TMX 4x5 in XTOL - Revisiting my process and optimizing for scanning [Archive]

datro

22-Jul-2016, 16:47

Hi all,

I've been developing TMX 4x5 negatives (using EI 64) in my Jobo CPP-2 for quite a while, but based on a recent review of some past threads here I have decided to completely revisit my process and try to improve it, especially now that I am drum scanning instead of printing in the darkroom. My negatives have been OK in the past, but were usually a bit more dense than would be desired for scanning purposes.

Up to now my JOBO process has been: 5 min. pre-rinse, develop 9:30 in XTOL 1:3, 1 min. stop, 5 min. rapid fixer, rinse, 2 min. HCA then wash. Drum rotation was at 50 rpm, all processing at 75 degrees.

I've decided to change two things so far: No pre-rinse and drum rotation speed at 30 rpm ("F" setting) instead of 50 rpm. I'm now running some tests to find my new developing time to achieve a ZONE VIII density of about 1.0. I knew that the reduced rotation speed would definitely affect the developing time but I was surprised at how much affect it had. My first test run was XTOL 1:3 for the same time as I had been using before (9:30) but my Zone VIII density was only .67 (above FB+fog)! I guess it is also possible that eliminating the pre-rinse may have had some affect as well.

Clearly I need to consider one or more of these additional changes to achieve my target density: a) longer dev time, b) less developer dilution (i.e. use XTOL 1:2 or 1:1), or increase agitation by speeding up the drum rotation.

I'd be interested in opinions on the most optimal approach to get more density given my situation. Would I be giving up any sharpness or other qualities by using XTOL 1:2 (or 1:1) instead? (In many older threads here XTOL 1:3 was often mentioned as optimal.) I'm inclined to keep the slower rotation, but would increasing it have noticeable affect on sharpness? Of course, I could just develop longer as well, but at present it looks like I would have to substantially increase the time which seems not a good idea.

All opinions welcome.

Thanks,
Dave

Peter De Smidt

22-Jul-2016, 17:19

I used that combo, including a Jobo, for many years. Diluting 1+3 gives a little more sharpness and slightly larger grain than a more concentrated solution, and that might be useful using an optical enlarger. For scanning, though, the biggest challenge is often a grain increase and good tonal separation. A drum scanner should have no problem even with a dense bw negative. Scanners can also differentiate between low density areas very well.

As a result, I doubt that slowing the rotation of the drum is doing you any favors, nor is the dilution. Try rating your film a bit faster, and give 1+1dilution a try.

Bruce Watson

23-Jul-2016, 08:08

I've decided to change two things so far: No pre-rinse and drum rotation speed at 30 rpm ("F" setting) instead of 50 rpm.

What I remember from an email exchange I had with Silvia Zadwicki and Dick Dickerson (the Kodak research chemists who get much of the credit for the creation of XTOL) is that XTOL was designed to not need a prewash. I've never used one with XTOL, using TX and TMY both, Jobo CPP-2, 3010 drum.

I also found that I got both better results and less wear and tear on the Jobo by using 30 rpm. There's no need for high speeds with XTOL. I suspect that the higher speeds are more for E-6 and C-41 processing.

I'm now running some tests to find my new developing time to achieve a ZONE VIII density of about 1.0. I knew that the reduced rotation speed would definitely affect the developing time but I was surprised at how much affect it had.

That's a good target for drum scanning. Agitation clearly has quite an effect on development time, as you're finding out.

My first test run was XTOL 1:3 for the same time as I had been using before (9:30) but my Zone VIII density was only .67 (above FB+fog)! I guess it is also possible that eliminating the pre-rinse may have had some affect as well.

Clearly I need to consider one or more of these additional changes to achieve my target density: a) longer dev time, b) less developer dilution (i.e. use XTOL 1:2 or 1:1), or increase agitation by speeding up the drum rotation.

In my emails with Zadwicki and Dickerson, they told me that they didn't see differences in the lab until around 15x enlargement. So I suggest trying 1:1. I highly doubt you'll see any differences relative to 1:3, and it'll be half the solution, so less wear and tear on the Jobo.

I'd be interested in opinions on the most optimal approach to get more density given my situation. Would I be giving up any sharpness or other qualities by using XTOL 1:2 (or 1:1) instead? (In many older threads here XTOL 1:3 was often mentioned as optimal.)

There's a difference between what's optimal, and what's visible. I'll agree that 1:3 might be optimal. But I'll also agree that you probably won't be able to actually see it until you get to enlargement levels that are extreme (15-20x). So... will you be giving up any acutance? Tiny bit, yes. Will you actually be able to see it? Probably not. Like I said, I'd go with 1:1.

BTW, with rotary (continuous) agitation, development time varies as the square of the dilution. So if your development time is 10 minutes at 1:3, it should be 10/sqrt(2) = 7 minutes at 1:1.

I'm inclined to keep the slower rotation, but would increasing it have noticeable affect on sharpness?

Agitation has no direct effects on sharpness at all. Not according to Haist, Henry, etc. But it's a religious argument, because most people don't control for just agitation. If you do good science and design your experiment so that it has exactly one variable, and that variable is agitation, you'll see that acutance (sharpness) is not effected.

But if you search around the 'net on the topic, you'll find a lot of people who didn't do good science, which is the making of a religious argument.

Of course, I could just develop longer as well, but at present it looks like I would have to substantially increase the time which seems not a good idea.

Longer development times won't hurt anything. People do stand development for hours without any ill effects. Modern emulsions are pretty stable and resist all kinds of odd abuses. Don't worry about it.

Pere Casals

23-Jul-2016, 11:55

to get more density given my situation.

You don't mention how much 1:3 solution do you put in the jobo for each sheet.

Some 125ml of stock solution (at least, better if more) are needed to process a 80 sq inch film surface, so you need 500ml of 1:3 dilution for that (a roll, a 8x10, or 4 4x5), this is 125ml of 1:3 solution per 4x5 sheet.

With a lower quantity of diluted developer the chemicals can be exhausted, specialy when there is a very "white" scene that is to make react more the developer.

And this ends with thinner than normal negatives, did you used 125 ml 1:3 per sheet at least ??

Bruce Watson

23-Jul-2016, 12:44

Some 125ml of stock solution (at least, better if more) are needed to process a 80 sq inch film surface...

Um... no. Try again. From Kodak Tech. Pub. J-109, page 2:

"The volume of diluted XTOL Developer needed to cover the film will depend on the size of your tank or tray or the design of your rotary-tube processor. However, the minimum amount of diluted developer needed to cover the film may not contain enough active ingredients to develop the film fully in the recommended time. We recommend always starting with at least 100 mL (3.5 fluidounces) of full-strength developer to prepare the diluted solution for each 135-36 or 120 roll (or the equivalent of 80 square inches..."

For rotary processing, all you need is 100ml stock solution for each 10x8 equivalent, or 25ml for each 5x4. I've processed hundreds of sheets of both TX and TMY-2 in a 3010 tank using various dilutions of XTOL; I've never seen a problem when following this Kodak recommendation.

Pere Casals

23-Jul-2016, 13:40

For rotary processing, all you need is 100ml stock solution for each 10x8 equivalent, or 25ml for each 5x4. I've processed hundreds of sheets of both TX and TMY-2 in a 3010 tank using various dilutions of XTOL; I've never seen a problem when following this Kodak recommendation.

The important thing is if the low density experimented was due low stock developer usage or not...

If you want to know why I recommended 125ml instead the 100ml Kodak say it is the minimum, I've no problem to explain it to you:

It's we'll known that the 100ml Kodak says it's enough will always deliver good results and you'll never have a problem, but 125ml (or more, better 140) will deliver clearly consistent results, this is why:

Imagine you place 3 sheets with a white scene (a lot of snow) with 1 sheet with a lot of dark areas. Those 3 sheets will use more developer to reduce more silver so active chemicals will lower more its concentration, so the other sheet will reach lower density than if first 3 sheets were of dark scenes, that inconsistency can have same effect than 1/3 of stop underexposure, something that most won't realize it even happened.

Even if there is a single sheet in a tray, if all scene is white but there are some small shadows those shadows of the scene will reach lower density in the negative than expected, because the rest of the sheet consumed al lot of developer and resulted more depletion than normal.

Using a bit more developer than estrictly necessary avoids the problem of significative (higher than normal) developer depletion because some of the sheets were very dense, thus avoiding a slight side effect to others, (1/3 of stop as much).

100ml of stock per sheet are enough, but 125ml are strongly recomended for those that desire consistency, this is very well known, I think...

Of course if you do not value/need strict developing consistency and solve inconsistencies in the post, then 100ml are more than correct...

PD: Personally I think best way to cook sheets, specially if challenging illumination, it is in a tray, I use a paper safe, then agitation becomes a powerful factor of control and also, if very reduced agitation used, there is no risk of Bromide drag... I use the cpe2 only for Velvia

Willie

23-Jul-2016, 13:49

Bruce is using a 1:3 dilution and having success. The first batch of instructions stated 1:3 was a good way to go for one shot developer use. After some experience and failures Kodak too out all the information related to 1:3 dilution. They no longer recommend it.

Something changed from the original formula as it was to be usable in most any type of water worldwide. Especially in iron rich waters. Now Kodak does not state this.

Bruce Watson

23-Jul-2016, 14:28

100ml of stock per sheet are enough, but 125ml are strongly recomended for consistency, didn't you know that ? this is very well known...

Interesting that I've been doing this for well more than a decade, and you're the only person I've heard make this statement. I haven't seen such a reference on this forum, or on APUG. Hmmm....

And it's also interesting that you think you know more about XTOL than Kodak, and that your recommendations should carry more weight than Kodak's J-109 (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf) Tech. Pub. recommendations.

What makes you more of an authority on XTOL than Kodak? "Enquiring minds want to know" TM.

Bruce Watson

23-Jul-2016, 14:40

Bruce is using a 1:3 dilution and having success.

I never had a failure with 1:3, hundreds of sheets of film. But I think 1:1 is a better play now, simply because I can't see the difference between 1:3 and 1:1 in prints at 12x enlargements (OK, sections of prints, because making full sized test prints from 12x enlargements of 5x4 film is, um, excessive?), and it uses less water. Why use more resources than you need?

The first batch of instructions stated 1:3 was a good way to go for one shot developer use. After some experience and failures Kodak too out all the information related to 1:3 dilution. They no longer recommend it.

Something changed from the original formula as it was to be usable in most any type of water worldwide. Especially in iron rich waters. Now Kodak does not state this.

Yep, there was a kerfuffle in the early-ish days of XTOL. Interested parties should search for "early XTOL failure", you'll find a number of threads about it. The bottom line was iron in the mix water, and the "cure" was to mix (and dilute) with distilled water. There was also some packaging redesign by Kodak, and the discontinuation of the 1 liter packages. I was using distilled water anyway because I wanted the cleanest water possible, and I was using the 5 liter packaging because that's what I could get. Both of these things contributed perhaps to why I never experienced the "early XTOL failure" problem.

Pere Casals

23-Jul-2016, 15:06

Interesting that I've been doing this for well more than a decade, and you're the only person I've heard make this statement. I haven't seen such a reference on this forum, or on APUG. Hmmm....

And it's also interesting that you think you know more about XTOL than Kodak, and that your recommendations should carry more weight than Kodak's J-109 (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf) Tech. Pub. recommendations.

What makes you more of an authority on XTOL than Kodak? "Enquiring minds want to know" TM.

Sorry Bruce, it's you that have more authority than Kodak... : ) way more, as Kodak do not recommends 1:3 and you say it's correct !!!!

It was a joke...

Well, for example look here :

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99709

There are people saying that 125ml is better, and if you search a bit you'll find dozens of comments like this, strange you don't heard about it...

I agree with Kodak, 1:3 is not recommendable, not because it do not work but for next:

No clear different result from 1:2

More time

No savings in stock chem, this from 1:1 one shot

Needs a lot of tank space, you can develop half of the rolls or sheets,

(And perhaps with some tap (iron) water 1:3 is not good, I'do not know...)

I won't say 1:3 it's silly but...

Perhaps with in case of very high scene contrast, high 1:3 and stand makes some sense.

But for usual work with 1:3 you just use more tank space and can process less sheets per batch.

PD: In case sheets and 1:3 stand, use a tray, with the sheet leveled there is much less risk of Bromide drag...

Pere Casals

23-Jul-2016, 15:23

Kodak's J-109 (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf)

If you read the datasheet from Kodak in your link it says:

"We recommend always starting with at least 100 mL"

"At least" is "at least", pointing (without being too imaginative) that a higher dose can have different effects or be better.

This follows the historic developer dosification discussion, with people saying that with less it works and people saying than a bit more is more safe, because scene can reduce more silver, or because developer may have lost some activity.

And as always with silver, you can try it, it's worth to know it. Take one sheet at Zone X, another one at Zone O, and 2 at Zone V.

Develop one of the ZV with the Z0, and the other ZV with the ZX, each batch with 25ml stock XTOL per 4x5 sheet, and later just measure the density of both Z5.

For me a 8x10 sheet contains a lot of effort and happiness, with 125ml of stock, (250 1:1) I'm unconcerned, and this is 25ml more.

Willie

23-Jul-2016, 20:23

Jim Andrada

23-Jul-2016, 23:28

Pere Casals

24-Jul-2016, 02:01

Pere Casals

24-Jul-2016, 02:18

If you store any developer by months a drop test my be quite useful.

Lights open, a drop every 30 seconds on a film end, after 8 drops wait 5 min and then fix.

Make a drop test when developer if is fresh, you'll have a reference.

A refined way is with ilford test strips:

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20114271214382932.pdf

Comparing the density of the "drops" in the backlight you can correct developing time to match...

Regards

Pere Casals

24-Jul-2016, 02:46

Bruce Watson wrote: "Yep, there was a kerfuffle in the early-ish days of XTOL. Interested parties should search for "early XTOL failure", you'll find a number of threads about it. The bottom line was iron in the mix water, and the "cure" was to mix (and dilute) with distilled water. There was also some packaging redesign by Kodak, and the discontinuation of the 1 liter packages. I was using distilled water anyway because I wanted the cleanest water possible, and I was using the 5 liter packaging because that's what I could get. Both of these things contributed perhaps to why I never experienced the "early XTOL failure" problem."

-----------------------------------------

Some of the early failures were also with 5 litre packets and distilled water. One batch of film was just fine. The next, developed with a newly mixed 1:3 dilution using distilled water were completely blank. No development at all. Early Kodak information gave 1:3 as a normal option. After sudden failures started showing up they took the 1:3 information off the instructions completely.
Odd part was that Xtol was to be hardy and usable in most any kind of water, including iron rich areas.
Sylvia and Dick, mentioned by Bruce - addressed this in a number of their presentations on B&W. Sylvia was surprised as she was the one who came up with the developer and had no problems. Somewhere in the system something changed. Maybe it was how the dry chemistry was mixed before packaging? Who knows? Considering Kodak Azo paper emulsion changes depending on the shape of the mixing bowl used - a lot of variables that help make this alchemy at times rather than pure, repeatable science.

I think this is a sterile discussion.

I think these may be the key point concluded by most people:

> Xtol "Sudden Death" is not not a concern since it was solved by Kodak decades ago

> Mix with distilled water any developer that is to stay months in the shelf, protect from Oxygen with inert gas or full bottles

> Make drop tests by rutine, this will help to discard developer factor in the results, and then we can focus if film age, photometer etc to get consistency (if we want that)

> Xtol 1:3 do not make sense over 1:2, no benefit and use more tank space, an exception is to control strong lights with reduced agitation or stand, then 1:3 may help developer depletion over dark negative areas. But 1:3 do not make sense with normal agitation or rotary.

And Xtol is a formidable developer that included every knowlegdge Kodak had after a century, including low toxicity, anyway, of course, we may want other effects from a different developer,

but Xtol has:

> Best fine grain vs sharpness, fine grain, an a lot of sharpness.
> Full speed
> 1/3 advantage in shadow detail
> Nice 1:1 operative dilution saving chem
> Consistent strength over months
> And vitamin C based low toxicity !!!

Just use distiled water, for long time in shelf, like with other developers.

Other developers will be better at some point with a drawback in another, or have a different look we desire, but technically speaking Xtol is a prominent product like few (other manufacturers have a counterpart), including low toxicity.

It's really a good option, IMHO.

Pere Casals

24-Jul-2016, 03:17

I like Xtol but I don't use

Also you would like to know that Xtol has an AMAZING!! degree of control for WOW !!

It is well miscible with Rodinal giving impressive results in deep shadows that can be adjusted by the dose of Rodinal.

Take Xtol 1:2 and add some 1.25ml of rodinal concentrate per 4x5 sheet, same time than Xtol 1:2, some will say about fog, but they have not tried it : )

I've learnt it from Mr De Graaff, who kindly answered my questions, look:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterdegraaff/27811683644/in/dateposted/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterdegraaff/

datro

24-Jul-2016, 07:07

Thanks Bruce, Pere and everyone else for your suggestions and observations. Very interesting discussion.

Pere, you had asked earlier in the thread if somehow I was exhausting the developer by not using enough stock. I don't think so. Like Bruce, my guideline has been 100 mL full-strength developer for every 80 square inches of film. In my 3006 drum, I use 600 mL total (150 mL stock + 450 mL water), and in my 3010 drum I use 1000 mL total (250 mL stock + 750 mL water). This has always worked fine for me in the past. Also I do pay attention to making sure I have a set of "typical scene" negatives included in the developing run in addition to my Zone VIII negative to minimize any unusual developer consumption.

(One interesting thing to note: my first test to get my new development time was done with a batch of XTOL just mixed from a 5L package that was dated 2012. When I looked at those first extremely thin negatives, it was clear I had encountered something like the "sudden death syndrome," though in this case the developer was dead right out of the package. This had never happened to me in the past. I purchased fresh new packages, mixed up a new batch and ran another developing time test....huge difference. Moral of the story: Make sure your XTOL package date has NOT expired!).

Up to now I've been using normal tap water filtered through a 10 micron sediment filter. AFAIK, my water does not contain abnormal amounts of iron, but I may need to check into that and consider distilled water in the future. I just hate having to purchase and stock all the distilled water so I'm hoping to be able to stick with my current setup.

After reviewing everyone's comments, I will probably next try XTOL 1:2 with the 30rpm rotation speed to see if I can get the dev time under 10 minutes. I want as much acutance as I can get so I'll try 1:2 before moving to 1:1, and I like Bruce's thinking that it's worthwhile to reduce wear-and tear on the JOBO where possible, so keeping the slower rotation seems to make sense. For now I'll stick with EI 64 but may consider running a test with EI 80 as well once I'm in the ballpark.

Dave

Pere Casals

24-Jul-2016, 07:53

but I may need to check into that and consider distilled water in the future. I just hate having to purchase and stock all the distilled water so I'm hoping to be able to stick with my current setup.

One option is a cheap reverse osmosis device, for acuariums.

https://www.amazon.com/Aquatic-Life-Reverse-Osmosis-50-Gallon/dp/B00DOG63OY/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1469370339&sr=8-7&keywords=reverse+osmosis

This is 50GPD, 50 gallons per day, so it makes a gallon in 30min aprox.

Reverse osmosis goes beyond a filter can do and delivers near distilled water, and is what we buy sometimes as deionized water.

It is also fine for final rinse before drying, so it is convenient if there is some regular darkroom activity.

The expired package explains all.

When you are not shure about chem a "drop test" is the way, it can save destroying valued material.

I make a "drop test" every time I mix a developer, so I know for shure it works and also I have a reference that I can compare in the future if it gets aged in the shelf. For it I just keep the film ends of roll film, there are 15 cm of unused film at the beginning of each 135 roll, or you can use a new 135 roll just for it, it can last years, or make strips from a sheet...

As Bruce says, there is no reason for high rev with the jobo.

Anyway think that rotary do not allow to use agitation as a contrast control factor, for this reason HC-110 is considered for rotary as contrast is controlled by developer dilution with constant time:

http://www.erikgouldprojects.com/coldcoffee/2015/9/24/an-alternative-approach-to-contrast-control-with-hc-110

Also you can correct it in post processing, just moving curves in PS if you scan.

Still for some situations (hight costrast scenes) you may use xtol+tray development with reduced agitation to prevent lights blowing.

Increasing time you increase contrast, but with reduced agitation you have a local effect, preserving textures at highlights.

Regards.

Peter De Smidt

24-Jul-2016, 08:33

I'm not really a fan of changing drum rotation with a Jobo for controlling contrast. I set mine on the lowest speed that turns smoothly and consistently to minimize motor strain and developer foaming. In my case that's on "4". I generally don't do minus development, as it crushes tonal separation. N-1 or N-2 is easy to handle in scanning, printing, or post production. If the subject brightness range of the scene is extreme, I'll simply use divided Pyrocat in the Jobo.

So agitation is fixed. Now use dilution and temperature to get the developing time that you like. I prefer 8 to 10 minutes. It's long enough to minimize timing irregularities without requiring lots of boring time watching the drum spin.

As I said earlier, scanning is a trade off between grain size and tonal separation. If you develop more, you'll get better separation of tones, but the grain will be bigger. This is a reason to minimize development with 35mm, especially with grainy film. But with TMX, Acros, Delta 100, TMY in large format the grain is so small, especially with Xtol or similar, that it's not worth worrying about unless you want to go to at least a 10x enlargement. As a result, you can develop more for better tonality and not worry about grain.

Sal Santamaura

24-Jul-2016, 09:48

So if the 1:3 dilution is avoided and distilled water is used to dissolve the powder, is the "Sudden Death Syndrome" held at bay or is it still something to worry about. I like Xtol but I don't use it because I may go a couple of months between developing sessions and I'm worried about its SDS problem.Rather than individually address the wealth of misinformation throughout this thread, I'll summarize what can be found in many other archived threads here. An advanced Google search ought locate them easily enough if someone is interested.

Per Zawadzki and Dickerson, especially given the additional moisture/oxygen protection I've added by placing original foil packet pairs in laminated mylar/polyester resealable anti-static bags, my 20-year stash of XTOL should be fine. They see no reason why it won't work irrespective of "expiration dates."
Don't avoid 1+3 dilution. It works perfectly, and is especially useful for obtaining longer development times when high ambient temperatures, like those in Tucson, result in too-short times at high developing temperatures with less dilution
100ml of stock solution contains sufficient active ingredients to fully develop 80 square inches of film regardless of scene content. Any more stock is excess.
If mixed using distilled water and stored in full, properly capped glass bottles, the stock solution will last for at least one year with no change in activity level. I use 250ml Boston Rounds with Teflon-lined caps. That volume represents one Jobo run at 1+3. There's never a partially filled bottle of stock on my shelf. Under these conditions, "sudden death" just doesn't happen.

Use a pre-rinse. Don't use a pre-rinse. Either way works equally well. Simply determine an optimum development time via testing and stay consistent.
Use a Jobo processor rotation speed setting that results in the drum turning at 45-50 rpm. Research the processor's serial number to establish which speed setting that is; it varies depending on motor and motor controller, which correlate with serial number
In a drum, foaming is of no consequence. Liquids are introduced while the drum is rotating, which it never stops doing. Foam has no opportunity to impact negatives.

datro

24-Jul-2016, 10:38

The expired package explains all.

Just to be clear, my developing results mentioned in my original post occurred AFTER I encountered and corrected the problem with my expired package of XTOL. All of my results mentioned here were with a fresh-dated 5L package of XTOL. So my low density experience was NOT the result of an expired package but rather the changes in my processing as previously outlined.

Dave

Pere Casals

24-Jul-2016, 11:23

Just to be clear, my developing results mentioned in my original post occurred AFTER I encountered and corrected the problem with my expired package of XTOL. All of my results mentioned here were with a fresh-dated 5L package of XTOL. So my low density experience was NOT the result of an expired package but rather the changes in my processing as previously outlined.
Dave

Sorry, I didn't read well.

Again, make a drop test !

Lights open, just take 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3, and lets fall a drop of each in a strip from a sheet every 30 seconds, then fix it directly.

make a graphs time to density, also look time to reach DMax.

Pere Casals

24-Jul-2016, 11:33

Don't avoid 1+3 dilution. It works perfectly

Yes, but it takes a lot of tank space, and more time.

It is a good practice to have the darkroom at 20ºC, if one has not air conditioning in Tucson, well this can be hard for confort...

One can use water from the refrigerator to the get temperature. For 1:1 if stock is at 25ºC just add water at 15ºC, it will end at 20º, put also 20º water in jobo pool. If you let run tap water for a while it comes under 20ºC, normally, as pipes are buried deep.

Bruce Watson

24-Jul-2016, 12:16

Yep. All of this. I personally like 30 rpm better, but if you like 50 rpm better it's OK. It's all good. As long as you do it consistently.

Rather than individually address the wealth of misinformation throughout this thread, I'll summarize what can be found in many other archived threads here. An advanced Google search ought locate them easily enough if someone is interested.

Per Zawadzki and Dickerson, especially given the additional moisture/oxygen protection I've added by placing original foil packet pairs in laminated mylar/polyester resealable anti-static bags, my 20-year stash of XTOL should be fine. They see no reason why it won't work irrespective of "expiration dates."
Don't avoid 1+3 dilution. It works perfectly, and is especially useful for obtaining longer development times when high ambient temperatures, like those in Tucson, result in too-short times at high developing temperatures with less dilution
100ml of stock solution contains sufficient active ingredients to fully develop 80 square inches of film regardless of scene content. Any more stock is excess.
If mixed using distilled water and stored in full, properly capped glass bottles, the stock solution will last for at least one year with no change in activity level. I use 250ml Boston Rounds with Teflon-lined caps. That volume represents one Jobo run at 1+3. There's never a partially filled bottle of stock on my shelf. Under these conditions, "sudden death" just doesn't happen.

Use a pre-rinse. Don't use a pre-rinse. Either way works equally well. Simply determine an optimum development time via testing and stay consistent.
Use a Jobo processor rotation speed setting that results in the drum turning at 45-50 rpm. Research the processor's serial number to establish which speed setting that is; it varies depending on motor and motor controller, which correlate with serial number
In a drum, foaming is of no consequence. Liquids are introduced while the drum is rotating, which it never stops doing. Foam has no opportunity to impact negatives.

Sal Santamaura

24-Jul-2016, 12:38

Yes, but it takes...more time...Yes, as I wrote, more time is the goal. Long enough for even results at higher temperatures.

...If you let run tap water for a while it comes under 20ºC, normally, as pipes are buried deep.Perhaps where you are, but not here or Tucson.

The water pipes in both places are buried "below the frost line." Which is at the surface. In practice, to avoid them being damaged, they're usually between 12 and 18 inches below the surface. By the middle of summer, after letting it run for a while, my "cold" tap water reaches 81 degrees F.

In one of its suburbs last summer, which is at a slightly higher elevation than Tucson and therefore a bit cooler, I measured "cold" tap water temperature after letting it run. The reading actually increased over time, since initial flow had been cooled down by the slab foundation in that air conditioned house. It finally stabilized at 90 degrees F.

Pere Casals

24-Jul-2016, 14:25

Perhaps where you are, but not here or Tucson.

Oh.. Arizona... I like Arizona !!!

I saw Hogjaw in concert <3, I've also a T-Shirt , later we took a beer with them, great guys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wjGtgukarU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82h2hyM4DTM (this one it's a little carzy belic : )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY1OMXw-hFs&index=5&list=RD82h2hyM4DTM

So with water, ice cubes... if beer can be cooled also developer may be : )

Jim Andrada

24-Jul-2016, 19:29

Yeah - I've seen 90 degree water after it runs a while. Water pipes barely below the black asphalt surface pick up a lot of heat and the 150 foot run to the house is maybe with luck as much as 12 inches deep. The water heater at the end of the house where the guest room is located is usually turned off unless we have company. Water seems to average around 24 C. Perfect!!!

Sal Santamaura

24-Jul-2016, 20:55

...The water heater at the end of the house where the guest room is located is usually turned off unless we have company...That practice can be very dangerous. Research Legionnaires' disease.

Willie

24-Jul-2016, 21:23

Yes, as I wrote, more time is the goal. Long enough for even results at higher temperatures.

Perhaps where you are, but not here or Tucson.

The water pipes in both places are buried "below the frost line." Which is at the surface. In practice, to avoid them being damaged, they're usually between 12 and 18 inches below the surface. By the middle of summer, after letting it run for a while, my "cold" tap water reaches 81 degrees F.

In one of its suburbs last summer, which is at a slightly higher elevation than Tucson and therefore a bit cooler, I measured "cold" tap water temperature after letting it run. The reading actually increased over time, since initial flow had been cooled down by the slab foundation in that air conditioned house. It finally stabilized at 90 degrees F.

The area of North Dakota we moved to has the building code specifying a minimum of 8 feet for water & sewer lines. We have found it makes for nice cold water even during the summer.