I've read about people dissolving powder developer in propylene glycol as a means of one-shotting. The PG is supposed to prevent any oxidation from taking place, and mixing the full bag of powder means you don't need to worry about different quantities of powder ending up in the stock solution if you were to simply add powder to water in a one shot fashion. Anyway would be interesting to hear if anybody has done that with xtol. Might be handy.
To my surprise the kodak technical data sheet says that you can develop 15 rolls of film with 1 liter of stock solution with time adjustments (so 75 rolls for the 5 liter). Adox, for xt-3, is a bit more conservative with 10 rolls per liter. I wouldn't dare to try this many rolls though. My guess is that Replenishment and one shot at 1:1 are more consistent and easy to do (and as you say, that's already quite cheap)
Sounds brilliant. I’m sold I forgot about replenishing. How do compensate for small loads. 20 exp 135 in a 2509n kit Do u increase a tad for my 1.6m of 70mm ?
I just pour the 5l of stock solution into sealed accordion 1l bottles and use them normally during the year. Replenishing method is great but not sure if it’s less hesle.
Nice video - great idea with the wine-box. I am missing a discussion about finding good development times for the various films. Using the stock times will underdevelop somewhat with a replenished solution. When it has stabilized, bi-products will make it less active than stock and therefore more time is needed. The replenisher regime will then keep it at that activity level. Some mention that times will be somewhere between 1:1 and 1:2 times - so this is something one has to find. I try to come up with a factor and then test against same film (easy to do with sheet film) developed in stock solution to see if I am close. Unfortunately when found a working factor - it may not be the same for all films, but a good starting point.
You should not pour powders like that into a funnel, it makes dust you breathe unnecessarily. You should put the cut corner of the bag either directly in or like 1/4" above the surface of the water. Also although XTOL is way less bad for the environment than D76 or similar, you should still not pour it directly down the drain, more so just for the sake of your pipes. It is best to neutralize it with a bit of vinegar, doesn't take much, to reduce how corrosive it is to the pipes before it gets diluted enough to stop mattering.
muy buen video me ha encantado con el revelador D-23 tambien tengo echo el reponedor y por cierto me acabo de suscribirme a tu canal, yo suelo hacer mis propios reveladores y fijadores con productos en crudo, como D_76 , D-23 fx15 osea varios me gusta el cuarto oscuro tengo una pequña habitacion muy completa bueno no me enrollo mas un saludo desde BARCELONA ESPAÑA.
This is a subject where the old adage that history forgotten is doomed to be repeated proved true. If you pulled some issues of Modern Photography or Popular Photography from 60 years ago, you'd find all of this discussion over developer replenishment versus one-shot. At that time, Kodak sold a dozen developers, and each had a specific replenishment solution sold separately. Why? Photo processing, except for DIY at home, was done in large vats of solution with film hung from racks being moved from vat to vat. The volumes of those vats were from 10 gallons on up. The solutions had to work over time and usage without change, so the developing agents were renewed with added replenishment solutions based on quantity of film developed. These solutions were chemically tested every day to make sure the compositions did not stray out of spec. Small volumes were sold so folks could do this at home. The problem of doing this at home is that most folks will not monitor the usage and do the replenishment with sufficient accuracy, so the working developer drifts out of spec and films start coming out "different". The modern usage adds another problem: There are no true replenishers, which have ingredients designed to replace what is lost during development in the main solution. Just adding more of the original developer will add developing agent, but it also adds everything else, meaning that over time, you are no longer using the original developer formula, but some other mix of components - a different developer. So long as you are happy with your on-film results, no problem. This lack of consistency won the day in the '60s, and many folks shifted to one-shot variations of their favorite developers. True, that can cost a bit more, but it's not that much more, and the simplicity of use and consistent results dominated thinking then, and it is hard to overcome today. Oh, and those wine boxes were a fad in the 70s, but died after a few years. The plastic liners are oxygen permeable, so long term storage of developer in larger volumes will kill a lot of developer and money. Amber glass bottles are the gold standard, so get some small ones and break up 5 gallons into 20 quarts. Hell, try freezing some of them if you have the freezer space. (Allow for expansion during freezing.) Video is a great discussion.
You know this already, but using the replenishment method makes 4x5 development incredibly economical for me. I dev 4-6 sheets at a time and it works so, so well.
Do you see any difference between xtol 1:1 vs replenished xtol? I always use 1:1 dilution but may consider to replenish it if that makes any quality improvement. Thank you!
More diluted developers are always more compensating than stock ones, at least a tiny bit. It will have a bit flatter contrast although maybe not by much at just 1:1
I am also a big Xtol fan. However, I don't use it anymore. It turns out, you can get exactly the same results with Black, White, and Green developer from Flic Film. It uses exactly the same active ingredients as Xtol, but it has been formulated into a one shot, long shelf life, syrup. No more mixing big batches of 5L at a time, no more annoying powder, no more bothering with replenishment! Great video as always sir!
@@SprocketHoles I'm about half way through the 250ml container. I'm on track for it to last maybe 75 rolls, with mostly Jobo processing and a few stand developments, 50/50 mix of 120/135. It only takes 3ml per 140ml in a 1510 Jobo tank, 14 minutes, for D400:)
Good video, thanks for posting. It should be noted that XTOL is a solvent-type developer, hence the finer grain, which comes at the cost of slightly lower sharpness (as compared to non-solvent types, like D-76 and ID-11). XTOL stock solution will last over a year in full glass containers. In my experience XTOL slightly lowers film ISO. For example, HP5+ should be shot at ISO 320 (1/3 stop slower than box speed) when developed with stick strength XTOL.
Many thanks for your detailed explanation. I like it a lot: it convinced me to switch from HC-110 to Adox XT3, as in the Netherlands it is not so easy to get Kodak XTOL anymore. So now I am re-testing the development times for my film stocks to achieve 1.3D above base+fog for Zone VIII, at box speed and pushed & pulled one stop (so, FP4+ @ EI64, EI120 & EI250; Delta 400 @ EI200, EI400 & EI800; Delta 3200 @ EI1600, EI3200 & EI6400... So quite some work). Anyhow, in contrast to 'my times with HC-110', I realised that 'my times with XT3' are quite a bit longer from the Ilford data sheets recommendations for the aforementioned films regarding XTOL. With HC-110 my dev times were always quite near the recommended time from Ilford. I am using replenished stock solution (70 ml per 135 or 120) and at 20 degrees C exactly, three gentle inversions every minute. Do you know if this is common with XTOL in general, or might be that Adox XT3 is actually quite a bit different from XTOL?
Q : everyone included Kodak, say the life span of Xtol, is around 1 year in powder, if kept dry and cool, and will last about 6 month once mixed with water, adding it may suddenly not work at all with no prior sign, from 1 day to the next. In your video lookalike, you just keep in an ordinary cabinet, yes must give to you, genius thought of the bag, but how sure you can be that it will really last that long ?
The bag just ran out for me after a year. I do a clip test on the Xtol before I use it to make sure it's still active before I use it. Also film manufacturers are very conservative about expiry times so you can get away with going over the expiry they give you.
5L packaging newer was a problem for me ) it clearly says the weight of each component so you divide it by 5 than took your digital scale and weight 1L portion. or 500ml. or 300ml. 5L size doesn't mean that you must use it all at once.
You can't know if the differents constituent are distributed evenly in the packs, chances are they are not. For this reason splitting powdered developer is NOT recommended at all.
@@psybard The machines at the factory do not magically manage to distribute chemicals evenly in every 5L batch but NOT in 1L portions, somehow. If it was that badly mixed that 1L was majorly noticeably different than another 1L, then that poor mixing also would have made 5L bags noticeably different than one another as well, on a regular basis. I used to measure out 250ml portions of D76 and it was 100% fine, never had any issues at all. Except extra dust creation, which is actually a big deal with toxic developers... but no issue with the development.
There's no reason. If you kept it the same 70ml figure for amount of developer replenished, it would by definition not last any longer than doing it this way. Meanwhile, diluted developer goes bad much faster, so having it sit around would go badly compared to stock. Dilution is inherently for one shot.
I meant to replenish a 1:1 with a 1:1. But still, it will very likely starve out of active chems and go bad, as you mentioned. Otherwise they would not warn against it in the datasheet, I reckon. Not really worh the hassle.
I'm replenishing xt-3, and here on my third roll using replenishing method, (fomapan 100) the developer turned really green. Is this something you've experienced before, and should I be worried about it?
Foma has a weird green anti halation layer that does this, When I'm developing foma I wash the film first to remove it. I don't know if it affects the developer tho.
Does it make a difference when you use the 70ml straight into the working solution bottle or as you do, in the "used" solution? @@SprocketHoles That would be slightly bring the concentration of the working solution even more up, no?
You’re such a talented teacher! Thanks for the video and explanation!
I've read about people dissolving powder developer in propylene glycol as a means of one-shotting. The PG is supposed to prevent any oxidation from taking place, and mixing the full bag of powder means you don't need to worry about different quantities of powder ending up in the stock solution if you were to simply add powder to water in a one shot fashion. Anyway would be interesting to hear if anybody has done that with xtol. Might be handy.
To my surprise the kodak technical data sheet says that you can develop 15 rolls of film with 1 liter of stock solution with time adjustments (so 75 rolls for the 5 liter). Adox, for xt-3, is a bit more conservative with 10 rolls per liter. I wouldn't dare to try this many rolls though. My guess is that Replenishment and one shot at 1:1 are more consistent and easy to do (and as you say, that's already quite cheap)
Sounds brilliant. I’m sold I forgot about replenishing. How do compensate for small loads. 20 exp 135 in a 2509n kit
Do u increase a tad for my 1.6m of 70mm ?
Thanks so much for the video. Super informative and easy to follow. Getting really excited to switch from rodinal to extol and see how it compares!
Brilliant. So what about pushing? Tri-X to 3200 for example? I recall this was good for that.
I just pour the 5l of stock solution into sealed accordion 1l bottles and use them normally during the year. Replenishing method is great but not sure if it’s less hesle.
These chemicals are more environmentally friendly. But for God sakes don’t breathe them in! wait, what?
Cracking idea about the wine bag, ordered two right away. The aluminium lined ones claim to be less oxygen porous than the normal jobs.
Nice video - great idea with the wine-box. I am missing a discussion about finding good development times for the various films. Using the stock times will underdevelop somewhat with a replenished solution. When it has stabilized, bi-products will make it less active than stock and therefore more time is needed. The replenisher regime will then keep it at that activity level. Some mention that times will be somewhere between 1:1 and 1:2 times - so this is something one has to find. I try to come up with a factor and then test against same film (easy to do with sheet film) developed in stock solution to see if I am close. Unfortunately when found a working factor - it may not be the same for all films, but a good starting point.
Superb video, thank you!
Really great info, exactly what I was looking for thank you!
You should not pour powders like that into a funnel, it makes dust you breathe unnecessarily. You should put the cut corner of the bag either directly in or like 1/4" above the surface of the water. Also although XTOL is way less bad for the environment than D76 or similar, you should still not pour it directly down the drain, more so just for the sake of your pipes. It is best to neutralize it with a bit of vinegar, doesn't take much, to reduce how corrosive it is to the pipes before it gets diluted enough to stop mattering.
muy buen video me ha encantado con el revelador D-23 tambien tengo echo el reponedor y por cierto me acabo de suscribirme a tu canal, yo suelo hacer mis propios reveladores y fijadores con productos en crudo, como D_76 , D-23 fx15 osea varios me gusta el cuarto oscuro tengo una pequña habitacion muy completa bueno no me enrollo mas un saludo desde BARCELONA ESPAÑA.
This is a subject where the old adage that history forgotten is doomed to be repeated proved true. If you pulled some issues of Modern Photography or Popular Photography from 60 years ago, you'd find all of this discussion over developer replenishment versus one-shot. At that time, Kodak sold a dozen developers, and each had a specific replenishment solution sold separately. Why?
Photo processing, except for DIY at home, was done in large vats of solution with film hung from racks being moved from vat to vat. The volumes of those vats were from 10 gallons on up. The solutions had to work over time and usage without change, so the developing agents were renewed with added replenishment solutions based on quantity of film developed. These solutions were chemically tested every day to make sure the compositions did not stray out of spec. Small volumes were sold so folks could do this at home. The problem of doing this at home is that most folks will not monitor the usage and do the replenishment with sufficient accuracy, so the working developer drifts out of spec and films start coming out "different". The modern usage adds another problem: There are no true replenishers, which have ingredients designed to replace what is lost during development in the main solution. Just adding more of the original developer will add developing agent, but it also adds everything else, meaning that over time, you are no longer using the original developer formula, but some other mix of components - a different developer. So long as you are happy with your on-film results, no problem. This lack of consistency won the day in the '60s, and many folks shifted to one-shot variations of their favorite developers. True, that can cost a bit more, but it's not that much more, and the simplicity of use and consistent results dominated thinking then, and it is hard to overcome today. Oh, and those wine boxes were a fad in the 70s, but died after a few years. The plastic liners are oxygen permeable, so long term storage of developer in larger volumes will kill a lot of developer and money. Amber glass bottles are the gold standard, so get some small ones and break up 5 gallons into 20 quarts. Hell, try freezing some of them if you have the freezer space. (Allow for expansion during freezing.) Video is a great discussion.
Nobody forgot about it, it's a video for newbies.
Ingenious idea using the wine box!
Great video. Very well explained! I'm going to give it a go today.
You know this already, but using the replenishment method makes 4x5 development incredibly economical for me. I dev 4-6 sheets at a time and it works so, so well.
Genius on the wine bag!
I'm now obsessed with getting a winebox and doing this.
Very good video. Thank you again.
Do you see any difference between xtol 1:1 vs replenished xtol? I always use 1:1 dilution but may consider to replenish it if that makes any quality improvement. Thank you!
I haven't seen any major difference in the films I shoot but I don't have a lot of experience with XTOL at 1:1
More diluted developers are always more compensating than stock ones, at least a tiny bit. It will have a bit flatter contrast although maybe not by much at just 1:1
I am also a big Xtol fan. However, I don't use it anymore. It turns out, you can get exactly the same results with Black, White, and Green developer from Flic Film. It uses exactly the same active ingredients as Xtol, but it has been formulated into a one shot, long shelf life, syrup. No more mixing big batches of 5L at a time, no more annoying powder, no more bothering with replenishment! Great video as always sir!
neat, I wasn't aware of the Flic Film developer.
@@SprocketHoles I'm about half way through the 250ml container. I'm on track for it to last maybe 75 rolls, with mostly Jobo processing and a few stand developments, 50/50 mix of 120/135. It only takes 3ml per 140ml in a 1510 Jobo tank, 14 minutes, for D400:)
any difference in quality?
@@ericneeds1285 None, although dev times are generally longer.
Not available in EU sadly
Good video, thanks for posting. It should be noted that XTOL is a solvent-type developer, hence the finer grain, which comes at the cost of slightly lower sharpness (as compared to non-solvent types, like D-76 and ID-11). XTOL stock solution will last over a year in full glass containers. In my experience XTOL slightly lowers film ISO. For example, HP5+ should be shot at ISO 320 (1/3 stop slower than box speed) when developed with stick strength XTOL.
This schmuck is grateful for your clear and useful video. Thank you!!!!
Super Video !! Excellent teacher !! Tanks a lot !
Thank you for the clear explanation! first time using XT3. Going directly to the replenishment maner.
Thanks for demystifying XTOL. Sounds like the future. I'm very keen to move towards more ecologically responsible chemicals.
Absolutely perfect video I think. Just made my first batch this evening thanks to this video! Thanks man, appreciate it!
Your research is convincing. I think I will give it a try. Thanks.
Home brew wine box storage is brilliant!
I have bought a couple of 1 liter Adox XT-3, is the replenishment method working in the same way even with XT-3? Thank you :)
Got to that that wine box. Very interesting video.
Great info! Thanks!
12:39 420 is blaze it 69 is nice
Many thanks for your detailed explanation. I like it a lot: it convinced me to switch from HC-110 to Adox XT3, as in the Netherlands it is not so easy to get Kodak XTOL anymore. So now I am re-testing the development times for my film stocks to achieve 1.3D above base+fog for Zone VIII, at box speed and pushed & pulled one stop (so, FP4+ @ EI64, EI120 & EI250; Delta 400 @ EI200, EI400 & EI800; Delta 3200 @ EI1600, EI3200 & EI6400... So quite some work).
Anyhow, in contrast to 'my times with HC-110', I realised that 'my times with XT3' are quite a bit longer from the Ilford data sheets recommendations for the aforementioned films regarding XTOL. With HC-110 my dev times were always quite near the recommended time from Ilford. I am using replenished stock solution (70 ml per 135 or 120) and at 20 degrees C exactly, three gentle inversions every minute.
Do you know if this is common with XTOL in general, or might be that Adox XT3 is actually quite a bit different from XTOL?
Adox says that xt-3 is the exact same as XTOL. I've never used it so I can't confirm
Now that Kodak chemistry is no longer made, have you found a replacement for Kodak XTOL, and if so, what is it?
Legacypro "Eco Pro" is the same thing as XTOL
Amazing video!!!
Q : everyone included Kodak, say the life span of Xtol, is around 1 year in powder, if kept dry and cool, and will last about 6 month once mixed with water, adding it may suddenly not work at all with no prior sign, from 1 day to the next.
In your video lookalike, you just keep in an ordinary cabinet, yes must give to you, genius thought of the bag, but how sure you can be that it will really last that long ?
The bag just ran out for me after a year. I do a clip test on the Xtol before I use it to make sure it's still active before I use it. Also film manufacturers are very conservative about expiry times so you can get away with going over the expiry they give you.
I love Xtol
Heads up eco pro has a legacy developer that’s the same as Xtol but it’s cheaper and lasts longer
If it's the same, then it doesn't last longer. Pick one or the other, they can't both be true at the same time.
Hello, does xtol develop all types of paper as well, and how long is it enough? Is that long and is the contrast good.. Reply please,, Thank you
🔥 pr໐๓໐Ş๓
5L packaging newer was a problem for me ) it clearly says the weight of each component so you divide it by 5 than took your digital scale and weight 1L portion. or 500ml. or 300ml.
5L size doesn't mean that you must use it all at once.
You can't know if the differents constituent are distributed evenly in the packs, chances are they are not. For this reason splitting powdered developer is NOT recommended at all.
@@psybard The machines at the factory do not magically manage to distribute chemicals evenly in every 5L batch but NOT in 1L portions, somehow. If it was that badly mixed that 1L was majorly noticeably different than another 1L, then that poor mixing also would have made 5L bags noticeably different than one another as well, on a regular basis. I used to measure out 250ml portions of D76 and it was 100% fine, never had any issues at all. Except extra dust creation, which is actually a big deal with toxic developers... but no issue with the development.
Has anybody tried replenishing a diluted 1+N mix of XTOL?
There's no reason. If you kept it the same 70ml figure for amount of developer replenished, it would by definition not last any longer than doing it this way. Meanwhile, diluted developer goes bad much faster, so having it sit around would go badly compared to stock. Dilution is inherently for one shot.
I meant to replenish a 1:1 with a 1:1. But still, it will very likely starve out of active chems and go bad, as you mentioned. Otherwise they would not warn against it in the datasheet, I reckon. Not really worh the hassle.
I'm replenishing xt-3, and here on my third roll using replenishing method, (fomapan 100) the developer turned really green. Is this something you've experienced before, and should I be worried about it?
Foma has a weird green anti halation layer that does this, When I'm developing foma I wash the film first to remove it. I don't know if it affects the developer tho.
@@SprocketHoles
Thanks! Alright I'll wash fomapan from now on. And I'll just have to see if all my negatives turn green 😅
@@SprocketHoles
You just wash it with water before dev?
Maybe I'm over thinking this but the 70ml replenishment is for 1 liter of working solution and not 5 liters correct?
You replenish the 1L working solution with 70ml for every 35mm/120 roll you develop.
Does it make a difference when you use the 70ml straight into the working solution bottle or as you do, in the "used" solution? @@SprocketHoles That would be slightly bring the concentration of the working solution even more up, no?
@@studiojege287 It can't, as the used and working are the same conc. You could replace the entire thing and get the same result
70ml is 70ml. You could be using a 400 gallon working solution and you'd still replenish 70ml, if you only developed a single 35mm roll in it.