Kodak XTOL Replenished Question

Alan,
I used ID11 for some time without noticing any change in contrast as it aged. My understanding is that it's equivalent to but not identical to D76. Then I changed to Ilford Ilfotec HC, the British equivalent of HC110. I've read here and there that some other developer might give finer grain, or improved acutance, or greater speed or some other magical quality that the writer in question values highly, but always at the expense of some other quality. It seemed to me that I wasn't going to become a more celebrated printer than AA, no matter what label was on my bottle of developer.
All developers must be some kind of compromise. I valued the long-keeping qualities of Ilfotec and the convenience of buying a liquid concentrate. It seems to adapt well to low concentration, below the official instructions, when I've done something silly like leaving the shutter open or misreading fractions for whole seconds, but this is not a recommendation. If anyone wants to use unicorn tears, and it produces the kind of print they like, good luck to them. I do think that the print is the real test.
Ilfotec HC seems cheap enough. Certainly all photographic chemicals are cheaper than printer ink.
 
Alan Clark said:
Hello Ian. In what way?

Alan
Click to expand...


Have a look at Kodak's own comparison chart, significantly finer grain, better sharpness, and better shadow detail (less of a drop in film speed0, and my own testing and use give me results coincides with their comments.

D76/ID-11 is not the best developer of its type despite being a de facto standard for years, Agfa 44/Agfa Ansco 17 and Adox Borax MQ give better film speed, sharpness and finer grain mainly because they use the optimal Sulphite level which is 75-80 gm/litre.

Kodak made the formula for D76 public right from the start, it was originally a cine film developer and film studios needed consistent results when shooting abroad, almost all companies made D76 although with their own numbering, even Agfa I have most of the list, I think online on my website.

I'm not saying D76/ID-11 is a bad developer just that some are better and Xtol is undoubtedly the best powder developer particularly with modern T grain and Delta films, but also with traditional emulsions. Many if not most power developers give their best results when replenished which is something you really only learn with experience. I started using replenished developers I'd guess about 50 years ago while at school mainly because it was so economical and my father had almost zero interest in anything artistic (he was quite happy to admit that :) he was also tone deaf) so I had no financial help other the same pocket money as my sisters. a However later working commercially Replenished developers were the norm, there wasn't a practical alternative. The beauty of Xtol is a 5 litre pack can be split into 2.5 litres working solution and the rest the other 2.5 litres as the replenisher and that's practical on a small scale..

I only stopped using Xtol when I moved abroad and switched to Pyrocat HD, small apartment no space to store chemistry, and realised that actually Pyrocat gave me all I wanted.

Ian
 
David M said:
Alan,
I used ID11 for some time without noticing any change in contrast as it aged. My understanding is that it's equivalent to but not identical to D76. Then I changed to Ilford Ilfotec HC, the British equivalent of HC110. I've read here and there that some other developer might give finer grain, or improved acutance, or greater speed or some other magical quality that the writer in question values highly, but always at the expense of some other quality. It seemed to me that I wasn't going to become a more celebrated printer than AA, no matter what label was on my bottle of developer.
All developers must be some kind of compromise. I valued the long-keeping qualities of Ilfotec and the convenience of buying a liquid concentrate. It seems to adapt well to low concentration, below the official instructions, when I've done something silly like leaving the shutter open or misreading fractions for whole seconds, but this is not a recommendation. If anyone wants to use unicorn tears, and it produces the kind of print they like, good luck to them. I do think that the print is the real test.
Ilfotec HC seems cheap enough. Certainly all photographic chemicals are cheaper than printer ink.
Click to expand...


At one time ID-11 and D76 were identical aside from minor adjuncts (surfactants, chelating agents, etc, no effect on development), in recent years both companies have changed the buffering in different ways. There's simple reason for this, large scale pro use replenished disappeared almost completely, and there was also a growing trend by amateurs to use ID-11/D76 at dilutions like 1+1 and 1+3 for economic reasons, increasing the buffering makes the developers more stable once dilute (less susceptible to tap water differences).

Back in the mid 198-'s I tested HH110 and Ilfotec HC along with come commercial friends we found they weren't very fine grained, a greater speed loss and less sharpness, but they are convenient. I always use 35mm films for tests but if you only shoot LF the differences are far less significant.

Ian
 
I've never used Xtol, but I might have to give it a try. As you say, with LF a reduction in graininess is secondary, but I'm aways chasing shadow detail.
 
David, I couldn't have said it any better. Great points in your post above! I vividly remember nearly 40 years ago when I started shooting LF, I was aware of the materials (film/paper, film/paper developers, etc) Ansel et al used and thought to myself, "Hey, if it's good 'nuff for them, it be good 'nuff for me!" Sure, I dabbled a bit over the years with other developers and printing papers (I'm a bit of a technician at heart), but, like Ian G, didn't make a permanent switch until I started using Pyrocat-HD about 10 years ago. I do use a few other film developers for specific reasons, but PCat is my primary developer nowadays.
 
Thank you Alan. that's very kind.
I don't want to turn us into a chapter of the Ansel Appreciation Society, but he, the System and his images are so well-known that he has to crop up from time to time.
Meanwhile, I've been reading a bit more about Xtol...
"Yes David, this high-performance, yet economical car will do everything that a discerning motorist like yourself could wish for. One tiny detail, hardly worth mentioning... from time to time, for reasons that nobody understands, and without any warning, it just stops dead."
 
David, I mentioned Ansel only because his name is so recognizable and he was, after all, a consummate technician. Had I said John Wimberley as a reference to my point, would you know who I was talking about? ;)
 
I do now. Thank you.
I was trying to excuse myself from mentioning AA too frequently, but for the same reasons as you. Difficult to avoid him in the LF world. Rather like Shakespeare in a different field, I suppose. Love or hate them, they don't go away.
 
David M said:
Meanwhile, I've been reading a bit more about Xtol...
"Yes David, this high-performance, yet economical car will do everything that a discerning motorist like yourself could wish for. One tiny detail, hardly worth mentioning... from time to time, for reasons that nobody understands, and without any warning, it just stops dead."
Click to expand...

The myth lives on. Kodak had a packaging issue many years ago with the long discontinued smaller packs of Xtol in the US which weren't sealed properly this lead to a short solution life and it's sudden death :D This was resolver but the myth continues.

My own experience of well over a decade using Xtol replenished is it's a great developer, so easy to use replenished, and reliable, and that is mirrored by the experience of other long term users.

It's almost certain that Kodak would have had AA testing Xtol but it was released 11 years after his death :D John Sexton a former AA assistant did much 3rd party testing for Kodak particularly with Tmax films.

Ian
 
I'm afraid my web searches didn't turn up any refutation of the sudden death story. It's good to know the reason. Thank you. Presumably one still has to take care with excluding air and so on.
Am I right in deducing from your earlier posts that when the replenishment is equal to the original volume of solution, it's about time to think of changing to a new batch, perhaps primed with a bit of the old? Approximately, of course. I once knew portrait photographer who replenished his colour print chemicals well beyond the manufacturer's recommended limits and still got excellent and controllable results. I guess that there might be differences between occasional and regular use, too.
 
There's no hard and fast rules but in general when the replenisher volume used equals the original stock volume it's perhaps time for a change, I've gone on for longer and mostly used less replenisher than Kodak suggests (per film/80 sq inches) but then I've replenished developers for close to 40 years.

MQ developers like D76/ID-11 are more prone to collapse than Xtol as Metol is quite intolerant of Bromie/Iodide build up. Xtol is Phenidone and ascorbic acid based so very tolerant of Bromide/Iodide.

Colour developers are designed for a high degree of replenishment, the issue is often sludging up over time requiring the processor to need a clean, some makes of chemistry are better than others. I know that one B&W Photofinishing lab here in the UK used Ilford Autophen replenished for a number of years just constantly replenishing never changing the stock working solution, Autophen was a PQ variant of ID-11/D76 designed specifically for the Photofinishing trade, it disappeared when the amateur D&P market moved to colour.

Ian
 
In a very junior capacity I used to develop X-ray film in replenished deep tanks. Can't remember what developer we used but it certainly wasn't D76 or ID11. (D-Something?) Can't recall if we ever began a new brew, but the aesthetic requirements were not stringent; if we could see the defects in the metal, that was enough. We sometimes made stereo X-rays to determine the depth of a fault.
One of our number modified a tin can to make a primitive enlarger for holiday snaps which we did develop in ID11. Our boss called it ID Two.
 
I am not a photo chemist and don't fully understand the chemistry behind what's in these developers but one thing I do know is that when I was researching XTOL Ian was talking about it a lot on other forums especially the replenishment of it.

At that time I had been using HC110 for some time and just fancied a change more than anything so I bought some XTOL and started to use it replenished. Compared to the HC110, I did see quite an improvement especially in sharpness and shadow detail. I was still using the same film, rating it at the sane ISO and developing it in the same Paterson Tank with the MOD54 but I could see a difference.

Just looking back through my notes, I see that I first mixed up the XTOL in January 2017 into to 5 1LTR plastic bottles. One bottle was labeled Working solution and the other 4 bottles labeled Replenisher. Also according to the notes, I started to replenish with 75ml after 5 rolls of film.

In October 2017, I had run out of replenisher so I mixed up another 5ltrs but still carried on using the same working solution from Jan 2107.

In June 2018, I started to look closely at some recent negatives which had been developed with XTOL and some recent ones which had been developed with HC110 and the XTOL ones were thinner than the HC110, even the ones where I had taken 2 sheets of the same subject but developed in 2 different developers to compare them.

I dumped the working solution which was 18 months old by now and have started to use one of the unopened replenisher bottles mixed in Oct 2017 as my now working solution. I have this week developed some more test sheets and the negatives have sprung back to life so I am guessing that my 18month working solution was not as active as I thought.

I know plastic bottles are probably not the best to store chemicals in so I am thinking of buying a set of these to keep both the working solution and replenisher in. https://www.baldwins.co.uk/baldwins-syrup-bottles-1000ml-2
 
It must be impossible in practice to shield the solution from all contact with air all the time. Presumably the inevitable exposure while it's being used must have some long-term effect. You haven't experienced the "sudden death" effect that I've been reading about?
Ian G's posting led me to check. The peak of sudden death complaints seems to have been in the early years of this century.
 
Last edited:
From what I have read backs up Ian's explanation. Some time ago probably a few years now, XTOL was available smaller packets (3.8ltrs) I believe and there was a problem with the sealing of one of the parts. This has long been rectified and I haven't heard of anyone suffering from the XTOL sudden death.

Regarding air, what I am doing now is filling the working solution right to the brim and whilst the film is in the tank being developed, I am pouring in 75ml of replenisher into the working solution bottle. When development is complete, I pour it back into the working solution right to the brim and pour the remainder down the sink.

I have also decanted the replenisher into small 250ml amber glass bottles so worst case scenario is that I would only lose 175mll or less should air get to the replenisher.
 
I cant remember who told me or where I read it but basically, the information I gathered mentioned that plastic can breath which could introduce air.
 
David M said:
Thank you. You can imagine my worry about a developer that could sometimes fail. I am quite competent at constructing my own failures without Kodak's assistance.
Curiosity made me look up this.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Plastic-Co...&qid=1530387532&sr=8-49&keywords=70ml+bottles

I wondered if it might make life even more convenient at the point of use.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't touch those bottles, they are likely to be low density polythene (LDP). You need to use High Density Polythene (HDP) or glass.

A few years ago I used LDP bottles for Pyrocat HD PArt A and the shelf life was about a month due to the Oxygen permeability through the walls. Presyscol (Pyrocat HD from Peter Hogan) was sold in similar bottles and kept poorly.

Developers like Xtol, ID-11/D76, Perceptol, etc, have a high level of Sodium Sulphite as a preservative it has weaker anti-oxidating properties than Sodium Metabislphite but in a 10% solution is effective. So in general oxidation tends not to be an issue.

Xtol contains Ascorbic Acid which is itself a strong anti-oxidant, I always kept my replenisher in a 2.5 litre bottle and just let the volume drop with no issues.

Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top