XTOL Mishap

[AlexMogens]

1. I mixed up 5 liters of XTOL. I've never used it before.
2. I put two rolls of Catlabs 320 MF film on reels and put them into a Patterson tank.
3. Following the Massive Dev Chart suggestion (I use their iPhone app), I poured 1:1 dilution of Xtol in and processed for 11 minutes.
4. Stop bath for a minute
5. Fixer for 5 minutes
6. Hypo and then rinse for about 12 minutes

And I was graced with completely blank rolls of film, no wording in the rebates, completely clear.... as if I'd done the Fixer first. (I've made that mistake before and have been absolutely sure not to since).

Perplexed, I went to the Catlabs site and found that they recommended 11 minutes with XTOL with the stock solution, not the 1:1 dilution.

So I wanted to check my interpretation of what happened with the cognoscenti here at ranfinderforum: The film was under developed (due to getting bad info from massive dev chart) and being under developed, the negatives were basically erased by the fixer.

And, I suppose, just how trustworthy is Massive Dev Chart?

 

[Slumgullion]

Even if the dilution was off (1:1 vs stock) you’d still have an image.

What kind of camera did you shoot this with?

 

[AlexMogens]

It was a Rolleiflex 3.5e2. I've used it successfully within the past month, so I don't think it's having any issues. In any case, if it were a camera issue, I think there would have been writing along the rebate.

 

[pthornto]

I agree- if the developer is good you would get very underdeveloped negatives but still something. I wonder about the developer though. Kodak outsourced the production of xtol to a company called Sino promise, and they did such a great job they have gone bankrupt. There are actually reports that their QC on xtol in particular was lacking and they sold some bad batches. I’d check the developer with a clip test- even using a leader that should be super dense when processed. That way you can rule out the developer as an issue.

For xtol- I have used the legacy ecopro knockoff. It has always worked great.

 

[x-ray]

Camera wouldn’t cause the edge markings to absent.

Look at this logically, no edge marks then no development. What could have caused that? Water rather than developer, incorrectly mixed developer, developer seriously contaminated with stop or fixer or fixed first before development. The outside chance is the manufacturer didn’t coat the emulsion on the base. I did have 2 cases of 8x10 Ektachrome EPP (500 sheets) that had no yellow layer but that’s ultra rare.

I’d guess you put water in first thinking it was developer or fixed it before development. Not much more that it can be.

Just use it as a learning experience. We all screw up sometimes no matter how long we’ve been doing it.

 

[Freakscene]

Try a clip test, and if it doesn’t work, do let Kodak know. I am sure they have had complaints, but they should know exactly what is going on.

 

[sojournerphoto]

As Freakscene says - run a clip test. In the past Xtol could suffer from sudden death. Happened to me once - no development at all, out of nowhere. If the clip test doesn’t work then let Kodak know. If it does, likely order of adding solutions to the tank.

 

[AlexMogens]

Clip test. That makes sense, I will do that tomorrow. Thanks guys.

 

[Slumgullion]

It was a Rolleiflex 3.5e2. I've used it successfully within the past month, so I don't think it's having any issues. In any case, if it were a camera issue, I think there would have been writing along the rebate.

Well, bummer. I’d shoot a short roll of 35mm (if you have one) or the cheapest roll you can find…just to rule out the developer.

 

[Slumgullion]

I will say Xtol is very sensitive to fixer (compared to Rodinal). I used to use the same vessel to mix all of my chem (with thorough rinsing in between). Never had an issue with Rodinal. Whatever faint, faint, faint bit of fixer that might have been left behind as residue in my mixing vessel didn’t affect the efficacy of the developer. When I switched to Xtol I had problems with very thin, under-developed negs. Took me a few rolls to figure out the issue.

 

[philosli]

Mistakenly using XTOL stock development time as the 1:1 development time: I've made exactly the same mistake before. You should still get images, although under-developed. In my case after heavy post-processing in Lightroom, the images are still quite usable.

Given that you don't even have anything showing on the rebate, very likely your XTOL is dead.

 

[Freakscene]

I will say Xtol is very sensitive to fixer (compared to Rodinal). I used to use the same vessel to mix all of my chem (with thorough rinsing in between). Never had an issue with Rodinal. Whatever faint, faint, faint bit of fixer that might have been left behind as residue in my mixing vessel didn’t affect the efficacy of the developer. When I switched to Xtol I had problems with very thin, under-developed negs. Took me a few rolls to figure out the issue.

The alkali in Xtol is a borate-boric acid buffer. Kodak described the pH in the patent as ‘weakly alkaline’. This is not a good combination for contamination. Get separate mixing containers. I have a giant 5L boro-silicate glass beaker for mixing Xtol. Not cheap but it can handle being put on a heated magnetic stirrer.

There are a lot of ascorbate developers around. Once the OP figures out what has happened, there are plenty to try.

 

[rulnacco]

Camera wouldn’t cause the edge markings to absent.

Look at this logically, no edge marks then no development.

While that is 100% true, If I recall correctly, the time I tried some Catlabs 320 in medium format, it *didn't* have any edge markings. I know the couple of rolls of Shanghai I tried out in roughly the same time period had no edge markings at all, and while I may be mistaken, I don't remember the Catlabs film having them either. It's been a while and I've only tried each once, and wasn't impressed by either film for various reasons, the lack of edge markings/frame numbers (on the Shanghai at least) being one of them.

Does Catlabs actually have them? Don't mean to hijack the thread, certainly, but it may actually bear on the OP's troubleshooting if it doesn't.

 

[Freakscene]

While that is 100% true, If I recall correctly, the time I tried some Catlabs 320 in medium format, it *didn't* have any edge markings. I know the couple of rolls of Shanghai I tried out in roughly the same time period had no edge markings at all, and while I may be mistaken, I don't remember the Catlabs film having them either. It's been a while and I've only tried each once, and wasn't impressed by either film for various reasons, the lack of edge markings/frame numbers (on the Shanghai at least) being one of them.

Does Catlabs actually have them? Don't mean to hijack the thread, certainly, but it may actually bear on the OP's troubleshooting if it doesn't.

No idea. This is why I suggested a clip test. You know what you’re starting with.

 

[gavinlg]

Xtol is weird. I've had it do the same thing - the whole sudden death syndrome. Not a huge fan.

 

[Freakscene]

Xtol is weird. I've had it do the same thing - the whole sudden death syndrome. Not a huge fan.

There are numerous ways of making sure that ascorbate developers work, but to best protect against sudden death of any ascorbate developer, use deionised water, store them in good containers, and use promptly.

If you only develop occasionally, use something else.

I used Xtol since Kodak introduced it in 1996, but stopped using it when I received contaminated dead-out-of-the-pack developer from the first Sino Promise batches. Luckily I checked the developer batch with a Ilford FP4 Plus 125 ISO 35mm x 100 ft. Process Control Strips .

Moersch Eco and Adox XT-3 are good alternatives. XT-3 behaves most like original Xtol - the pH increases with dilution, which makes the 1+2 and 1+3 dilutions more functional.

 

[sojournerphoto]

There are numerous ways of making sure that ascorbate developers work, but to best protect against sudden death of any ascorbate developer, use deionised water, store them in good containers, and use promptly.

If you only develop occasionally, use something else.

I used Xtol since Kodak introduced it in 1996, but stopped using it when I received contaminated dead-out-of-the-pack developer from the first Sino Promise batches. Luckily I checked the developer batch with a Ilford FP4 Plus 125 ISO 35mm x 100 ft. Process Control Strips .

Moersch Eco and Adox XT-3 are good alternatives. XT-3 behaves most like original Xtol - the pH increases with dilution, which makes the 1+2 and 1+3 dilutions more functional.

@Freakscene - you mentioned elsewhere the difference between Fomadon Excel and Adox XT-3 being in their behaviour at higher dilution. I’ve used Excel (cy-3 wasn’t in stock at the time) at 1+1 and at 1+4 with added (1+100) ordinal. Both worked well. I wonder if adding the ordinal increased the ph of the 1+4 solution in a useful way.

Interested if you’ve any experience comparing the two at different dilutions?

Mike

 

[Freakscene]

@Freakscene - you mentioned elsewhere the difference between Fomadon Excel and Adox XT-3 being in their behaviour at higher dilution. I’ve used Excel (cy-3 wasn’t in stock at the time) at 1+1 and at 1+4 with added (1+100) ordinal. Both worked well. I wonder if adding the ordinal increased the ph of the 1+4 solution in a useful way.

Interested if you’ve any experience comparing the two at different dilutions?

I had long correspondence with a very interested and perceptive scientist, John Black, about the pH shift in buffered alkalis over 20 years ago. John formulated a developer whose alkali was based on tris buffer, but he died in the mid-2000s.

The pH of Xtol is 8.2 ± 0.05. At 1+3, if I recall correctly, it rises to around 8.4-8.5. For Fomadon Excel it doesn’t increase much at all with dilution because the alkali is differently or maybe not buffered, or it was when I used it in the 1990s. I’ve only mixed different types of developers as an experiment over 20 years ago, and don’t recall if I measured the pH. Rodinal, however, uses hydroxide as its alkali and has a pH close to 14. If you add Rodinal the pH will definitely increase. If you increase the pH enough you can initiate infectious development and get some really weird results. Somewhere I have a pile of measurements of the pH and specific gravity for the different Xtol dilutions, but I’ll have to look to find it. If you do try to measure the pH yourself, bear in mind that cheap pH meters often measure the pH of buffered solutions that contain borates poorly.

 

[Freakscene]

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.

 

[titrisol]

Film Leader test :
Insert a 35mm film leader (I save a few for this purpose) in the solution with lights on, and see how long it takes to turn dark (not fully black) ; it should be in the order of 10-30s
If it doesnt... developer is dead

That time used to be 5x the average development time for D76 or Rodinal but I don't know if that still applies with newer developers

Clip test. That makes sense, I will do that tomorrow. Thanks guys.