Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,927   Posts: 1,585,166   Online: 797
      
Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 101
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Venchka View Post
    Lets SQUASH two internet rumors with one big stick:

    Xtol stored in a wine in a box bladder in my refrigerator is good for 8 months plus.

    Xtol 1:3 in a Jobo tank spun on a Uniroller or Beseler motor base absolutely works.

    Thus concludes the lesson for today.
    I shouldn't have referred to using Xtol 1:3 in Jobos as a user error. It's just that the guy I talked with at Kodak said they don't recommend that scenario and attribute some reported failures to it. Phenidone relatives have great capacity, so I have no reason to think that isn't a good practice if sufficient care is taken that there's enough stock solution per roll to ensure consistency.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt View Post
    I've used Xtol for over a decade, and I've had one "developer failure" during that time. I don't know the cause, and I only use 5L packets. I don't see that as any worse failure rate than any of the other developers that I use. It gives a very good combo of fine-grain, high-speed and sharpness. That said, all developers go bad. Some, though, start to change color when going off. Xtol doesn't. As a result, given your stipulations, why not stick with D76?
    Just wanting the extra 10%.

  3. #13
    fotch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE WI- USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad Dow View Post
    Michael P. Dosch did an impressive study of developer activity over time, stored various ways (http://www.udmercy.edu/crna/agm/phenvitc.htm), and comments on the Falcon bottles:

    The difference in shelf-life between a single batch of D76, split between a glass bottle and a Falcon plastic accordion-type bottle was notable.
    and
    Strangely, attempts to prolong its useful life by storing it in an accordian-type plastic bottle and excluding air resulted in less time before exhaustion occurred! I can only guess that the plastic container was not impervious to oxygen in the room air. Otherwise I cannot account for this- excluding air from the bottle "should" have worked, according to...........................
    Brad, very interesting link, thank you.
    Items for sale or trade at www.Camera35.com

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    671
    I have used it as my main developer since 2001. I make it with distilled water and have stored it in full glass bottles to test how long it is good for. My longest test (so far) is three years after I made it up and it was perfect.

  5. #15
    david b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    None of your business
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,034
    Images
    30
    It is truly amazing how something so long ago can still come up.

    The problem that (rarely) occurred had to do with 1 liter bags that have long been killed.

    Follow the instructions on the bag and use distilled water and you will be fine

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Omaha, Nebraska
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,512
    Images
    4
    I have used it for over ten years at dilutions up to 1-3 and never had a single problem. Great developer.
    "Fundamentally I think we need to rediscover a non-ironic world"
    Robert Adams

  7. #17
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,665
    Images
    28
    PITA to mix, but well worth it, great developer!

    Mixes well with rodinal.

  8. #18
    SchwinnParamount's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,104
    Images
    44
    Kodak would have killed XTOL long ago if it was not reliable. They would have killed it long ago if we (the film user community) were not buying lots of it. They would have killed it long ago if it was a good developer but had a bad reputation as an unreliable developer.

    Kodak didn't kill it and like all of these other good folks have said, it is good and it works.

    I've used it for 10+ years with nary a failure. In fact, it never occurred to me that it might fail. I also never heard a credible source saying it had failed. There were reports in the first year of use that XTOL could suffer "sudden death". Those reports have ceased because either:

    1) The early adopters were unfamiliar with XTOL and reported a product flaw that was actually user error.
    2) The problem did exist and Kodak addressed it.

    btw, I prefer to use undiluted XTOL. It gives the best result for me with minimal grain. Surely, a packet of powder lasts half as long if I don't dilute 1:1 but that is almost irrelevant as XTOL is cheap. My images are priceless (to me anyway) and I want to give them the BEST development I can regardless of a nigling detail such as the cost of developer.
    Last edited by SchwinnParamount; 08-11-2009 at 12:06 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #19
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    PITA to mix, but well worth it, great developer!

    Mixes well with rodinal.
    Not any harder to mix than D-76. In fact, it's notable for being mixable at room temperature and is easily soluble.

    I'd really wish these XTOL reliability threads would just spontaneously fail and never appear again. They're tiring.

    btw, I prefer to use undiluted XTOL. It gives the best result for me with minimal grain. Surely, a packet of powder lasts half as long if I don't dilute 1:1 but that is almost irrelevant as XTOL is cheap. My images are priceless (to me anyway) and I want to give them the BEST development I can regardless of a nigling detail such as the cost of developer.
    It's not the BEST to use undiluted - it's just another route. You trade grain for acutance. If grain bothers you, then by all means, keep using it undiluted. However, I would like to point out that the aesthetic difference between 1+0 and 1+1 is almost negligible in practice.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  10. #20
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,435
    Images
    148
    Dosch's survbey is flawed on the one graph all the developers do in activity significantly in week 13 only to bounce back two weeks later, that says more about his methods than the developers themselves.

    Xtol keeps extremely well, again, another question why trawl up Kodak's early packaging problem (of the small amateur size pack) the developer was never at fault.

    If you replenish Xtol the results are far better negative qualities, finer hrain, better tonality & sharpness, then add to that conveniecem and economy, and a shelf life in excess of a year and Xtol is a sure winner.

    Ian

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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