XTOL Mishap

Freakscene said:
There are also many formulae for do-it-yourself Xtol-like developers. Xtol really is amazing, but what is usually forgotten is that using ascorbate is only a third of its amazingness. The other qualities it relies on are weak alkalinity that is buffered so the pH rises and the activity is increased for the amount of developer with dilution. None of the vitamin-c-triethanolamine developers, for instance, have those qualities, and the grain is usually much more coarse and uneven as a result.
Click to expand...

Thanks for these posts freakscene - really interesting. I liked xtol but lost confidence after my sudden death experience. 5 litre mix, pretty fresh and stored without air.

The buffering allowing the ph to rise with increased dilution is a clever way to increase developer activity. I’m waiting for XT-3 to come back into uk stock.

I’ve only used pc-tea once and that was with silvermax. It looks lovely, but not a grainy emulsion to start with. I’ll have to put a roll of xx through it and see how that looks…

I’m out of any xtol type dev at the moment so I ran 5 rolls of Kentmere 400 through a two bath tonight - 5g metol with 100g sodium sulphite and 0.6g of potassium bromide per litre followed by 4.5g sodium carbonate per litre for bath 2. Negs look good to the eye but we’ll see how they scan in the week.
 
Freakscene said:
Have you ever used CatLabs 320, or Xtol?
Click to expand...


Ever, you ask?

Let’see. Yes, now I remember: during the years 2020, 2021 and 2022, I have printed north of 55-thousand prints. Roughly the same ballpark through 2010 to 2020.

One thing that is clear to me, and I can assert this expertly, believe me, is that XTOL is not a good developer.

In short, it kills tri-x to a bland, lifeless negative.

I wonmt go on with the long version because all this will result in is a loss of time and a lot of bickering, mainly from people that DO NOT KNOW but repeat what they read.
In super short, I will recommend two developers: D76 and Ilfosol-3.
Even shorter: what you think you like in XTOL, Ilfosol-3 will give it to you in Spades.

If anyone has done MORE
than me on this matter, I will listen.

And you? Any serious printing going on?
 
Another thing I found out is that without any shadow of a doubt FP4 is the best looking film. The very best.
Each time I printed and I went “WOW! what’s the film?” It was FP4.

Then, tmx400: Unparralleled spectral sensitivity. No exaggerated (and ungainly) red sensitivity.
 
Freakscene said:
There are also many formulae for do-it-yourself Xtol-like developers. Xtol really is amazing, but what is usually forgotten is that using ascorbate is only a third of its amazingness. The other qualities it relies on are weak alkalinity that is buffered so the pH rises and the activity is increased for the amount of developer with dilution. None of the vitamin-c-triethanolamine developers, for instance, have those qualities, and the grain is usually much more coarse and uneven as a result.
Click to expand...
I heard once a talk by Dick and Sylvia about how they created XTOL, it was very interesting as to why and how.

Xtol made a big splash when it came out, and article has the original formula "The Genesis of Xtol," by Dick Dickerson and Silvia Zawadski (Photo Techniques Magazine, Vol. 20, No. 5, 1999, p. 62 ff)
 
Ororaro said:
Ever, you ask?

Let’see. Yes, now I remember: during the years 2020, 2021 and 2022, I have printed north of 55-thousand prints. Roughly the same ballpark through 2010 to 2020.

One thing that is clear to me, and I can assert this expertly, believe me, is that XTOL is not a good developer.

In short, it kills tri-x to a bland, lifeless negative.

I wonmt go on with the long version because all this will result in is a loss of time and a lot of bickering, mainly from people that DO NOT KNOW but repeat what they read.
In super short, I will recommend two developers: D76 and Ilfosol-3.
Even shorter: what you think you like in XTOL, Ilfosol-3 will give it to you in Spades.

If anyone has done MORE
than me on this matter, I will listen.

And you? Any serious printing going on?
Click to expand...

Great, maybe you should show us some of your photos. Your gallery is empty, and I can’t find any in your posts.

This thread is not about perceived quality of Xtol, or about printing. It is about film developer activity.

I run qa/qc for a commercial lab that still does black-and-white film. They process 20-30,000 rolls of film a year. Until 2019 it was all in Xtol. Now it is all in Adox X-T3.

Catlabs 320 in 120 format has no edge markings, and Xtol can suddenly lose activity to zero. It makes stating that the OP fixed first a hazardous assumption.

Marty
 
titrisol said:
I heard once a talk by Dick and Sylvia about how they created XTOL, it was very interesting as to why and how.

Xtol made a big splash when it came out, and article has the original formula "The Genesis of Xtol," by Dick Dickerson and Silvia Zawadski (Photo Techniques Magazine, Vol. 20, No. 5, 1999, p. 62 ff)
Click to expand...

I also saw them discuss this, and when I talked to them about the finer points of the chemistry of ascorbate, both they and other Kodak photo chemists simply stated “it works, ok?” In Xtol the ascorbate develops silver with similar efficacy to hydroquinone, it regenerates the dimezone-S (secondary developing agent) and also acts as a preservative like sulfite because ascorbate is a quite powerful antioxidant. What remained unclear is exactly how all the different ascorbate functions interact, but sometimes observational data beats a basis of theoretical understanding.
 
Freakscene said:
Great, maybe you should show us some of your photos. Your gallery is empty, and I can’t find any in your posts.

This thread is not about perceived quality of Xtol, or about printing. It is about film developer activity.

I run qa/qc for a commercial lab that still does black-and-white film. They process 20-30,000 rolls of film a year. Until 2019 it was all in Xtol. Now it is all in Adox X-T3.

Catlabs 320 in 120 format has no edge markings, and Xtol can suddenly lose activity to zero. It makes stating that the OP fixed first a hazardous assumption.

Marty
Click to expand...

I know all there is to know about xtol. Super dull negatives, sudden death, all that jazz.

Your answer is not surprising and totally expected… your lab benefits from the replenishment regime and the associated economy/$aving$, but the customers end up with gray negatives to which the lab doesn’t care.

As usual, the lab is looking to get away with the CHEAPEST operation possible, a thing in which XTOL excels.

My advice stands: if you care about your negatives, go with D76 or Ilfosol-3. Major upgrade.
 
1707208027018.jpeg

This one is on Neopan 1600 in Xtol 1+3. I miss that film.

I have had mishaps with Xtol, but it never cost me any shots because I check each batch. I used to mix it 50L at a time, but Kodak stopped supplying them. The lab I help out at doesn’t replenish, so they use a lot of Xtol/X-T3.
 
Freakscene said:
View attachment 4832566

This one is on Neopan 1600 in Xtol 1+3. I miss that film.

I have had mishaps with Xtol, but it never cost me any shots because I check each batch. I used to mix it 50L at a time, but Kodak stopped supplying them. The lab I help out at doesn’t replenish, so they use a lot of Xtol/X-T3.
Click to expand...
These a great - not too grey and flat;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top