottle.
>Maybe not over, but right at the limit.
I realize his point and I'm also quite aware that these limits
tend to be padded with safety margins that are beyond huge. A 100 %
margin is minimal to say the least.
>Again, that is right at the Kodak limit. Of course, they make no
>distinciton as to _how_ much air space it takes to be considered
>"partially full" but I think 300 ml missing would be enough to
>qualify.
I don't doubt that some oxidation took place. But I would
certainly doubt that 300 cc's of air would contain enough oxygen to
oxidize an entire bottle of developer which is stored between 55-65 F
in the dark, in less than two months time.
FWIW the films that I developed last had very, very little
silver developed on them. They weren't just flat. They weren't just
thin. They were nearly transparent.
>> In my opinion Kodak has grossly over-estimated the shelf life
>>and the total development potential of Xtol in an attempt to produce a
>>developer that is "environmentally friendly" and has some remarkable
>>characteristics. And when one is using such small quantities of
>>developing agents, you must pay particular attention to the mixing of
>>the compounds when making large batches.
>
>That may be. Then again, I think at least _some_ of the problem could
>be that, in all their other storage life recommendations, Kodak is
>conservative to the point of absurdity, at least in my experience. It
>could be, at least in part, that a lot of people are just so used to
>everything lasting at least twice as long as Kodak's claims, that they
>are shocked when Xtol doesn't. If this is indeed part of the problem,
>the blame is partly with the users and partly with Kodak, as they
>would then have set up the situation by apparently using different
>criteria for judging the shelf life of this product from those they
>use for their others.
Agreed on the criteria switch but keep in mind that they still
state that Xtol is in the top two most stable film developers
available.
>I am stil rather interested in any possible connection with distilled
>water vs. any other type. Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall anyone
>who mixed with distilled having problems. One person did mention
>"highly filtered" water but that is very different from distilled. I
>started using distilled water for all developers two decades ago when
>I had very hard well water, and with it costing only $0.59/gallon at
>Wal Mart I have continued doing so ever since.
>
>I mix my Xtol, and all other developers, with distilled water for
>stock, and dilute it with distilled as well. I store it in Falcon
>Air-Evac bottles. Plastic yes, but easy to keep completely full. So
>far, no problems, but I haven't kept a batch for long either. I tried
>it with 1 liter packs, then used a few more since I knew I didn't have
>time for much darkroom work. I have a 5 liter package I'm going to mix
>up when my current 1 liter is gone, so maybe I'll see. I could be the
>next "furious at Xtol" guy, but then again maybe not.
>
>There DO seem to be enough otherwise experienced folks with problems
>though to suspect something strange going on. Too much smoke not to be
>at least a little flame.
I think that you are correct about the need to use distilled
water. Someone has brought it to my attention that it is possible that
ascorbate could be affected by the amount of iron in the water. I'm
looking into this further.
Regards,
John S. Douglas Photographer, webmaster & darkroom wizard !
Steve1chsn
>Personally, I wonder about the wisdom of storage in plastic, which
>is certainly gas permeable to some degree for most ordinary plastics,
>particularly HDPE, which is what most people store darkroom chemicals
>in.
Yes this is a possibility. However, remember that I had not encountered a
problem in the previous two years or so using the exact same technique and
bottles. Even if the bottles did cause the problem, given that almost everyone
uses these containers, wouldn't one expect that Kodak recommend against using
them? The same goes for the distilled water solution. If you were putting a
product on the market that was sensitive in this respect, wouldn't you want to
advise your customers of such?
I am tempted to look towards the mixture itself simply because the failures are
so sporadic. Neither my water or storage bottles have changed during the time
I have mixed perhaps 20 or so 5 litre packages.
**** steve ****
Paul Butzi
(SPECTRUM) wrote:
>> Why would a professional
>>use developer *after* the date the manufacturer suggests it will
>>be at risk of going bad?
>
> Who did this ?
Let me see.
1. You told us "I had 3 different batches with very different results
but each went dead around two months on the shelf stored in glass
bottles that were at least 2/3rds full and at a temp of 55-65 F."
2. Kodak says "Partly full, tightly closed container: at least 2
months."
What, exactly, is the problem that you see? It sounds like
Kodak told you the developer would go bad at about two
months. Sure enough, your experience is that it went bad
at about two months. There's a certain pleasant consistency
to the situation. I certainly don't see any difficulty.
> Well I for one am quite aware of the "directions" and stored
>my developer in a glass bottle and it went south sometime between the
>date I mixed it up and developed several TMY negs and 8 weeks later
>when I went to develop another batch of TMY. Considering that there
>was only 300 ml of stock missing out of a 2.5 liter glass bottle, I
>hardly think that oxidation was the problem.
Let me see if I can make my point more clearly.
1. You stored XTOL in a partly filled bottle for eight weeks.
2. Kodak told you that the developer would go bad in about eight
weeks in a partly filled bottle.
3. You discovered that, sure enough, Kodak were right, the developer
was bad after 8 weeks stored in a partly filled bottle.
4. You claim this is a problem.
5. I claim it is not.
Paul Butzi
>Paul wrote:
>>Personally, I wonder about the wisdom of storage in plastic, which
>>is certainly gas permeable to some degree for most ordinary plastics,
>>particularly HDPE, which is what most people store darkroom chemicals
>>in.
>
>Yes this is a possibility. However, remember that I had not encountered a
>problem in the previous two years or so using the exact same technique and
>bottles.
All good points, especially if you've been using the same bottles for
a long time, which would tend to rule out contamination of the bottle
as well (unless you use the bottles for something else, too).
>Even if the bottles did cause the problem, given that almost everyone
>uses these containers, wouldn't one expect that Kodak recommend against using
>them?
Maybe yes, maybe no.
> The same goes for the distilled water solution. If you were putting a
>product on the market that was sensitive in this respect, wouldn't you want to
>advise your customers of such?
Yes.
>I am tempted to look towards the mixture itself simply because the failures are
>so sporadic. Neither my water or storage bottles have changed during the time
>I have mixed perhaps 20 or so 5 litre packages.
Water might be an issue. I use regular tap water for mixing
developer. At one point, I asked the local water people about
what they do to the water to make it safe. Their story was that
it varied quite a lot, with what they did in the winter being
quite different from what they add in the summer. I have no
idea what sort of variability you can expect in *your* water
supply. Despite the claimed variation in mine, I see little
difference. Still, it's an unknown.
There are often *lots* of variables. For instance, I've
(at various times) mixed Dektol in two different ways:
1. Set the temp controlled faucet to 100F. Fill the bucket
to the mark. Mix in the powder. Top off from the temp
controlled faucet to one gallon.
2. Fill the bucket with more than enough water from the hot
tap - substantially hotter than 100F. Let it stand
and cool to 100F. Pour out water until the mixing mark.
Mix in the powder. Pour back water to top off to one gallon.
Method two produces Dektol which seems to last indefinitely in
glass bottles. Method one produces Dektol which goes bad
rapidly, even when stored in a full glass bottle. I presume
the difference is that in method 2 the hot water has all the
dissolved gases driven out of solution since more of the water
is heated, but I don't really know.
Paul Butzi
>Paul wrote:
>>Personally, I wonder about the wisdom of storage in plastic, which
>>is certainly gas permeable to some degree for most ordinary plastics,
>>particularly HDPE, which is what most people store darkroom chemicals
>>in.
>
>Yes this is a possibility. However, remember that I had not encountered a
>problem in the previous two years or so using the exact same technique and
>bottles. Even if the bottles did cause the problem, given that almost everyone
>uses these containers, wouldn't one expect that Kodak recommend against using
>them? The same goes for the distilled water solution. If you were putting a
>product on the market that was sensitive in this respect, wouldn't you want to
>advise your customers of such?
>I am tempted to look towards the mixture itself simply because the failures are
>so sporadic. Neither my water or storage bottles have changed during the time
>I have mixed perhaps 20 or so 5 litre packages.
One more question - I've no reason to suspect that the dilution you
use is an issue, but for completeness sake, could you tell us what
dilution you use?
ArtKramr
>Date: Sat, 19 June 1999 09:39 AM EDT
>Message-id: <376BBA...@mail.iamerica.net>
>
>I agree with Paul - 100% ----
>
>myself - I've used it for over a year and have no problems -- as long as
>I follow the directions.
>
>
>Paul Butzi wrote:
I think XTOL is an outstnding developer. Seems all my lenses have become just a
little bit sharper since I stated using XTOL. And I never have had a single
problem with it. I still suspect pilot error on the failures.
Paul Butzi
(SPECTRUM) wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Jun 1999 18:02:24 GMT, bu...@halcyon.com (Paul Butzi)
>wrote:
>
>>What, exactly, is the problem that you see?
>
> What I see is that you are obviously blowing a minor detail
>(generally considered a technicality) out of proportion. I did not say
>that it developed negatives poorly. I stated that essentially there
>was almost no silver reduced _AT ALL_ ! As in "YOU CAN READ THE
>ENTIRE NEW YORK TIMES THROUGH THAT FILM" and not get
>an eyestrain !
>
> Also this to me means that it had gone "bad" pretty quickly.
>Far more quickly than any other developer that I know of. Rodinal and
>HC110 as well as Microphen and D-76 are far, far more stable .
Ok, fine. When XTOL fails, it fails completely in a shorter period.
When D-76 fails, it fails a bit, and then continues to fail more and
more until it's completely dead.
So what? Kodak say it will fail. You should expect it will fail.
Why not pitch it out after six weeks in a partly filled bottle
(or better yet, never have a partly filled bottle) and be done
with it? Sure, it requires some different behavior from D-76.
If I mix D-76, I have to pitch it after about two weeks because
the activity increases (but only for TMax films, TMX
in particular). This annoying behavior is unmentioned in Kodak's
pub on D-76, although I had it confirmed by the support people
on the phone. That doesn't make D-76 bad, it just means I
should understand its limitations for developing my film. The
fact that I have this problem with D-76 doesn't have me telling
people they should never, ever use D-76, that Kodak are bozos,
or anything else. D-76 is fine in a lot of cases. So's XTOL.
D-76 has some problems. So does any other developer.
Why the vitriol reserved just for XTOL?
>> It sounds like Kodak told you the developer would go bad at about two
>>months. Sure enough, your experience is that it went bad
>>at about two months. There's a certain pleasant consistency
>>to the situation. I certainly don't see any difficulty.
>
> I'm sure you don't but then I'm sure that the rest of the
>photographic community might question why it loses potency so quickly
>given that it's supposed to be the new king of stability.
The only stability claims I've seen are 'one year
in a full bottle', "two months in a partly filled bottle'. This is
longer than d-76 (six months) but less than Tmax and Tmax-rs
syrups(listed, I think, as 'indefinite').
J-108 says two months in a partly full bottle.
As far as I can tell, none of the people who use XTOL do so because
of superior storage life - most of those people use one of the
syrup style developers. Most people who use XTOL routinely use
it because they like the grain and tonality.
> In fact E.K.
>gives it an indefinite shelf life with replenishment. I take it that
>you didn't read that part ?
Nope. I never replenish, and don't know anyone who does. Never read
it, don't care. Never saw a copy of j-106 until just now when I got
it from their web site. Yep, they say 'indefinite' when you use
a floating lid. Got one in the 2.5 liter bottle?
> As something with such an extended shelf
>life, I would certainly expect it to develop _SOMETHING_ of an image
>during the time that Kodak says that it's supposed to be good.
Why? Kodak say it will go bad. They don't say how. XTOL is
different in formulation. I presume that it would have different
characteristics. If the behavior when it goes bad is different,
I'm not surprised.
>>1. You stored XTOL in a partly filled bottle for eight weeks.
>
> Yep. 300 ml out of 2500. A whopping 12.5 % ! I wonder what the
>amount of atmospheric oxygen content of that huge quantity is ?
Apparently, the content of the 300ml of air is enough to make
2.5l of XTOL go bad. What's your point, that XTOL needs less
air to go bad? Big deal. If you want to split hairs over
what 'partly full' means, go ahead.
>
>>2. Kodak told you that the developer would go bad in about eight
>> weeks in a partly filled bottle.
>
> Actually they stated such in the J107 that they sent me along
>with the beta stock.
Oh. I see. This was XTOL that you got before Kodak started selling
it. Can you tell us if the formulation was changed at all
between the 'beta stock' you had fail and the stuff I buy today
when I go down to the store? The rest of the photographic
community might like to know if the XTOL you're discussing
is the same XTOL we're discussing. I know that might be considered
blowing a minor detail (generally considered a technicality) out of
proportion, but that's the way I am.
> I looked up the specs after I had developed the
>films and no image was developed. After all, I've had no problem with
>HC110, T-Max, T-Max RS, D-76 or even Perceptol, all of which are Kodak
>developers .
XTOL is a different formulation from HC-110, Tmax, Tmax-RS, D-76.
(Perceptol is actually made by Ilford). We expect different
characteristics. That's why we use different developers - because
they're different.
Are you telling me that you expect the chemical behavior to depend on
the manufacturer rather than the laws of chemistry? Personally, I'd
go with the laws of chemistry.
> There is "bad" then there is "completely bad". And generally a
>developer will show some oxidation before it is "completely bad". This
>did not.
Ok. Your point would be? If Kodak's storage lifetime suggestions
had been 'two years in partly filled bottle' and you had it fail
at eight weeks, I'd agree that you'd experienced a failure that
should concern us. If you're excited because Kodak didn't suggest
that it would be 'completely bad' instead of just 'bad', I think
you're the one who's blowing a minor detail (otherwise known
as a technicality) out of proportion.
Steve had it fail at two weeks in a full bottle
which works out to about 1/24 of Kodak's suggested storage life, and
that's a concern to me.
You had it fail at eight weeks, just about
when Kodak suggested it would fail. That does not concern me.
You say the failure was more severe than you expected. That
also does not concern (or surprise) me. If you want to use
products that are at the end of the period where the manufacturer
say it will still be good, well, that's up to you. Personally,
I try to avoid it, and if/when I goof up I figure it's my own damn
fault rather than blaming Kodak.
I'm not saying that the failure mode of XTOL is not annoying. I'm
just saying that if we're trying to sort out problems with XTOL it
helps to separate the expected problems from the unexpected ones.
Using it past Kodak's storage recommendations would be expected
problems. Using it at 1/24 of Kodak's recommendation (as Steve
did) would be unexpected problems.
Michael Fraser
Xtol is an excellent developer.
Those who report 'trouble' with a 'defectively' designed product are
probably using contaminated water or not following (the amazingly
simple) instructions. Either that or Kodak, with its more than hundred
years of photographic history is to blame. If we apply Occom's Razor
(when presented with more than one solution to a problem, the simplest
is the correct one) it's got to be pilot error. My bet is Kodak knows
what they are doing.
SPECTRUM
that you simply can't agree to disagree.
Anyway...................
On Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:01:36 GMT, bu...@halcyon.com (Paul Butzi)
wrote:
>> Also this to me means that it had gone "bad" pretty quickly.
>>Far more quickly than any other developer that I know of. Rodinal and
>>HC110 as well as Microphen and D-76 are far, far more stable .
>
>Ok, fine. When XTOL fails, it fails completely in a shorter period.
>When D-76 fails, it fails a bit, and then continues to fail more and
>more until it's completely dead.
Which would take a year or more under the same conditions that
I had the Xtol in.
>So what? Kodak say it will fail. You should expect it will fail.
Everything fails eventually. OTOH no reducer/developer that I
know of fails so abruptly and completely as does the Xtol formula.
>Why not pitch it out after six weeks in a partly filled bottle
>(or better yet, never have a partly filled bottle) and be done
>with it? Sure, it requires some different behavior from D-76.
Why ? It is nearly identical to D-76. From what I understand
even the molecule for the iso-ascorbate is very, very similar to
hydroquinone. The major difference in the formula being the use of
Dimezone in a powdered form. AFAIK this is the first time since
Technidol LC that Kodak has tried a dry developer with Dimezone in it.
>If I mix D-76, I have to pitch it after about two weeks because
>the activity increases (but only for TMax films, TMX
>in particular). This annoying behavior is unmentioned in Kodak's
>pub on D-76, although I had it confirmed by the support people
>on the phone. That doesn't make D-76 bad, it just means I
>should understand its limitations for developing my film. The
>fact that I have this problem with D-76 doesn't have me telling
>people they should never, ever use D-76, that Kodak are bozos,
>or anything else. D-76 is fine in a lot of cases. So's XTOL.
>D-76 has some problems. So does any other developer.
I've never experienced a development potential increase with
D-76. Did Kodak tell you why this was happening ? It certainly would
be interesting to know.
>Why the vitriol reserved just for XTOL?
It failed to develop silver halides. When I tried again, it
failed again. And again. No other developer has had such a poor track
record in my darkroom. None.
>The only stability claims I've seen are 'one year
>in a full bottle', "two months in a partly filled bottle'. This is
>longer than d-76 (six months) but less than Tmax and Tmax-rs
>syrups(listed, I think, as 'indefinite').
Storage Life of Unused Solutions Approximately
Full, Tightly Closed Container 1 year
Partially Filled At least 2 months
Tightly Closed Container Indefinitely,if new
Replenisher Tank with a solution is added to
Floating Lid replace that used by
the processor
>J-108 says two months in a partly full bottle.
Actually it says "At least two months." but I'm sure you
didn't read that.
And actually you should be reading the J109 as it's been out
for a while now. FYI, it's at :
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.shtml#669909
>As far as I can tell, none of the people who use XTOL do so because
>of superior storage life - most of those people use one of the
>syrup style developers. Most people who use XTOL routinely use
>it because they like the grain and tonality.
If you check with Pro Products you will find that they are (or
at least were) recommending that labs switch to Xtol in their
processors.
>Nope. I never replenish, and don't know anyone who does. Never read
>it, don't care.
Why deny yourself the knowledge of the very materials you are
using ? The available methods all imply certain characteristics.
Stability in machine processors is a must as they have huge quantities
of film run through daily . Buy looking at maintenance recommendations
you can determine a few of a developers characteristics.
> Never saw a copy of j-106 until just now when I got
>it from their web site. Yep, they say 'indefinite' when you use
>a floating lid. Got one in the 2.5 liter bottle?
No, but they do say "At least 2 months" and that was when I
used the bottle up. Within "At least 2 months".
>> As something with such an extended shelf
>>life, I would certainly expect it to develop _SOMETHING_ of an image
>>during the time that Kodak says that it's supposed to be good.
>
>Why? Kodak say it will go bad. They don't say how. XTOL is
>different in formulation. I presume that it would have different
>characteristics. If the behavior when it goes bad is different,
>I'm not surprised.
Do you really believe that they would recommend a developer
for use in a production facility if they knew it was capable of going
that "bad" that quickly ?
>>>1. You stored XTOL in a partly filled bottle for eight weeks.
>>
>> Yep. 300 ml out of 2500. A whopping 12.5 % ! I wonder what the
>>amount of atmospheric oxygen content of that huge quantity is ?
>
>Apparently, the content of the 300ml of air is enough to make
>2.5l of XTOL go bad. What's your point, that XTOL needs less
>air to go bad? Big deal. If you want to split hairs over
>what 'partly full' means, go ahead.
Splitting hairs ? ! You simply don't know anything about the
chemistry of the developers do you ? There is more than enough sulfite
in Xtol to absorb all of the oxygen in that tiny amount of air !
>>>2. Kodak told you that the developer would go bad in about eight
>>> weeks in a partly filled bottle.
>>
>> Actually they stated such in the J107 that they sent me along
>>with the beta stock.
>
>Oh. I see. This was XTOL that you got before Kodak started selling
>it. Can you tell us if the formulation was changed at all
>between the 'beta stock' you had fail and the stuff I buy today
>when I go down to the store?
According to Kodak it hasn't been changed.
> I know that might be considered
>blowing a minor detail (generally considered a technicality) out of
>proportion, but that's the way I am.
I agree.
>> I looked up the specs after I had developed the
>>films and no image was developed. After all, I've had no problem with
>>HC110, T-Max, T-Max RS, D-76 or even Perceptol, all of which are Kodak
>>developers .
>
>XTOL is a different formulation from HC-110, Tmax, Tmax-RS, D-76.
>(Perceptol is actually made by Ilford). We expect different
>characteristics. That's why we use different developers - because
>they're different.
Really ? Different, of course. Not _NONE_ !
>Are you telling me that you expect the chemical behavior to depend on
>the manufacturer rather than the laws of chemistry? Personally, I'd
>go with the laws of chemistry.
Who brought the laws of chemistry into this ? And of course it
depends on the formulation created by the manufacturer. Developers are
very complex composites made with agents, accelerators, buffers, and
preservatives. All have an effect on each other as well as the image.
However if there is no image then something is wrong. Very, very
wrong. Something didn't work did it ?
>> There is "bad" then there is "completely bad". And generally a
>>developer will show some oxidation before it is "completely bad". This
>>did not.
>
>Ok. Your point would be? If Kodak's storage lifetime suggestions
>had been 'two years in partly filled bottle' and you had it fail
>at eight weeks, I'd agree that you'd experienced a failure that
>should concern us. If you're excited because Kodak didn't suggest
>that it would be 'completely bad' instead of just 'bad', I think
>you're the one who's blowing a minor detail (otherwise known
>as a technicality) out of proportion.
I suggest that you take that minor technicality up with Kodak
who would be quite glad to hear your opinion on why their data sheets
are incorrect.
>Steve had it fail at two weeks in a full bottle
>which works out to about 1/24 of Kodak's suggested storage life, and
>that's a concern to me.
>
>You had it fail at eight weeks, just about
>when Kodak suggested it would fail.
Incorrect actually but you haven't figured that part out yet.
You would be better to view a developer as one would food in
the supermarket which is also where you can find ascorbate. "Best if
used by...". A developer doesn't simply stop working completely unless
there is something remarkably wrong in the formulation.
>I'm not saying that the failure mode of XTOL is not annoying. I'm
>just saying that if we're trying to sort out problems with XTOL it
>helps to separate the expected problems from the unexpected ones.
>Using it past Kodak's storage recommendations would be expected
>problems. Using it at 1/24 of Kodak's recommendation (as Steve
>did) would be unexpected problems.
AFAIC, I have sorted out the problem with Xtol. IMO, it has
been formulated incorrectly, packaged incorrectly or some combination
of the two factors.
BTW, I find it amazing that you continue to single me out and
post to this thread even though I've asked you to agree to disagree. I
must therefore assume that you are simply feeling disagreeable.
Roger Cole
>
>Water might be an issue. I use regular tap water for mixing
>developer. At one point, I asked the local water people about
>what they do to the water to make it safe. Their story was that
>it varied quite a lot, with what they did in the winter being
>quite different from what they add in the summer. I have no
>idea what sort of variability you can expect in *your* water
>supply. Despite the claimed variation in mine, I see little
>difference. Still, it's an unknown.
>
>There are often *lots* of variables. For instance, I've
>(at various times) mixed Dektol in two different ways:
>
>1. Set the temp controlled faucet to 100F. Fill the bucket
> to the mark. Mix in the powder. Top off from the temp
> controlled faucet to one gallon.
>
>2. Fill the bucket with more than enough water from the hot
> tap - substantially hotter than 100F. Let it stand
> and cool to 100F. Pour out water until the mixing mark.
> Mix in the powder. Pour back water to top off to one gallon.
>
>Method two produces Dektol which seems to last indefinitely in
>glass bottles. Method one produces Dektol which goes bad
>rapidly, even when stored in a full glass bottle. I presume
>the difference is that in method 2 the hot water has all the
>dissolved gases driven out of solution since more of the water
>is heated, but I don't really know.
>
>-Paul
>
>--
>Web site under (slow) construction at http://www.halcyon.com/butzi/
Paul, that is WEIRD..about the Dektol I mean. I was about to say
something to Steve about the variability of tap water, but you beat me
to that. Fine, and we agree that it _can_ vary. But the minor
differences in your mixing of Dektol are fascinating. I've bad mouthed
Dektol before, in comparison with the LPD I've also used, because I
said the LPD could be used somewhat, then the diluted working strength
poured into a bottle and used again with no problem at all days or
weeks later. When I have tried this with Dektol it has always been
useless even two days later. Yes I know it is cheap and so on, there's
just something in me that rebels against diluting a liter of developer
for a short session, making a couple of 8x10s, and then pouring it
out. Anyway, others have told me they've been able to do this with
Dektol and wondered what my problem was. I mix it with distilled
water, heated to the needed temperature in a microwave, but this has
certainly started me thinking.
I sitll don't like the way Dektol, and most other paper developers
FTM, seem to stain everything in sight, which LPD does NOT do. I don't
know what is in the latter, but I would not be surprised if it might
be glycin, since it lasts a long time and has very little tendency to
stain surfaces.
Sorry for the digression. This certainly isn't about Xtol as such, but
it is about variances in mixing and shelf life. Some real food for
thought...
Roger Cole
Paul Butzi
(SPECTRUM) wrote:
>>If I mix D-76, I have to pitch it after about two weeks because
>>the activity increases (but only for TMax films, TMX
>>in particular). This annoying behavior is unmentioned in Kodak's
>>pub on D-76, although I had it confirmed by the support people
>>on the phone. That doesn't make D-76 bad, it just means I
>>should understand its limitations for developing my film. The
>>fact that I have this problem with D-76 doesn't have me telling
>>people they should never, ever use D-76, that Kodak are bozos,
>>or anything else. D-76 is fine in a lot of cases. So's XTOL.
>>D-76 has some problems. So does any other developer.
>
> I've never experienced a development potential increase with
>D-76. Did Kodak tell you why this was happening ? It certainly would
>be interesting to know.
As you point out below, it would be pointless for me to say why it
happens since I simply don't know anything about the chemistry of
devlopers.
But it would be great if you could give us the reason. It's
so nice to hear from an expert.
>>Nope. I never replenish, and don't know anyone who does. Never read
>>it, don't care.
>
> Why deny yourself the knowledge of the very materials you are
>using ? The available methods all imply certain characteristics.
>Stability in machine processors is a must as they have huge quantities
>of film run through daily . Buy looking at maintenance recommendations
>you can determine a few of a developers characteristics.
Thanks for the tip. I don't replenish because it would be totally
inappropriate to the way I develop film, the amount of film I develop,
the results I desire, the consistency I desire in film processing, the
materials I use, the freedom from process monitoring and adjustment I
desire, and the materials I use.
But it's always nice to hear from an expert.
> Splitting hairs ? ! You simply don't know anything about the
>chemistry of the developers do you ?
I guess not. I don't claim to be an expert, but it's always nice to
hear from one.
> AFAIC, I have sorted out the problem with Xtol. IMO, it has
>been formulated incorrectly, packaged incorrectly or some combination
>of the two factors.
Thanks. It's always nice to hear from an expert.
Steve1chsn
>One more question - I've no reason to suspect that the dilution you
>use is an issue, but for completeness sake, could you tell us what
>dilution you use?
Dilution was 1:1. Total volume 500ml.
**** steve ****
Steve1chsn
>probably using contaminated water or not following (the amazingly
>simple) instructions. Either that or Kodak, with its more than hundred
>years of photographic history is to blame. If we apply Occom's Razor
>(when presented with more than one solution to a problem, the simplest
>is the correct one) it's got to be pilot error. My bet is Kodak knows
>what they are doing.
Oh boy! A real logistician you are!
**** steve ****
SPECTRUM
<mdfr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> My bet is Kodak knows
>what they are doing.
I'll take that bet ! And considering I've been developing film
since 1977 I think I know enough to mix and use a developer. Evidently
Kodak does to or they wouldn't have asked my opinion on the beta.
Cees de Groot
>2. Kodak says "Partly full, tightly closed container: at least 2
>months."
>2. Kodak told you that the developer would go bad in about eight
> weeks in a partly filled bottle.
Sorry, these are not the same statements. Typically (I speak from
experience in the pharmaceutical industry, but I don't think this
is anything else), these claims result from carefully conducted
tests in climate chambers representing temperature and humidity
for the place where the stuff will be stored (I'd say that
they take something like 25 deg.cent. for darkroom storage),
measure where the stuff goes wrong by some predetermined point
on a graph, then divide this time by some big safety margin (like 1.5)
to protect against lawsuits, and then print the resulting time on
the package. So they say something like "our tests have shown Xtol
to have a shelf-life of around 3 months in an average darkroom, so
you should expect this stuff to work for at least 2 months". This
is something different from "this stuff goes bad in 8 weeks".
Furthermore, the fact that almost all the "Xtol-gone-bad" claims say that
Xtol went *really* bad, like in "reuse this piece of film as overhead
transparency material", I think something else than gradual degredation
due to storage is going on. Maybe the water could indeed be the culprit,
it seems to be the most common source of variance in all the stories here.
(that's one of the big advantages of Rodinal - I think its shelflife
is expressed in centuries :-))
--
Cees de Groot http://www.cdegroot.com <c...@cdegroot.com>
rec.photo.darkroom FAQ: http://www.cdegroot.com/photo/darkroom-faq.html
Barry Sherman
Paul Butzi wrote:
> There are often *lots* of variables. For instance, I've
> (at various times) mixed Dektol in two different ways:
>
> 1. Set the temp controlled faucet to 100F. Fill the bucket
> to the mark. Mix in the powder. Top off from the temp
> controlled faucet to one gallon.
>
> 2. Fill the bucket with more than enough water from the hot
> tap - substantially hotter than 100F. Let it stand
> and cool to 100F. Pour out water until the mixing mark.
> Mix in the powder. Pour back water to top off to one gallon.
>
> Method two produces Dektol which seems to last indefinitely in
> glass bottles. Method one produces Dektol which goes bad
> rapidly, even when stored in a full glass bottle. I presume
> the difference is that in method 2 the hot water has all the
> dissolved gases driven out of solution since more of the water
> is heated, but I don't really know.
Just a little anecdote. I usually store Dektol in one of those two-gallon
translucent white plastic containers with the spigot at the bottom and a floating
lid that you can get from the usual mail order houses. I've been in a prolonged
period of color printing and just a couple of weeks ago decided to print some b/w
stuff. There was a gallon of Dektol still in the container which was easily 9
months old, having been mixed some time prior to November of last year.
Now, my usual working method is to work at an 8x10 size and then to scale up to full
size, typically 16x20 or 20x24, after I get a good 8x10. When I'm working on 8x10
work prints, typically two hours at a time in the evenings, I toss the developer at
the end of each evening. I usually mix up 21 oz. of dektol 1+2. My experience runs
counter to St. AA's - he said that he processed 2 8x10's in each ounce of stock
Dektol. I only develop 1 8x10 per oz, because when I compared, I found that 2/oz
showed lowered contrast.
Anyway ...
The old stock developer was a little darker than when fresh, but the 8x10's came out
with about the expected contrast. So, when I was ready to make 20x24's, I mixed up
a gallon and processed the 3 20x24 copies. Ok, that's only the equivalent of 12
8x10's in 33 oz of developer so I poured it into a gallon container and saved it.
That was the middle of last week.
Then this week I started to print something else, re-used the old Dektol working
solution and thought that possibly the contrast wasn't quite what it should be. So
I mixed a gallon of fresh Dektol and found that there was about a 1/2 grade increase
in contrast with the fresh developer.
The point of this? Using 9 month old stock, stored in plastic, and re-using
partially used working strengh mixture produced only about a 1/2 grade loss of
contrast. I'm pretty impressed with that storage life.
Barry
--
Barry Sherman | Art does not reproduce what we see.
Suma Technologies, LLC | It makes us see. -- Paul Klee
My opinions, not Suma's |
SPECTRUM
IMO, hydroquinone is simply one of the longest lived developers ever
to have hit the photo market.
Regards,
John S. Douglas Photographer, webmaster & darkroom wizard !
Fine wedding and portrait photography Black & White our specialty.
Spectrum Photographic Inc. http://www.spectrumphoto.com
Bringing the fine art of photography to your wedding !
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 14:14:08 -0700, Barry Sherman <ba...@sumatech.com>
wrote:
Dante Stella
I'm not in XTOL the burned category, but I can comment on some of Kodak's
numbers. In my brief experiment involving 5 liters of developer, I found
that (at 70 degrees F) that
TMY looks very flat
TMX comes out fine, with excellent shadow detail
VP ends up with way too much contrast
To allay any coming claims of "user error," I offer the following:
Solutions mixed per directions.
Stored 1:1 in a 2.5 gallon container
Developer used once
Agitation held constant
Temperature for VP, TMX = 70; for TMY = 71
Time per Kodak for 0.58 CI
Sequence:
TMY 135 (1)
TMY (2) 120
VP (2)
TMX (1) 135
Solution came from a spigot on the bottom of the bottle, so there are no
settling issues. All films were developed w/in two weeks, so that storage
is not an issue. Most importantly, the TMY was developed first.
Interestingly, I got similar results with 3 rolls of TMY processed by
machine in Xtol and 16 rolls of TMY developed by hand in another lab.
Negs from TMY always seem to look flat. The prints, as you can imagine,
require higher grades of paper. Does anyone have a regime for making TMY
negs look like TMX negs (which look nicer, more "normal"?) The only
situations in which Kodak's times look good on TMY is when you would
expect very high contrast (i.e. flash, bright sunlight on white surfaces).
All involved exposures were incident with properly calibrated meter and
camera. What the hell is going on?
Thanks
------------
Dante Stella
Lloyd Erlick
Hello Dante,
I use quite a bit of TMY (in 120 format.)
When I first started using it, I found the same results as you
describe.
The cure, for me, was to start rating TMY at EI 200. I think Kodak
must have a policy of printing the highest, most optimistic,
sales-stimulating numbers on their film boxes.
In my opinion. TMY is a 200 film that peforms quite well when pushed
to 400.
A fifteen or twenty per cent reduction in film development time may be
needed when using TMY at EI 200.
Here's my TMY (exposed at EI 200) development regimen:
Presoak in plain water at 21C 2-3 minutes, develop in Xtol diluted 1+2
(I dilute with distilled water), 12 minutes at 21C, rinse in plain
water 21C, stop bath 30 seconds, rinse in plain water 21C, double bath
fix setup (I use plain sodium thiosulfate fixer for both fixing baths,
for five minutes in each bath. If you use rapid fix, the double bath
is still a good idea to help prevent the dreaded magneta negatives.
Use the fixing times advised by the manufacturer.) After fixing (and
plain water rinsing), I also use a double bath setup for washaid,
which in my case is two per cent sodium sulfite mixed one-shot for
each procesing run.
TMY can certainly disappoint if handled in less than optimum manner.
When exposed and processed perfectly, it can deliver superlative
results.
I wonder if Kodak ever really thought such a demanding film could ever
replace Tri-X???
--le
Dante Stella <da...@umich.edu> wrote:
>Sequence:
>Thanks
>------------
>Dante Stella
-------------------------------------
Lloyd Erlick,
357 Richmond Street West,
Toronto M5V 1X3 Canada.
---
voice416-596-8751
ll...@the-wire.com
http://www.heylloyd.com
-------------------------------------
ShadCat11
250 and developing for @ 0.52 CI.
If I read your message correctly, you store your Xtol premixed 1:1. I have
always thought developers should be diluted just before use or they deteriorate
prematurely, possibly accounting for underdevelopment of your TMY. OTOH, your
overdeveloped VP would indicate otherwise. So, I will await comments from
others far wiser than me concerning this matter.
Paul Butzi
wrote:
I don't know. As another data point, I process TMY, both 4x5 and
35mm, in XTOL 1+1 at 75F in a Jobo.
To my considerable surprise, the Kodak times are perfect for my
darkroom. TMX times seemed very slightly long (perhaps 5%). I ran
a roll or two of Tri-X and the times seemed (if I recall correctly)
just a bit short. TMZ times seem right on, although it's a bit hard
to tell since I tend to use TMZ in weird lighting.
Carl Wegerer
I dropped a couple rolls of film to a professional lab in March. I thought
they were using a pair of developers. When I picked up my negs, they looked
"undercooked". I posted a question to a ng, which someone at the lab read.
Then came a phone call to my home. I thought they were just trying to cover
their butt. It turns out a switch was made to Xtol but the pricing guides
had not been updated.
SPECTRUM
people that have posted problems with this brew.
Regards,
John S. Douglas Photographer, webmaster & darkroom wizard !
Fine wedding and portrait photography Black & White our specialty.
Spectrum Photographic Inc. http://www.spectrumphoto.com
Bringing the fine art of photography to your wedding !
On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 03:02:44 GMT, "Carl Wegerer" <weg...@flash.net>
wrote: