Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,860   Posts: 1,583,148   Online: 862
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 37 of 37
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Dunedin,New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    270
    I contrast to the "I haven't tried it and it obviously sucks" sentiments in this thread,I'd like to express my gratitude to the APUGers who introduced me to replenished XTOL.
    The improved image qualities over 1:1 dilution proved the value of this technique to me - although 1:1,1:2 remains useful if pushing is required.
    It also ,because of the economy,made it possible for me to offer processing services to others.

  2. #32
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,559
    Images
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Noel View Post
    Yes, thow it away and start over. Developer is too cheap to waste time, film and energy trying to recover this obviously oxidized solution.
    Except in this case that would be foolish, since you'd be wasting all of the goodies that exist in a replenished system, a balance or equilibrium you'd have to recreate. To recommend to simply toss it is poor advice in this case, since the existing developer can easily be reconstituted with some fresh developer added to it.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  3. #33
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,430
    Images
    148
    Leigh, the point you missed is I have had significant experience of leaving a replenished developer in a well sealed bottle for 6-6 month periods. It's not something I'd planned to do but circumstances meant that's what happened. and there were no issues at all.

    The cost of a quick test as a double check with a sheet of 5x4 film ot a few frames of 35mm film is minimal and far outways the just dump it and start again approach. If I was in doubt I'd use 20-25% of the old Xtol to season a new batch which is my standard practice when using new batches of any replenishable developer.

    5 months is not a long time when the dveloper will last well over a year fresh or as the sorking stock solution.

    Ian

  4. #34
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    In order to clarify things here;

    There is consistency, then there are image qualities. Consistency is generally agreed to be a good thing, or even a necessity, but still it cannot drive over the image quality itself, and this is a very subjective matter. If the process does not yield results you like, what's the idea of keeping it consistent or doing it at all? OTOH, if the process produces the "look" you like, then small variations around this point won't necessarily kill this look instantly.

    Typically, "replenishment" is a process used by large commercial laboratories due to economical and environmental reasons. By definition, a replenished process is less consistent, unless VERY carefully maintained. This requires investments, but the total sum is still much less than one-shot processing, given enough throughput (for example, more than 20 rolls a day).

    Typical replenished process works like this: A replenisher solution is prepared. A separate tank solution is prepared -- this is the actual solution for the development. Usually the tank solution is prepared by taking replenisher solution and adding so called "starter" solution. This instantly drives the tank solution to the desired chemical balance, in a consistent way.

    Then, film is processed in the tank solution. For every unit area of film, a certain amount of "replenisher" solution is added to the tank solution. The replenisher has an opposite chemical bias compared to the byproducts (most importantly, bromide and iodide) released from the film. This way, the chemical balance is kept constant. In addition, replenisher has higher concentration of development agents to make up for used (oxidized) development agents. And finally, one of the tasks of replenisher is just to simply drive away the same volume of used tank solution from the tank.

    However, due to small differences in how much byproducts are generated (this depends on film, exposure and scene content), the process WILL inevitably slowly drift away. The large volume (typically in the range of 20-100 liters) of tank solution keeps the drift slow enough so that it can be monitored and corrected.

    Drift is constantly monitored by running precision pre-exposed control strips (typically made by Kodak, Fuji etc.) through the process, for example one per 100 rolls of film. Using a precision densitometer, a small drift in density can be measured BEFORE it is noticeable by eye. Once the drift exceeds so called action limits, replenishment rates are adjusted to drive the process back to the middle of the curve.

    This is considered as a minimum. In addition, chemical laboratory for performing chemical analysis (measuring actual levels of, for example, bromide from the tank solutions) can be used.

    Now, running your own little replenished tank at home is a completely different beast. It WILL drift. It WILL be in order of 10x less consistent than typical one-shot processing. But I have to ask -- so what? If the consistency is good enough in practice, there might still be valid reasons to run an uncontrolled replenished process.

    Now the REAL problem here is that even though XTOL can be used as a replenisher, there is no starter available. This only leaves two options; to formulate your own starter, or to "season" the bath in a really old way of just running film through. The latter is a bit inconsistent, laborious and expensive way.

    It appears that there are pictorial reasons to use so called "replenished XTOL", because it is a different developer than the "normal" XTOL. Of course it is, it includes more restrainers than the normal XTOL. It will have different contrast, different curve shape and possibly different look in grain.

    Many people have chosen the uncontrolled replenishment to achieve this. A much better way for a very-small volume user would be to formulate a starter -- a mixture (the most important ingredient being sodium or potassium bromide) that is ADDED to a fresh XTOL and which immediately makes the solution work just like the "good" seasoned XTOL. This way, it could be used one-shot for maximum consistency and very low volumes. There are free formulae for very XTOL-like developers. If one of those would be modified to add "starter", you could mix any amount you need when you need it from dry chemicals for extra low volumes, and get just the results you are getting from replenished tank with less hassle and more consistency.

    But, if the replenished system works, why change it. Also, it can be very economical if you hit certain minimum volume. But as long as it is a replenished process, you can see problems like discussed in this thread. Typically, if the bath is not used for some time, the only really consistent and right thing to do is to toss it altogether and make a completely new bath. But this involves using a starter, anyway. If you don't have a starter, you are not being consistent anyway, so it's easier not to think about it too much. If it works in practice, then it works.
    Last edited by hrst; 07-17-2012 at 05:26 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #35
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    In fact, http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe.../j109/j109.pdf says that you can use many different starter products made by Kodak to instantly and consistently "season" your XTOL (see page 2, "Using Seasoned Developer").

  6. #36
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,559
    Images
    300
    I have no densitometer on hand, and I don't use test strips, but during the entire period I have used this Xtol system, I haven't seen, in practical terms, any drift. My negs pretty much all print well at Grade 2 filtration, and only small adjustments in contrast are made. That is, in practical terms, as consistent as any single shot developer I have used (again, in practical terms).
    The good thing about Xtol is that after you find the 'minimum per roll' replenishment volume, you can just increase that volume a hair, to be sure about developer activity. For me minimum volume has proven to be 75ml, so I replenish 80ml per 36exp / 8x10" film equivalent area, and I just cannot see any drift that results in my printing going off (although I'm sure it could be measured).

    @hrst - your explanation of the replenished system is very good. I worked for a couple of years in a pro lab that did exactly as you describe, with test strips and densitometer readings, several times a day, regardless of throughput. Very good and stable system.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Eastern Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    300
    Images
    1
    Thanks to all who have replied to my question. I have enjoyed reading your posts.

    I should mention that my 5-month lapse in using my replenished Xtol was unusual. However, I will admit that I don't have the annual volume that many Xtol users here are doing and sometimes go a month or two without processing any film, but usually not any longer than that. But I continue to think that even lower volume users can utilize the replenishing option and achieve consistent and satisfactory results. I have not yet experienced any Xtol failures.

    Also, my first 10 rolls used to "season" my developer did not go to waste. Every single roll was fine and I ended up with some excellent images, at least in my opinion.

    Dave

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin