XTOL Replenished for TMAX 400, JOBO Rotary anybody?

[IanG]

The increased sharpness comes from the way the seasoned developer builds up an equilibrium of Bromide & Iodide, and this in turn with the high Sulphite level also helps with the finer grain. The restraining effect is more about development time rather than film speed.

In a dilute scenario of say 1+3 the bromide & iodide released during process are more significant and act in the same way as in a replenished developer.

Remember that developers like D76 (& Xtol) were designed to be replenished from the outset, Kodak originally suggested a different Fine Grain developer for small scale use back in 1927. (Haist's H76 is close to this)

So while there may be advantages in using one shot & dilute developers there's greater advantages in using replenishment if your shooting enough film each month. This is more about the economics of the no of films processed over the developers life.

I don't use Rotary processors, rather Jobo & Paterson inversion tanks, and so the economics are easy a 5 litre pack of Xtol used one shot at 1+2 processes 90 sheets of 5x4 film, whereas replenished that rises to 158 sheets. More when you replenish further with a fresh pack of Xtol, more like 285 sheets per 5 litres.

In practice Kodak's replenishment factor of 70ml per 80 sq inches (4 5x4's) or 120/35mm film is rather more than is needed and as it's a bleed system you are removing some developer to add the fresh.

Once your used to using replenished developers you find it's easy to keep the stock well balanced.

Ian

[Jay DeFehr]

Ian,

I am pretty familiar with replenished systems, having run a color lab. I disagree with your assertion that developer products are more significant with dilute developers. You say the increased sharpness produced by replenished developers results from the build up of developer products, but I think the increased sharpness produced by dilute developers is a consequence of the lower sulfite concentration, since dilute developers also produce higher film speeds, which would not be the case if the development products were responsible. A decrease in film speed is an indicator of under replenishment in a replenished system, because of the accumulation of developer products.

I agree that replenishment is more economical than one-shot use, but not by much, and only after a significant volume of film is developed. The minimum volume of stock required per roll of film developed is 100ml, and the replenishment rate is 70ml per roll. So, 1 liter of Xtol stock will develop 10 rolls of film, one shot, whatever the dilution. That same liter of stock, divided into 500ml of working developer and 500ml of replenisher will develop 7 rolls of film. Add another liter of replenisher, and it will develop another 14 rolls of film, for a total of 21 rolls with 2 liters of stock. That same 2 liters of stock will develop 20 rolls, one shot.

It might well be true that less than 70ml/roll is required to keep one's system in control, or it might take more than 70ml, and it doesn't matter that it's a bleed system; the replenishment rate is the rate of consumption.

Keeping a replenished system in control requires diligence. If one does not have process control strips, a calibrated densitometer, and a good program, one is just winging it, and might be better off using the developer one shot.

[Sirius Glass]

It has some additional advantages as well, usually any developer ID-II/D76, Xtol etc used dilute gives an increase in grain size due to there being less sulphite present, additionally there tends to be slight compensation because the developer exhausts particularly at 1+3.

Overall the replenished developer has the advantages of better sharpness and excellent tonality with the finest grain achievable with the particular developer used.

One big disadvantage of using Xtol dilute in a Jobo is you will get close to the exhaustion point with the smaller volumes of chemistry used.

I've been using Replenished developers for over 40 years and it's a simple and reliable method of working.

Ian

A little logic here. If there were no advantages to replenishing XTOL, Edwal 7, D76, ... et al the manufacturing companies would not put forth replenishing as an option. Why don't you try it for 10 or 20 rolls of film and see the difference for yourself? I saw it in only a few rolls.

If you never tasted or smelled chocolate, how could you say that you do not like chocolate?

This is not a case of "If your friends jumped off the roof ...".

Steve

[Jay DeFehr]

Steve,

I think Ian agrees there are advantages to using replenished developers, and uses one himself. Did you not read his post? Or, perhaps your remarks are not intended for Ian? I'm confused.

[Sirius Glass]

Steve,

I think Ian agrees there are advantages to using replenished developers, and uses one himself. Did you not read his post? Or, perhaps your remarks are not intended for Ian? I'm confused.

I was expanding on what Ian said. Ian and I are in violent agreement on this one.

Steve

[Jay DeFehr]

Hahahhaha. I see! Well, if your remarks were directed at me, you're preaching to the choir again. Lately I've been using my own superfine grain developer, replenished. I never suggested there weren't advantages to a replenished developer; I simply disagreed with Ian about what some of them are, why they are, and to the extent of the advantages. I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice some sharpness in favor of finer grain, and I'll even live with a slight loss of film speed, but I don't delude myself into believing I get sharper images with finer grain, and better economy by using a replenished developer, and I certainly don't want to try to convince others of this. Replenished developers can be fantastic, but they are not superior to one shot developers in all ways, for all users. I don't concur with the claim that one shot developers are necessarily and always more consistent than replenished ones, or visa versa. I do believe that any given developer will produce finer grain replenished than it will used one shot, and I also believe it will be less sharp, and produce less film speed. How much less will vary with developer, and much of the time the differences we discuss are very small indeed. Yes, I'll agree that a dilute developer of the D-76 type will produce sharper negatives when diluted than when used stock, or replenished. I'll also agree that negatives developed with intermittent agitation will be sharper than those developed with continuous agitation, all other things being equal. Given the very small differences we're discussing; would a negative developed in a replenished developer with intermittent agitation be as sharp, or sharper than one developed in a dilute, one shot developer with continuous agitation? Who knows? I think we're splitting hairs. The best developer, and the best way to use it have a lot more to do with the user than we seem to be willing to admit or recognize.

[IanG]

Ian,

I am pretty familiar with replenished systems, having run a color lab. I disagree with your assertion that developer products are more significant with dilute developers. You say the increased sharpness produced by replenished developers results from the build up of developer products, but I think the increased sharpness produced by dilute developers is a consequence of the lower sulfite concentration, since dilute developers also produce higher film speeds, which would not be the case if the development products were responsible. A decrease in film speed is an indicator of under replenishment in a replenished system, because of the accumulation of developer products.
.

The Iodide and Bromide from the film becomes more significant with the highest dilutions 1+3 of Xtol, ID-11/D76 simply because the level of developing agents is far lower and in this respect because of the low sulphite as well, the overall effect is more a kin to the European acutance developers of the 1950's & 60's.

When the developer is used full strength with or without replenishment there is always excess developing agents, but at 1+3 particularly in a rotary Jobo the developer ends up close to exhaustion so the by products have far greater importance.

As to the best sharpness the replenished developer will give the best all round combination because it's sharp with finer grain and so gives better definition and smother tones.

Sharpness is relative, the high acutance developers like Kodak HDD, Ilford Hyfin and Paterson Acutol-S gave razor like sharpness but at the expense of increased grain and stark tonality.

There's actually a balance point when using Xtol, Perceprol, ID-11/D76 etc dilute which is close to a 1+2 dilution which is surprisingly never suggested by manufacturers.

Ian

[Jay DeFehr]

The Iodide and Bromide from the film becomes more significant with the highest dilutions 1+3 of Xtol, ID-11/D76 simply because the level of developing agents is far lower and in this respect because of the low sulphite as well, the overall effect is more a kin to the European acutance developers of the 1950's & 60's.

When the developer is used full strength with or without replenishment there is always excess developing agents, but at 1+3 particularly in a rotary Jobo the developer ends up close to exhaustion so the by products have far greater importance.

As to the best sharpness the replenished developer will give the best all round combination because it's sharp with finer grain and so gives better definition and smother tones.

Sharpness is relative, the high acutance developers like Kodak HDD, Ilford Hyfin and Paterson Acutol-S gave razor like sharpness but at the expense of increased grain and stark tonality.

There's actually a balance point when using Xtol, Perceprol, ID-11/D76 etc dilute which is close to a 1+2 dilution which is surprisingly never suggested by manufacturers.

Ian

Ian,

I still disagree that the developer products in a dilute developer are more significant than in a replenished one. I understand your theory, but it isn't borne out in practice. Dilute developers produce higher film speeds, which contradicts the notion that the developing agents are being overwhelmed by restraining development products.

When you write "best sharpness" as opposed to "sharper" or "More sharp", and "all around combination" I think we come closer to agreement. As I wrote in an earlier post, the combined characteristics of grain, sharpness, film speed and gradation make up an Image Quality package, and I agree that the packages produced by some replenished developers suit me better than the packages produced by some one shot developers. Maximum sharpness is not essential for me, so I'm happy to compromise in favor of fine grain, but I don't want to give up much film speed in the bargain, and fine gradation is essential, above all. Others might prioritize these characteristics differently, and for some, a replenished developer might represent an unacceptable compromise.

Still, I understand your use of more absolute terms. For me, my SFG developer in combination with TMY-2 represents the best overall IQ package I've ever seen- much better than Xtol replenished- but I understand others might not agree with my assessment, and that wouldn't make them wrong.

[Peter De Smidt]

A little logic here. If there were no advantages to replenishing XTOL, Edwal 7, D76, ... et al the manufacturing companies would not put forth replenishing as an option.

Steve

Well, cost is certainly an advantage in some situations. I"m still not sure what you meant by "better tonality," though. How does replenished xtol change the characteristic curve of, say, TMY, as compared to the developing the film in one shot Xtol?

[Jay DeFehr]

Peter,

I can't speak for Steve, there's more to gradation (tonality) than the shape of a characteristic curve. Imagine a characteristic curve, of any shape you like, made of stair steps instead of a smooth, continuous line. The larger and fewer those steps are, the coarser the gradation, even though the general shape of the curve isn't changed. Gradation is the product of many interrelated characteristics, but most directly, the combined effects of local, regional and global contrast that are difficult, or impossible to quantify, but create a subliminal impression in the viewer. In a finely graded image, areas that appear to be of a single tone are made up of multiple tones, very close in value, and therefore, the transitions between tones are more seamless. In a coarsely graded image the tones appear blocky, and the transitions between them abrupt, even though the fine and coarse images might share identical curve shapes and contrast indices.

I hope I don't seem to be lecturing, but I often see those who refer to tonality or gradation criticized, as if they're referring to an imagined phenomenon. While gradation might be difficult to quantify, it is, for me, the single most important characteristic of a negative and the prints made from it.