Xtol substitute???
Ray C.
The recent thread about Xtol has me a bit concerned.
I have been using it regularly with good results for
a few months but, my local camera shop has indicated
that many customers have had it fail on them. I do
mostly outdoor scenery and put a good deal of effort
into my shooting excursions. Now, I feel like a time
bomb is ticking...
Given this, can someone recommend a different developer
(doesn't have to be Kodak) that has essentially the
same characteristics and is "totally" reliable?
Much thanks...
Regards
Ray Ciurej
william mitchell
before doing any real film developing. If it turns black it should be okay.
Just because the developer has worked before doesn't mean that it hasn't
gone bad.
Wayne
There is an XTOL "substitute" but I've never seen feedback by anyone who
has used it and I dont think anything is "totally" reliable
Wayne
travglen
that gave a recipe for a homemade ascorbic acid soup.
Rolfe Tessem
The five liter package of Xtol seems to be totally reliable.
It's the one liter package that seems to have problems due to leakage in
the actual physical containers which the powders come in. Kodak claims
to have solved even this problem, but there have been some relatively
recent reports here nonetheless.
As far as I know, the five liter package has been unproblematic, other
than figuring out how to store the five liter stock solution. For most
of us, it can take quite a while to go through that much stock --
especially if you use it 1:1 or even 1:2 as most do.
As always, YMMV.
--
Rolfe Tessem | Lucky Duck Productions, Inc.
ro...@ldp.com | 96 Morton Street
(212) 463-0029 | New York, NY 10014
John
D-76, ID-11, Rodinal, Microphen, Microdol-X, T-Max & RS, DDX, HC-110 and
many, many more.
The best all-around is probably still D-76.
Regards,
John S. Douglas Photographer
http://www.photographers-darkroom.com
===============================
Mark Rabiner
Instead of switching to a worse developer why not find where the failure lies.
It's not the developer which is failing it's the people who use it failing to
store it the way it plainly says to on the outside of the packet. In a filled
stoppered bottle.
So get a half liter and quarter liter bottle to fill the remnants from your 5
one liter bottles.
I just put my 5 liters in
5 half liter bottles for my two liter metal tanks
10 quarter liter bottles for my one liter metal tanks
If you are storing them with air touching them you can just forget it.
Xtol is less tolerant of that than other develoers.
I've been using it for 2 years with no problem.
My 400 stuff looks like my 100 used to look.
Other than doing some experimenting with Pyro later this year I'm not looking around.
But i may come up with a Metol ascorbic acid developer for myself.
Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon
USA
Michael A. Covington
to
> store it the way it plainly says to on the outside of the packet. In a
filled
> stoppered bottle.
> If you are storing them with air touching them you can just forget it.
> Xtol is less tolerant of that than other develoers.
What I've been doing, with good success, is filling the rest of the bottle
with Dust-Off. Of course it's a nearly full bottle to begin with.
Richard Knoppow
There really isn't anything else quite like Xtol. The packaging
problems seem to have been confined to the 1 liter package. Kodak
changed the ratio of ingredients in the "Part A" or smaller package of
the 1 liter kit to include more Sodium Sulfite to counter any leakage.
They may also have changed the sealing method. The five liter kit
seems to have been pretty much trouble free.
Xtol seems to be sensitive to iron in the water. It contains some
EDTA to sequester iron but it may not be sufficient if the water has a
lot of iron in it. This seems to be a problem with Ascorbic acid
developers.
Probably the closest thing to a general purpose film developer is
D-76. Ilford Microphen is similar to buffered D-76 but uses Phenidone
rather than metol. It delivers slightly higher film speed at the
expense of very slightly greater grain. Its speed is comparable to
Xtol but grain is not.
For those interested the formula given in the Xtol patent is as
follows. From the MSDS for Xtol this is pretty close to the commercial
product.
Dry Formulation
Part A
Sodium Sulfite 10.0 grams
EDTA penta sodium salt 1.0 gram
Sodium metaborate (8 mol) 8.0 grams
4-Hydroxymethyl-4 methyl-1-
phenyul-3-purazolidone
(Kodak Dimezone) 0.2 gram
Part B
Sodium Sulfite 75.0 grams
Sodium metabisulfite 3.5 grams
Sodium Isoastorbate 12.0 grams
Ingredients in Part A to be dissolved in 850.0 ml of water at room
temperature. When dissolved dissolve Part B in add water up to 1.0
liter
pH of the solution after dissolving Part A should be 10.19 +/- 0.05
pH of complete solution after adding Part B and water should be 8.20
+/- 0.05
The metaborate (Kodalk) and metabisulfite should be a pretty good
buffer.
Note the very small amount of Dimezone. The EDTA is evidently
important.
Dimezone is a Kodak trade mark for a Phenidone derivative which is
supposed to be more stable than Phenidone.
The patent also gives a liquid concentrate verysion of the formula.
For those who want to experiment with this I suggest downloading the
patents. They are USP 5,756,271 and5,853,964
Any US patent every issued can be gotten free of charge from the
U.S.Patent and Trade Mark Office web site at http://www.uspto.gov
Older patents are available as Type-4 FAX tiff images. A good plug-in
for viewing these is "Alternatiff" available as free ware. Do a Google
search to find it.
Stored tiff files can be viewed and printed using Wang Imaging,
found in most versions of Windows. This was once freeware but is no
longer since it was sold to Kodak. I don't know of a good freebee
alternative. Patents print out best on legal size paper.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
ArtKramr
>From: Rolfe Tessem ro...@ldp.com
>Date: 6/1/01 5:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B182DF3...@ldp.com>
I've been using XTOL in the 5 liter packages since day one with never any
problem of any kind. I mix it with Las Vegas tapwater. It easily keeps for a
year and is never a problem. I think many of the XTOL problems are more pilot
error than product failure.
Arthur Kramer
Las Vegas NV
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Mark Rabiner
They used to sell inert gas to do that but times being what the are with the big
hole in the ozone layer and all some are using marbles instead.
I got a box each of one liter, half liter and quarter liter amber glass bottles
and a label maker.
I call these bottles one of my more import piece of darkroom gear just like my
D2 and my Saunders 20x24 4 bladed easel!!!
They are beautiful all lined up on the darkroom shelf!
Ray C.
Thanks everybody...
It looks like XTOL is pretty good stuff and there
really is no substitute for it. It sounds like the
5L packages are the way to go. I'll dig-up some
glass bottles and go that route.
Thanks
Ray
Lloyd Erlick
>I call these bottles one of my more import piece of darkroom gear just like my
>D2 and my Saunders 20x24 4 bladed easel!!!
>They are beautiful all lined up on the darkroom shelf!
jun201 from Lloyd Erlick,
I'm glad I'm not the only one to feel this way. (I
think their beauty is enhanced if they're rescued from
the garbage.)
But you have to admit we're a weird bunch.
regards,
--le
-------------------------------------
Lloyd Erlick,
357 Richmond Street West,
Toronto M5V 1X3 Canada.
---
voice 416-596-8751
ll...@the-wire.com
http://www.heylloyd.com
-------------------------------------
Ray C.
There's nothing wrong with digging things out of
the garbage...
The decor of my house is 1980s to 1990s American Alley
and Garage Sale.
Ray Ciurej
Paul Repacholi
> As far as I know, the five liter package has been unproblematic,
> other than figuring out how to store the five liter stock
> solution. For most of us, it can take quite a while to go through
> that much stock -- especially if you use it 1:1 or even 1:2 as most
> do.
I put stuff into 500ml PET bottles, with no air space, then pop 'em
into the freezer. Even a 1/2cm of air at the top results in a large
proportion of the neck section going brown after a few weeks to
months.
To use, nuke and dilute.
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
Spam-To: u...@ftc.gov,enfor...@sec.gov,sn...@fcc.gov,hfur...@fcc.gov,
mpo...@fcc.gov,gtri...@fcc.gov
Paul Butzi
wrote:
>Rolfe Tessem <ro...@ldp.com> writes:
>
>> As far as I know, the five liter package has been unproblematic,
>> other than figuring out how to store the five liter stock
>> solution. For most of us, it can take quite a while to go through
>> that much stock -- especially if you use it 1:1 or even 1:2 as most
>> do.
>
>I put stuff into 500ml PET bottles, with no air space, then pop 'em
>into the freezer. Even a 1/2cm of air at the top results in a large
>proportion of the neck section going brown after a few weeks to
>months.
PET bottles might not be ideal. PET is pretty gas permeable.
-Paul
TheYankeeSnapper
>From: "Ray C." rkfa...@bellatlantic.net
>Date: 6/2/2001 8:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B18E2AF...@bellatlantic.net>
Thanks everybody...
It looks like XTOL is pretty good stuff and there really is no substitute for
it. It sounds like the 5L packages are the way to go. I'll dig-up some glass
bottles and go that route.
Thanks
Ray
///////////////////////////////////
Hi Ray:
I'm a confirmed X-tol user from day one, and have been extolling it's virtues
ever since. I have adopted the following procedures with and without my Jobo.
I'm really not sure if I brew it or mix it, but this is what I do.
1. Fill a Spaghetti pot with 5.2 liters of filtered water, bring the water to a
boil and continue to boil for 3-4 minutes. This is to remove O2 and other
gases. When the water cools down to about 90f add your X-tol, gently stir a
couple of rev's with a sterile paddle of sorts being careful not to make
bubbles (air). In about 5min later, stir it again gently and cover, let stand
until it's temp. reduces to room temp.
2. When cooled, use a filter funnel and pour into brown glass bottles. Add one
marble so it overflows. (You can use a siphon if you wish.)
Tighten the cap home and tape the cap with a thin water proof tape.
Label and date the bottle. Rinse the outside of the bottle with water.
3. If you use a Jobo in your developing you might want to invest in some #2553
MultiTank 5's. When using X-tol in a Jobo I use 200ml of stock and
there is enough capacity in the 2553 for two 120 rolls at 1+1each or about
800ml (400ml/roll). I also use the 2553's ( I have four) , for fb 8X10's. I
appears to me that the X-tol oxidizes faster in the Jobo than small hand tanks
and hence the 200ml of stock dillutions. I never go beyond the 1+1dil.
4. In small hand tanks you can use 150ml of stock solution per roll. I never go
beyond 1+1.
This may sound anal, but if you shoot people with TMY, there's no other
developer. X-tols enemy is and was it's 1 ltr. packaging and oxidation, watch
how you pour and mix, tape and label your bottles.
Since I've started this procedure I've found that X-tol is indeed very stable
and unlike D-76 it doesn't become more active with age. I rarely keep 5 ltr's.
of stock solution for more than three months or so, but after three months it
remains pretty much as it did when I brewed (mixed) it.
Bob McCarthy
theyanke...@aol.com
ShadCat11
> other than figuring out how to store the five liter stock
> solution. For most of us, it can take quite a while to go through
> that much stock -- especially if you use it 1:1 or even 1:2 as most
> do.
<<I put stuff into 500ml PET bottles, with no air space, then pop 'em
into the freezer. Even a 1/2cm of air at the top results in a large
proportion of the neck section going brown after a few weeks to
months.
To use, nuke and dilute.>>
I mix it with tap water, store it in airless bottles under my darkroom sink,
where the temp varies from 55F in the winter to 85F in the summer.
Both of 2 batches stored 1 year that way were good to the last oz.
Allen Zak
John
>
>Instead of switching to a worse developer why not find where the failure lies.
>It's not the developer which is failing it's the people who use it failing to
>store it the way it plainly says to on the outside of the packet. In a filled
>stoppered bottle.
Mine was stored in a 2.5L glass bottle purchased from Edmund Scientific
with a Neoprene seal around the top and has a heavy Bakelite-like screw-on lid.
And it was stored in my _dark_room below 60F.
So why did it fail ? Please don't bother. I've already proven my point
on Xtol time and again. It may be Kodak's packaging or it could be the formula.
It could be many, many different things. Frankly i don't care as I don't
consider the risk of my images to worth the possibility that the developer will
simply go ten-toes-up as I develop my films of images that took me days to make.
It's just not worth it !
Michael A. Covington
> on Xtol time and again. It may be Kodak's packaging or it could be the
formula.
> It could be many, many different things. Frankly i don't care as I don't
> consider the risk of my images to worth the possibility that the developer
will
> simply go ten-toes-up as I develop my films of images that took me days to
make.
That is definitely a point. Same as with any other product, if it has a
common failure mode which you have not been able to troubleshoot using the
manufacturer's instructions, then you can't rely on it, and while many of us
enjoy reverse-engineering and troubleshooting these things for the fun of
it, it's not really the customer's job, it's the manufacturer's.
John
>
>Thanks everybody...
>
>It looks like XTOL is pretty good stuff
I would suggest that you do a search through the Google archive
(http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search) and review the many, many
photographers that have had less-then-good experiences with Xtol simply losing
all of it's development potential suddenly, unexpectedly and usually with a
complete loss of the image.
If you are going to use Xtol then I suggest that you do as many others
and perform a snip test prior to developing any film in it.
Lastly, allow me to state the 2 main reasons I don't use Xtol ;
1) Dependability. It's the worst developer available in that category.
2) It's almost identical to D-76 which costs less, is more available and
much, much more dependable and consistent.
Michael A. Covington
>
> 1) Dependability. It's the worst developer available in that category.
>
> 2) It's almost identical to D-76 which costs less, is more available and
> much, much more dependable and consistent.
I've been thinking about this... Often, when we try a new developer or a new
film and like the results, I think it's because we've changed the *amount*
of development. Xtol seems to be a bit slower working and harder to
overdevelop with. But once you realize that what you really wanted was a
little less development, you can get it with conventional developers too.
What do you think about Xtol vs. HC-110? I've found HC-110 to be
*extremely* reliable... it takes abuse... the syrup (decanted into separate
4-ounce bottles) keeps for years.
Mark Rabiner
Was it filled up in that bottle?
Was in from the one liter packet?
Always the obvious critical info is omitted. Time and time again.
You need smaller bottles so you don't end up with partially filled bottles with
air in the bottle touching liquid.
Xtols issues have been clearly identified and dealt with.
You screwed up your Xtol and I'd bet a critical account by being negligent and
now anyone else using it gets your invective.
ShadCat11
>
> 1) Dependability. It's the worst developer available in that category.
>
> 2) It's almost identical to D-76 which costs less, is more available and
> much, much more dependable and consistent.
I concur re: "almost identical," except for about 1/3 stop less shadow detail
with D76. My tests, applicable to my conditions and equipment, have
demonstrated no other differences I can observe between the two products for
most films. However, I find TMZ looks better in Xtol or T-max developer.
<<What do you think about Xtol vs. HC-110? I've found HC-110 to be
*extremely* reliable... it takes abuse... the syrup (decanted into separate
4-ounce bottles) keeps for years.>>
I have found HC110 a little sharper and grainier than D76, not unlike Rodinal.
I like the "look," but overall prefer D76. These things are often a matter of
taste (fads?). I went from D76, which I used for years, to HC110, for years,
back to D76, and now Xtol, the latter for convenience. It mixes more easily
than D76 and takes the place of two developers (D76 and Tmax), as noted above.
I hope laziness now doesn't cause regret later, but so far, 3 different 5 liter
batches of Xtol have lasted up to or beyond 1 year with no problems whatever.
Allen Zak
Mark Rabiner
Click on his above URL and you will find not one single shot on this entire website.
Architectural
Cityscape
Landscape
Photojournalism
Portraits
Still Life
Wedding
Wildlife
Click on ANY of them:
all with NOT ONE SINGLE SHOT but with an nice apology. Hasn't touched it since January.
Others of us have been using Xtol successfully commercially and in Fine art for
years and have our shots up to prove it.
I say put your money where you mouth is otherwise your're a CRANK!
Michael A. Covington
produces excellent image quality but there have also been more than the
usual number of reports of severe failures with it. My own feeling is that
they do not quite have it completely debugged yet, although it's a very
promising technology.
Mark Rabiner
It is not rocket science or rocket fuel Michael!!
Partially filled bottles resulted in failures.
One liter packets resulted in failures.
That's it
It's not a mystery.
It's been long resolved.
And check the Googol to confirm this.
Mark Rabiner
And it's results a well worth the effort it takes to go get some 1 liter and a
few smaller glass bottles.
Michael A. Covington
The latter is fortunate :)
> Partially filled bottles resulted in failures.
>
> One liter packets resulted in failures.
> That's it
I must admit the only failure I have experienced was a 1-litre packet that
was visibly caked when opened. As for partially filled bottles, I always
use Dust-Off gas to displace air and have found the keeping properties of
Xtol (kept that way) to be, if anything, better than advertised.
Maybe I'll go get a 5-litre packet, mix it all, and divide it up, filling
four of the 5 one-litre bottles completely to the top.
Michael A. Covington
> four of the 5 one-litre bottles completely to the top.
Actually, I just looked at the prices... a 5-litre packet costs only 2x as
much as a 1-litre packet. So even if half of it gets too old to use, I come
out ahead.
John
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 12:28:10 -0400, "Michael A. Covington"
<see.www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address@x> wrote:
>What do you think about Xtol vs. HC-110?
Well no contest really. HC110 is certainly one of the best for stability
and consistency. I've seen bottles of the syrup 5 years out of date and still
looking brand new. 10 years out of date and it looks a little like stop bath.
and it still works.
> I've found HC-110 to be
>*extremely* reliable... it takes abuse... the syrup (decanted into separate
>4-ounce bottles) keeps for years.
In short here's how I would rate them overall with a heavy bias towards
stability and consistency.
1st ) D-76
2nd) HC110
3rd) Rodinal
4th) D-25
5th) Microphen
5th) T-Max Developer
I still like and use Microphen regularly but if i had only one developer
to use it would be D-76.
Mike Corn
partially filled bottles, and love the stuff. :-> Oh, and I let it sit around
too long unused at times (when I'm busy catching up on printing and not
shooting much). All of which suggests to me that there's something else going
on. (Ignoring the obvious: nearly random manufacturing problems).
As someone who's very happy with Xtol, but who has read the various xtol
postings in this group, and taken them seriously, I'm not convinced that
there's any consistent evidence that there's a systemic manufacturing problem,
or that any particular procedure by end-users will engender xtol failures. No
one's shown that any one thing results in failure or success. Consequently I
still suspect random manufacturing problems. Surely there must be someone out
there who is a chemist that wants to spend a few weekends running some tests,
controlling for water quality, dissolved oxygen, temperature of preparation,
etc.....
When and if it fails on me, I'll be as angry as the next guy, but I'd still
recommend Xtol to anyone, and tell them, "hey, if it fails on you, abandon it,
if not, give it a try." Seems to me that the beef in this group should be (if
there must be a beef) with Kodak, instead of yelling at each other.
MC
John
>Was it filled up in that bottle?
Of course.
>Was in from the one liter packet?
Nope.
>Always the obvious critical info is omitted. Time and time again.
Not from my posts but of course you weren't part of the group when Xtol
was released or you would have seen the detailed info that I posted. Things like
getting almost identical results from 3 separate batches of 5L kits. Storing
them all in my basement darkroom which has no windows at all. And all being
stored at or below 60F.
>You need smaller bottles so you don't end up with partially filled bottles with
>air in the bottle touching liquid.
Why ? At or below 60F the oxidation rate is virtually paralyzed. Even an
open tray of D-76 would probably last a week.
>Xtols issues have been clearly identified and dealt with.
By whom ? Not by Kodak. At least no openly. They have dealt with
packaging but I haven't yet read or been told of any definite formula
adjustments.
>You screwed up your Xtol and I'd bet a critical account by being negligent and
>now anyone else using it gets your invective.
Nope. Not very likely that I could "screw up" that badly and that
consistently. Not over 15 liters of developer.
And actually I don't care whether anyone uses it or not. But if you ask
my opinion then you're going to get it. And _in_my_ opinion Xtol is
1) Incredibly inconsistent.
2) Incredibly expensive.
3) Grossly over-rated.
In short it has nothing on developers like D-76 or Microphen. Even
somewhat archaic Rodinal is far, far more dependable than Xtol. Just consider
that with Rodinal you can use it at 1:25 or dilute it out to 1:300 and use it as
a "shake-n-bake" or a stand developer. It even works with Tech Pan. And a year
after sitting on the shelf it will be as consistent as the day it was made.
So what do you like about Xtol that makes you use a developer that is
known to completely quit working suddenly ? That costs twice as much as D-76 ?
That is generally not available in local stores and if it is, it's usually the
dreaded 1L kit ?
Lastly what will you think of it when you develop a batch of blank negs?
John
<see.www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address@x> wrote:
>It's a pity this is degenerating into a brawl.
Agreed. Flamefests rarely accomplish anything positive..
> The fact is, Xtol usually
>produces excellent image quality but there have also been more than the
>usual number of reports of severe failures with it.
IMO it's bad enough that a developer might not work well but with Xtol
is simply goes caput and quits completely. As I stated here on this group before
'Ya know the funny thing is that out of all of the formulas that I've compounded
from scratch, not one has performed as poorly as has Xtol !"
> My own feeling is that
>they do not quite have it completely debugged yet, although it's a very
>promising technology.
But what does it do better ? And I mean _really_ better . Microphen and
T-Max RS produce better film speed. Rodinal is more versatile. And D-76, well,
it's D-76 . And a few kind people have sent me some 4X5' that they've developed
in Xtol. I simply didn't see any unique difference that would justify the risk
of my images to some "magical potion" that was as dependable as a politicians
promise.