Xtol gone bad?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Toni Nikkanen - 20 Sep 2006 11:08 GMT

If I get negatives with consistently missing shadow and/or highlights, could it
be because there's something wrong with my Xtol developer? The previous two rolls
(fp4+, tri-x 400) were developed with Xtol out of the same bottle:
The fp4+ with 1+0 dilution, 8 minutes at 20C. Tri-x with 1+2 dilution,
10.5 minutes at 20C. Gentle inversions once per minute.

--

Reply to this Message

Lloyd Erlick - 20 Sep 2006 12:19 GMT

>Tri-x with 1+2 dilution,
>10.5 minutes at 20C. Gentle inversions once per minute.

September 20, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

I'd expect to see some sort of density on
negs developed this way, providing they had
some sort of correct or near-correct
exposure. I'd prefer to develop for a little
longer (12 minutes) and I'd use 21C, (and I'd
rate Tri-X at EI 200) but still...

I use Xtol (and usually diluted 1+2). But I'm
always wary of the famous failure, so I do a
snip test before committing any rolls of
film. I cut off an inch of film from the
exposed end of the film sticking out of the
cassette (actually, I mainly use 120 format,
and I cut off a snip of a roll of 35 mm film
I keep for the purpose). However, if my
prepared, diluted working solution of Xtol
does not darken the snip of film, (which is
heavily exposed, I might add) the developer
is off. I've never had an Xtol failure, and
it has never failed the snip test for me,
either. I gather there is a first time for
everything ...

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
website: www.heylloyd.com
telephone: 416-686-0326
email: portrait@heylloyd.com
________________________________
--

Reply to this Message

Toni Nikkanen - 21 Sep 2006 21:12 GMT

> I use Xtol (and usually diluted 1+2). But I'm always wary of the
> famous failure, so I do a snip test before committing any rolls of
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> has never failed the snip test for me, either. I gather there is a
> first time for everything ...

Well, I did the snip test on the doubtful bottle of Xtol. The film did
darken, but another snip of film I put in Xtol I poured from another
bottle, which I keep in a different place, darkened somewhat
more. Then I also tested some leftover Rodinal. To my surprise, the
Rodinal darkened the film the least - and it should have a long shelf
life! I then shot a test roll of Agfa APX 100 and developed it with
the Xtol I keep in the other closet - the one that seemed to work in
the snip test. The negative turned out great. A nice histogram, a
clear negative which looks nice and contrasty.

There has to be something wrong with the closet where I kept the
ruined Xtol and Rodinal. It's a couple degrees hotter than the other
closet - because it's located right next to the fridge. D'oh! Actually
it's the same place I keep my temperature meter in, and it's 24C right
now.

Well, the two ruined rolls of film were not life-and-death important
(and they're somewhat photoshopable) and the spoiled developer I had
to toss out was not that much, they were nearly spent anyway.

Reply to this Message

Andrew Price - 21 Sep 2006 21:42 GMT

[---]

>Well, the two ruined rolls of film were not life-and-death important

Shame that it was APX-100, though. No replacing that, unfortunately.

Reply to this Message

Toni Nikkanen - 21 Sep 2006 22:31 GMT

> Shame that it was APX-100, though. No replacing that, unfortunately.

There's still plenty of it on store shelves around here. And in
my fridge.
Actually I never developed it with Xtol before, I think I like
this combination.

Reply to this Message

Andrew Price - 22 Sep 2006 20:52 GMT

>> Shame that it was APX-100, though. No replacing that, unfortunately.
>
>There's still plenty of it on store shelves around here.

120 or 35mm? I've seen the latter, but 120 seemed to vanish from the
store shelves in Europe very quickly after Agfa ceased production.

>And in
>my fridge.

And in many other fridges, I suspect!

>Actually I never developed it with Xtol before, I think I like
>this combination.

I find it works well with DD-X (which I understand has similarities
with X-Tol), too.

Reply to this Message

Toni Nikkanen - 23 Sep 2006 01:04 GMT

>>> Shame that it was APX-100, though. No replacing that, unfortunately.
>>There's still plenty of it on store shelves around here.
> 120 or 35mm? I've seen the latter, but 120 seemed to vanish from the
> store shelves in Europe very quickly after Agfa ceased production.

35mm. I thought it was gone, but then a whole truckload of it appeared
in the closest supermarket (the same one with the truckload of
35mm Kodachrome 64.)
The next thing I knew, a mail-order company I often use started listing
it again. This is after having it delisted for months.

Reply to this Message

Mike - 20 Sep 2006 14:38 GMT

I don't trust Xtol. I had a couple rolls that were severely
underdeveloped using 6-month old Xtol. Its too bad because the best 11x14
enlargements I've ever made from 35mm were developed in Xtol. I haven't
found a developer that gives the same properties.

> If I get negatives with consistently missing shadow and/or highlights, could it
> be because there's something wrong with my Xtol developer? The previous two rolls
> (fp4+, tri-x 400) were developed with Xtol out of the same bottle:
> The fp4+ with 1+0 dilution, 8 minutes at 20C. Tri-x with 1+2 dilution,
> 10.5 minutes at 20C. Gentle inversions once per minute.

Reply to this Message

Claudio Bonavolta - 22 Sep 2006 10:32 GMT

Toni Nikkanen a écrit :

> If I get negatives with consistently missing shadow and/or highlights, could it
> be because there's something wrong with my Xtol developer? The previous two rolls
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> --

Regarding Xtol shelf life, I use the second method described on this
page:
http://www.bonavolta.ch/hobby/en/photo/e6.htm#Chemicals_conservation
Nothing exceptional, I just try to minimize the contact between the
solution and air/oxygen and light.

The choice of the small bottles depends on the volume you need per
film, in my case as I develop by rotation with a 1+1 dilution, I can
use the minimal 100ml stock quantity per film (135-36, 120 or 8x10") so
I opted for these 100ml small bottles, each one being a dose for one
film.

The method I use for Xtol is slightly different than the one described
as I do not add demineralized water to complete the bottles but just
use stock xtol instead.
As I use it mainly in 1+1 dilution, I just fill the bottle again with
water to make the final dilution.
I do it this way because Xtol cost is pretty low and I do not need a
very precise final quantity nor dilution, which is required in color
work.

My Xtol shelf life tests are not yet finished as it passed successfully
the 4 years test last end of March and I've still some old bottles for
further tests.

Claudio Bonavolta
http://www.bonavolta.ch

Reply to this Message