XTOL not mixing well and not working any more!

[almostpilot]

Hi,
First off: I am a professional photographer who has based all his BW on Xtol, since the day it came out.
I mix in the same way (with distilled water) since that day, and have always produced crystal clear, consistent Xtol stock solution. Which I test every time by developing a 5x4 with a grey scale pattern.
Until now...
Since Xtol has changed packaging, and gone with the white plastic bag containing the 2 white plastic bags A &B... I have not been able to mix bag A in the prescribed initial 4L of water.
No matter how much I stir, there is always a powdery residue, which then sinks to the bottom of the bottles. Never seen that before.
But the problem is, when I use it to test develop my usual test negs, the result is a massively underdeveloped neg. the shadows not developed at all.
I thought it could be a batch issue. Indeed, Kodak UK refunded me assuming it was a batch issue. But now I have tried with different batches, and different providers (from different countries!) and again, the same issue.
This is pretty devastating for me as Xtol was at the basis of all my processes.
I have changed nothing. The issue started to appear with the new Xtol packaging... I have asked kodak if they changed the powder composition... no answer.
So, in desperation, I put out this notice.
HAS ANYONE HAD SIMILAR EXPERIENCES?
Look forward to hearing from you guys.

[almostpilot]

replying to myself...
A Search online showed me that indeed many having the exact same issues as me.
Shame on Kodak uk for writing to me and telling me they never heard about it. Really, how can they call that professional support? There is nothing professional left in kodak at all. In recent years I had the "13" issue with Tri X 120 (batches of tri x had the no 13 embedded in the emulsion... unbelievable but true). And now this.

[Tin Can]

KODAK is now Dinosaur Dung

They have made their trace

[almostpilot]

KODAK is now Dinosaur Dung

They have made their trace

You are so right there.
It's even worse. Their pro film guy in the uk lied to me. He wrote they never had the issue before...
A quick search online showed me they have acknowledged it in writing in 2019!

@KodakProFilmBiz: We’ve recently become aware of complaints for inactive development, 2019/08/09 date coded KODAK PROFESSIONAL XTOL Developer. We are working with the manufacturer to verify there are no further issues. If you have a problem, please contact us at ProPaperChem@kodakalaris.com.

[almostpilot]

208274

Here is an image showing they knew all about it 208274

[Kiwi7475]

KODAK is now Dinosaur Dung

They have made their trace

Kodak is really strange. They recently released E100 in 8x10, who was expecting that, and it’s a great product. I also like their Ektar and Portra. For b&w I moved away from Tmax and only use Ilford now.

I really hope they stay in business for a long time. Mistakes happen and yes many companies lie (inadvertently or purposefully) about their mistakes.

But it will be a sad day when they go, for the LF community. Fuji is a temperamental company turning film products on and off without notice or reason.

[Eric Woodbury]

LegacyPro EcoPro Ascorbic Acid film developer is the same (at least close enough) to XTOL. I've never had an issue with it. I mix in distilled water, store in 500cc bottles, 10 of them. Never had a dud.

[paulbarden]

The last package of Xtol I made up was difficult to dissolve, and had to be filtered to get the leftover crap out of. It also went bad after 6 weeks in 1 liter brown glass bottles, full to the top.

[Willie]

Just like they denied the larger sizes had "Sudden Death" problems after it was first out. Claimed it was the small size only, even as many had failures of the 5 litre packets.

Kodak - by whatever name seems to be its own worst enemy.

[Tobias Key]

I mixed up a batch of Xtol earlier this week. Try as I might I couldn't get the 'A' powder to completely dissolve. I assumed I had done something stupid like not cleaning my mixing bucket properly, added the 'B' powder and filtered the final solution to get the precipitate out. I have had slightly thin negatives but I am testing a new film and a new spot meter so can't be sure it is the developer. I did shoot some HP5 which I have been using for a long time with Xtol and those negs seem fine.

So now I am in a similar position where my faith in my standardised developer process is somewhat shaken. I guess the easiest step would be to buy another pack of Xtol but I am seriously considering switching developer. There is nothing worse than an unpredictable product.

[paulbarden]

I mixed up a batch of Xtol earlier this week. Try as I might I couldn't get the 'A' powder to completely dissolve. I assumed I had done something stupid like not cleaning my mixing bucket properly, added the 'B' powder and filtered the final solution to get the precipitate out. I have had slightly thin negatives but I am testing a new film and a new spot meter so can't be sure it is the developer. I did shoot some HP5 which I have been using for a long time with Xtol and those negs seem fine.

So now I am in a similar position where my faith in my standardised developer process is somewhat shaken. I guess the easiest step would be to buy another pack of Xtol but I am seriously considering switching developer. There is nothing worse than an unpredictable product.

It might not be practical for a commercial photographer, but my decision is to migrate my practice over to Pyro instead of Xtol, assuming there are ongoing issues with the manufacture of Xtol. I suppose there's always the Legacy Pro version of Xtol, which I haven't tried yet.

[Duolab123]

I've made two batches of the new formula XTOL. I use a variable speed propeller mixer. No lack of stirring. I dissolve part A, there are still a bit of suspended particles, but I go ahead and dump in part B and rev the stirrer a few times to keep everything moving then stir gently. I always use warmed distilled water (85°F)

I would try the Legacy Pro version. Wait until Kodak (Alaris) gets it together. I've used XTOL since it came out.

When Tetenal announced the restructuring I bought a dozen packages of the Tetenal produced product. But I have not had any real issues with the new version.

Easy solution is to shoot Ilford and use Ilford chemistry, then as a Pro, you have issues you have one company to deal with.

[alt.kafka]

I've made two batches of the new formula XTOL. I use a variable speed propeller mixer. No lack of stirring. I dissolve part A, there are still a bit of suspended particles, but I go ahead and dump in part B and rev the stirrer a few times to keep everything moving then stir gently. I always use warmed distilled water (85°F)

I definitely find that for mixing powders, every degree helps. Kodak says 68-85F, so I agree with taking it right to the top. I'll also run the magnetic stirrer as long as I need to. However, I find that for my larger 5L plastic containers, a residue will separate out and build up because the corners are sharply angled. That needs to be chipped out and broken up again. Xtol isn't the only powder that does this. I don't know if there's a better way to handle this. I suppose a 5L beaker would be better.

[Duolab123]

This is what I use. Talboys brand variable speed propeller mixer. I was lucky and found a brand new surplus unit for $120, then the SS prop with shaft was another 30 bucks. I use a German made, probably 25 years old 5L plastic beaker with a handle. I use the marks on the beaker for diluting to 5 liter volume. One really easy way is to buy a hydrometer and at the correct temperature dilute to Kodak's published specific gravity. Then you can use any clean container.
208304
I've found that deionized water (I warm up a quart in my darkroom microwave ) @ 85°F, I rev the stirrer briefly to keep the sandbars of powder from forming in the bottom of the beaker.
I had access to a proper ring stand. I think a 12 inch shaft 3 bladed prop stirrer off Ebay and a cordless drill might work. I have a couple magnetic stirrers, they are ok but not nearly so as a prop stirrer. Always be careful not to stir so hard as to whip air into the solution.

[Renato Tonelli]

Whenever I hear of quality-control problems in Kodak products, my heart sinks.
This particular snafu is directly related to their changing supplier/manufacturer for their chemistry line. One would think that it would be reasonable to expect Kodak to test the product extensively before marketing as if nothing had changed. Apparently, HC-110 looks different from the old batch giving the long-time users of the chemical pause and concern.


I somehow ended up with about 50 (fifty!) packages of X-TOL; a friend and former colleague 'pressured' me into buying it from him because he was moving and needed the money. Now, I am glad that I have it but he question is: how long will it last? (The packages are sealed in thick zipped-locked bags). This year I am still on one package when I would normally be on my fifth.

[Duolab123]

Whenever I hear of quality-control problems in Kodak products, my heart sinks.
This particular snafu is directly related to their changing supplier/manufacturer for their chemistry line. One would think that it would be reasonable to expect Kodak to test the product extensively before marketing as if nothing had changed. Apparently, HC-110 looks different from the old batch giving the long-time users of the chemical pause and concern.


I somehow ended up with about 50 (fifty!) packages of X-TOL; a friend and former colleague 'pressured' me into buying it from him because he was moving and needed the money. Now, I am glad that I have it but he question is: how long will it last? (The packages are sealed in thick zipped-locked bags). This year I am still on one package when I would normally be on my fifth.

The stuff produced in Germany by Tetenal should be fine if you literally have 50 5 L packages and intend to use it, I would find a air tight container like a small drywall bucket, with a gasket and pack it full. I've used XTOL packages that I panic bought when EK went bankrupt, I used these for years. Then whenever it was that Tetenal went into receivership I bought a bunch at least a dozen 5 liter packages. I'm not worried.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Consider home brewed "Mytol" as a replacement. I have used it for 15 years and my testing showed it to be indistinguishable from 2005 Xtol.

[Duolab123]

One really great investment I've made is a Reverse Osmosis water system. I have bought 2 systems over the years, for 2 homes. I bought a 5 stage system, really all that's needed is a 4 stage. Basically there's a sediment filter followed by a couple of activated carbon, takes out chlorine and organics, followed by the RO membrane that removes ionic dissolved crud, like calcium carbonate, sodium carbonate etc. This is how the huge desalination plants work. This water goes to a storage tank, choose what size you want.
The downside is many areas discourage or don't allow a contractor to install RO systems. As we all know, there's no free lunch. For every gallon of purified water produced you have effluent runoff, it's perfectly fine for watering plants, toilets etc. But in most cases, like mine this water goes wasted down the sewer.
Carbon block filters like what come in refrigerators are quite good at removing tastes and chlorine odors, but don't really purify the water.
I installed RO systems for my darkroom, my wife just thinks it's for her. :o

[almostpilot]

Whenever I hear of quality-control problems in Kodak products, my heart sinks.
This particular snafu is directly related to their changing supplier/manufacturer for their chemistry line. One would think that it would be reasonable to expect Kodak to test the product extensively before marketing as if nothing had changed. Apparently, HC-110 looks different from the old batch giving the long-time users of the chemical pause and concern.


I somehow ended up with about 50 (fifty!) packages of X-TOL; a friend and former colleague 'pressured' me into buying it from him because he was moving and needed the money. Now, I am glad that I have it but he question is: how long will it last? (The packages are sealed in thick zipped-locked bags). This year I am still on one package when I would normally be on my fifth.

Kodak Alaris last week seems to have changed powder manufacturer again, and has given control of production to another company. they are basically rebadging someone else's stuff. All the powders have had problems. For Dektol, check your numbers... If it's 516 0270 it's the good old stuff but if the no is 105 8296 you will have problems like Xtol.
Kodak RIP
I am gone.

[Renato Tonelli]

Kodak Alaris last week seems to have changed powder manufacturer again, and has given control of production to another company. they are basically rebadging someone else's stuff. All the powders have had problems. For Dektol, check your numbers... If it's 516 0270 it's the good old stuff but if the no is 105 8296 you will have problems like Xtol.
Kodak RIP
I am gone.

I absolutely get what you're saying. Their customer service (caring) has gone by the wayside for a long time now. I hope they will keep making Tri-X and T-Max with the same quality control to date.

If and when the time comes that I have to switch to another developer, it will be D-23. When I did my Zone tests for
X-TOL, I also did them for D-23. One of the appealing things about this developer is that has just two ingredients.

[grat]

I contacted Kodak Alaris regarding my bag of brown D76 two weeks ago via email. I had a response within an hour, requesting more information. Two days ago, I received a tracking number for my replacement chemicals.

That's a far cry from the worst customer service I've encountered this year.

[Tin Can]

The more noise we make here, the better some behave

Squeaky wheel

[grat]

The more noise we make here, the better some behave

Squeaky wheel

Given that most of the "noise" made here has been highly insulting, or suggesting any route other than Kodak Alaris, I doubt they care about squeaky wheels in this particular corner of the internet.

It's a lost cause from their point of view.

[Tin Can]

Not really, many here including me buy KODAK film even into ULF sizes

I have bit of all their offerings

But I don't use their chemistry




Given that most of the "noise" made here has been highly insulting, or suggesting any route other than Kodak Alaris, I doubt they care about squeaky wheels in this particular corner of the internet.

It's a lost cause from their point of view.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I somehow ended up with about 50 (fifty!) packages of X-TOL; a friend and former colleague 'pressured' me into buying it from him because he was moving and needed the money. Now, I am glad that I have it but he question is: how long will it last? (The packages are sealed in thick zipped-locked bags)...Way back when Kodak was on the brink of bankruptcy I stockpiled what for me was a lifetime supply of XTOL. Granted, at the time, it was U.S-made and packaged in laminated polyester-aluminum envelopes. Nonetheless, I added extra oxygen protection by placing the factory items inside laminated anti-static envelopes for a secondary barrier. Eight plus years later, it mixes and functions identically to the day I bought it.

See the last part of this post for what led me to think it might work:


https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?4495-Ilford-Films-and-Xtol-Developer&p=922660&viewfull=1#post922660

[almostpilot]

Consider home brewed "Mytol" as a replacement. I have used it for 15 years and my testing showed it to be indistinguishable from 2005 Xtol.

How do you make Mytol without Sodium Metaborate (Kodalk)? I cannot find it anywhere (in europe)

[almostpilot]

That sounds really interesting... when you did your tests, were results very different? D23 i thought was a low contrast developer

[almostpilot]

I absolutely get what you're saying. Their customer service (caring) has gone by the wayside for a long time now. I hope they will keep making Tri-X and T-Max with the same quality control to date.

If and when the time comes that I have to switch to another developer, it will be D-23. When I did my Zone tests for
X-TOL, I also did them for D-23. One of the appealing things about this developer is that has just two ingredients.

sorry here is the quote I was replying to...
So again, is D23 comparable to Xtol ? I think of it as low contrast developer

[Renato Tonelli]

With XTOL I got a little over box speed and a little under with D-23. My tests were confirmed by Richard Ritter (I was new to using a densitometer and didn't trust my results). The film is Tri-X 320

D-23 is very similar to D-76; Divided D-23 is used to handle high contrast scenes.

The idea for using D-23 came from here:

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/D-23.php

[Renato Tonelli]

Way back when Kodak was on the brink of bankruptcy I stockpiled what for me was a lifetime supply of XTOL. Granted, at the time, it was U.S-made and packaged in laminated polyester-aluminum envelopes. Nonetheless, I added extra oxygen protection by placing the factory items inside laminated anti-static envelopes for a secondary barrier. Eight plus years later, it mixes and functions identically to the day I bought it.

See the last part of this post for what led me to think it might work:


https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?4495-Ilford-Films-and-Xtol-Developer&p=922660&viewfull=1#post922660

Thanks for the tip; it so happens that I have the bags you're talking about.

[Duolab123]

Dry, cool, and sealed up. There's so much sulfite in XTOL that helps. This was the last great effort made in black and white chemistry by EKCo. It keeps very well. I've kept the original package, made by Kodak, pre bankruptcy for ten years without a problem. Again, Dry, cool, dark, in a zip lock bag.

[Duolab123]

The film is an Eastman Kodak product, Alaris has the right to sell, Alaris has the formulas etc. Still there's a crew of probably a couple hundred people on the planet, that work for Eastman Kodak that have the skills and experience to produce the films. Unfortunately Eastman Kodak couldn't keep the backing paper experts, the powder blenders etc.
I won't give up on Kodak, but I sure will be buying Ilford and Foma products as well.

[sharktooth]

I bought some XTOL here in Canada just a few days before this thread was posted. Mine came in plastic bags, and the best before date was Aug 2021. The package said it was made in Germany. I mixed it up using distilled water at room temperature, and didn't have any problems. Both parts dissolved nicely. I like the idea that it is more environmentally friendly, and isn't as great a health risk.

[agregov]

I've been an XTOL user for years and it's never failed me in the past. Last year I saw a post that there were some batch issues with the new packaging:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?155230-Alert-about-a-possible-problem-batch-of-Xtol

I've only mixed a few batches with the new packaging since and don't yet have enough information to know if there are issues. Had some infrared rolls come out thin. But TRX and HP5 sheet film looked OK. So, the jury is still out for me. With regard to precipitate, I have not had that problem (any more than with the older packaging). It's great you run a quick test to see if a batch looks good. I'd say try to mix another batch and if that fails, throw in the towel and test some other developers that will give you your same development qualities. If you head in the pyro direction, I recommend mixing your own chemistry. There's been problems with pre-mixed varieties from folks like Formulary. Please report back on your findings! Good luck.

[almostpilot]

I've been an XTOL user for years and it's never failed me in the past. Last year I saw a post that there were some batch issues with the new packaging:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?155230-Alert-about-a-possible-problem-batch-of-Xtol

I've only mixed a few batches with the new packaging since and don't yet have enough information to know if there are issues. Had some infrared rolls come out thin. But TRX and HP5 sheet film looked OK. So, the jury is still out for me. With regard to precipitate, I have not had that problem (any more than with the older packaging). It's great you run a quick test to see if a batch looks good. I'd say try to mix another batch and if that fails, throw in the towel and test some other developers that will give you your same development qualities. If you head in the pyro direction, I recommend mixing your own chemistry. There's been problems with pre-mixed varieties from folks like Formulary. Please report back on your findings! Good luck.

As you say, one tries, then tries again, then gives up.
I loved Xtol for decades. It is my no 1 dev. But since the packaging change, I have tried with 4 lots, different batches (i even bought from different countries to make sure) and the results always the same. Precipitate after trying to mix bag A and very very thin test negs.
4 out of 4 is too much for me. I am gonna give up.
By the way with the old packaging my Xtol mixed beautifully at 23 C and was clear as air for many months. It was so easy to prepare.
PS. I have it from inside the company that literally in the last few days there have been a number of U turns on the chemistry policy. They changed manufacturer, than changed again, then went back to the first one.

[almostpilot]

Consider home brewed "Mytol" as a replacement. I have used it for 15 years and my testing showed it to be indistinguishable from 2005 Xtol.

And where do you get Sodium Metaborate for your Mytol... Impossible to find in europe.

[LabRat]

And where do you get Sodium Metaborate for your Mytol... Impossible to find in europe.

You can make a liquid substitute for it using (I think) borax + sodium hydroxide, but the dilutions are tricky...

I have some Kodalk left, but will have to resort to the liquid "solution" in the future, as it's getting difficult to get, even here in the states...

I have a bookmark on my computer somewhere where I found a page with directions on how to make it, but I don't need it yet...

I think PF still sells it, but the last batch I got from Artcraft, he said he was almost out, and he can't source smaller large amounts, short of a pallet of it...

Steve K

[Doremus Scudder]

...

I have some Kodalk left, but will have to resort to the liquid "solution" in the future, as it's getting difficult to get, even here in the states...

I have a bookmark on my computer somewhere where I found a page with directions on how to make it, but I don't need it yet...

I think PF still sells it, but the last batch I got from Artcraft, he said he was almost out, and he can't source smaller large amounts, short of a pallet of it...

Steve K

Don't know about Artcraft, but PF lists it still:

http://stores.photoformulary.com/sodium-metaborate/

Doremus

[Duolab123]

Maybe I could smuggle Kodalk I've got some beautiful old bottles. I have some Kodak produced glycin that was sold in the 1940s by EKCo under the trade name Athenol, still a free flowing powder, tan in color, still works. I bought some Glycin from Eastman Chemical division in the 1980s it's long gone turned brown black no good. The era of when Kodak made everything in house, packaged in cans and brown glass. Those were the good old days.

[rstobbe]

And where do you get Sodium Metaborate for your Mytol... Impossible to find in europe.

Well, impossible might not be the right word. I get sodium metaborate from Fototechnik Suvatlar in Germany. You can see a list of products from them on Wolfgang Moerschs site https://www.moersch-photochemie.de/content/rohchemie

Afaik they do not have an online shop, but a phone call or an email will do. They are pretty responsive and willing to help. I do not know if they ship raw chemicals international.

[almostpilot]

Well, impossible might not be the right word. I get sodium metaborate from Fototechnik Suvatlar in Germany. You can see a list of products from them on Wolfgang Moerschs site https://www.moersch-photochemie.de/content/rohchemie

Afaik they do not have an online shop, but a phone call or an email will do. They are pretty responsive and willing to help. I do not know if they ship raw chemicals international.

thank you!

[almostpilot]

Well, impossible might not be the right word. I get sodium metaborate from Fototechnik Suvatlar in Germany. You can see a list of products from them on Wolfgang Moerschs site https://www.moersch-photochemie.de/content/rohchemie

Afaik they do not have an online shop, but a phone call or an email will do. They are pretty responsive and willing to help. I do not know if they ship raw chemicals international.

is their email on site, i will contact them
thanks

[rstobbe]

is their email on site, i will contact them
thanks
Yes: fotosuvatlar@live.de

[urnem57]

I bought 4 bags of Xtol from 2 different sources. ALL of them were bad. It was only after destroying 6 sheets of 4x5 film that I started researching the “Trade concern”
I then bought a bag of D76 from a 3rd supplier. It too was bad. It looked like maple syrup as I was mixing it. It’s pretty sad that a once great company named Kodak is now just an empty brand name that can’t even competently produce reliable chemistry. After 50 years of using
strictly Kodak b/w chemistry, I’m done. The 4x5 b/w film still seems ok for now. Sad, but not surprising.

[Duolab123]

I bought 4 bags of Xtol from 2 different sources. ALL of them were bad. It was only after destroying 6 sheets of 4x5 film that I started researching the “Trade concern”
I then bought a bag of D76 from a 3rd supplier. It too was bad. It looked like maple syrup as I was mixing it. It’s pretty sad that a once great company named Kodak is now just an empty brand name that can’t even competently produce reliable chemistry. After 50 years of using
strictly Kodak b/w chemistry, I’m done. The 4x5 b/w film still seems ok for now. Sad, but not surprising.

Pretty amazing. All I've ever used for film has been Kodak chemistry, since I was a kid, my Dad and I developing Instamatic Verichrome in Microdol-X. I've never been hurt by Kodak's chemistry, but it's a miracle. When Tetenal got into financial trouble, before Kodak Alaris could bring their magnificent management skills to the game. I bought 15 or more 5L packages of XTOL and at least a dozen Kodak Rapid fixer packages w hardener.
Alaris sold the business to the China Sino Promise Group which has been making Kodak Alaris color chemistry for some time.
I'm like you there's Ilford whose paper and paper developer I've used for years. And plenty others. I can't imagine not using Kodak color negative film or abandoning TMY in rolls. I've grown very fond of Ilford's products and they are very well owned for lack of a better term.

[Duolab123]

Oh, yeah the original bad XTOL which the bag I got worked. I got a replacement, now the replacement is on the troubles list, so I'm supposed to be getting that replaced.

[jvo]

Given that most of the "noise" made here has been highly insulting, or suggesting any route other than Kodak Alaris, I doubt they care about squeaky wheels in this particular corner of the internet.

It's a lost cause from their point of view.

they don't seem to be listening and have failed to say anything - on any of the film forums,

sadly they might get concerned when they see the sales fall, when it's too late.

[Jim Noel]

Simple answer to these problems - Don't be a martyr- change chemistry. There are too many good ones available to waste time, money and film on questionable ones.

[LeeSimmons]

I've been reading this thread with interest as I just wasted (2) 8x10 sheets and a days drive on two carefully metered scenes. My batches expiry is 04/21.

They were underdeveloped. I mix with a drill and paint mixer. Their was residue left in the bottom which had crystalized during the dissolving of part A. I broke it up and kept at it till clear and the same thing happened with part B. I eventually got it all clear and didn't think much more of it. Then developing these first negs I was deeply disappointed to see negs exactly as described by the OP.

My bad for not doing development tests before hand but I hadn't come across this before. Will have to start doing that now. I primarily use Xtol for environmental reasons, however I invest too much into this hobby to not walk away with results. I'll be switching to a different developer.

[shoshin]

Same here. Xtol used to be my standard developer for years. I used the "new bags" for the first time. Date of manufacture: 2020/02/25. I couldn't get the 'A' powder to completely dissolve. After 24 hours I filtered and used the developer. Negs came out underdeveloped. Mixed the next bags. Same problem.
I am done with Xtol.

[almostpilot]

Same here. Xtol used to be my standard developer for years. I used the "new bags" for the first time. Date of manufacture: 2020/02/25. I couldn't get the 'A' powder to completely dissolve. After 24 hours I filtered and used the developer. Negs came out underdeveloped. Mixed the next bags. Same problem.
I am done with Xtol.

Hi,
funny I was at Process Supplies in London yesterday, and we were chatting about how Kodak really is finished as a photo company. They were telling me the latest issue : Dektol now becomes a dark brown almost black liquid. It still works but you just cannot see the print developing in there any more! Crazy.

By the way, I was in there buying Fomadon Excel. It is the same as Xtol. I use the same times, same results. Sometimes I find the pwder in sol A is all caked up, it looks terrible... but it always dissolves well and the dev is crystal clear. And it always works!
It is more exepensive than Xtol but it is reliable. Go with Fomadon Excel!

[jnantz]

Simple answer to these problems - Don't be a martyr- change chemistry. There are too many good ones available to waste time, money and film on questionable ones.

+1

[MilamBardo]

Is this still a problem? Just bought myself some Xtol here in Switzerland. Don't know the batch date yet, as it is still in delivery.

[MilamBardo]

Found the Xtol thread. Looks like problem now fixed, but will depend on what batch I have...

[jnantz]

Is this still a problem? Just bought myself some Xtol here in Switzerland. Don't know the batch date yet, as it is still in delivery.
Problems have been endemic with Xtol since the 1990s when it was first sold. I used gallons and gallons of it off-and-on* since it was introduced for IDK 5 years and I'll never use it again.
I'd be leery of using anything that isn't "fresh packets of developer" no matter what people on the internet tell you or publish/post ...
* varied / bracketed exposure, elongated processing times including straight stock solution, 4 different water supplies, and distilled water, not a fan of thin negatives that lack contrast/crispness (or as they used to say "snap" ), Xtol is the worst ... YMMV

[MilamBardo]

Problems have been endemic with Xtol since the 1990s when it was first sold. I used gallons and gallons of it off-and-on* since it was introduced for IDK 5 years and I'll never use it again.
I'd be leery of using anything that isn't "fresh packets of developer" no matter what people on the internet tell you or publish/post ...
* varied / bracketed exposure, elongated processing times including straight stock solution, 4 different water supplies, and distilled water, not a fan of thin negatives that lack contrast/crispness (or as they used to say "snap" ), Xtol is the worst ... YMMV

So, do you mean that Xtol always yielded thin negatives? Since reading these posts, I have been wondering about picking up some ID-11 instead. (Just getting back into Largeformat photography, so I'm starting afresh anyway)

[jnantz]

So, do you mean that Xtol always yielded thin negatives? Since reading these posts, I have been wondering about picking up some ID-11 instead. (Just getting back into Largeformat photography, so I'm starting afresh anyway)


It is (for me at least) hands down the worst developer I have ever used. Yes, thin negatives that could not be made dense, by over exposing several different film stocks by upto 5 stops, over agitating and extended development ( sometimes by more than 2x ) with stock/undilute developer. I would use ID-11 or D76 or Sprint, or anything else you can get your hands on, even TMAX developer ( as long as you use the RS version so you don't get dichroic fog ) ...
but these are my experiences, as you will read .. others have exactly the opposite experience and love it. YMMV
Good luck!
John

[paulbarden]

As John points out, Xtol will never give you hard density areas in your negatives. If you want hard, graphic negatives with "traditional" density in the highlights, then Xtol is not the best option. If you want harder contrast and strong density in your negatives, opting for D-76/ID-11 is a better choice.
That said, there are many high contrast films that benefit greatly from pairing with Xtol, as it tames highlights and avoids "runaway" density in the higher values. I find it useful when I use certain films, or want to manage scenes where the luminance scale starts to exceed the film's abilities. Choosing a film + developer combination involves knowing what you want to achieve, and how to get there.

[Michael R]

XTOL will produce nearly identical tonality to D-76/ID-11.


So, do you mean that Xtol always yielded thin negatives? Since reading these posts, I have been wondering about picking up some ID-11 instead. (Just getting back into Largeformat photography, so I'm starting afresh anyway)

[paulbarden]

XTOL will produce nearly identical tonality to D-76/ID-11.

Emphasis on "nearly".

[jnantz]

Please forgive me, I forgot to add in YMMV ...

[Michael R]

Here are some examples. 223297 Other films such as FP4, HP5, Tri-X behave the same way.

Relative to D-76/ID-11, XTOL has has the following characteristics:

1) Very slightly finer grain (almost negligible, not a consideration in LF)
2) Very slightly higher sharpness (negligible, not a consideration in LF)
3) Very slightly higher emulsion speed (miniscule, irrelevant from a practical perspective)
4) Slightly reduced extreme highlight density/contrast. This is a property of ascorbate relative to HQ.
5) Self replenishment

[jnantz]

Here are some examples. 223297 Other films such as FP4, HP5, Tri-X behave the same way.

Relative to D-76/ID-11, XTOL has has the following characteristics:

1) Very slightly finer grain (almost negligible, not a consideration in LF)
2) Very slightly higher sharpness (negligible, not a consideration in LF)
3) Very slightly higher emulsion speed (miniscule, irrelevant from a practical perspective)
4) Slightly reduced extreme highlight density/contrast. This is a property of ascorbate relative to HQ.
5) Self replenishment


Hi Micheal

You can post all the charts you want, it doesn't change someone's personal experience with the developer. Maybe for whomever took the time and plotted out the curves on the chart
that was their experience, but with the handful of emulsions and personal experiences I had with that developer, it was nothing like that. I've never used D76 or ID 11, but a handful of other developers
which gave me a completely different experience, different negatives, different prints different everything. ...
more power to you if you can get xtol to look like d76, no matter the format processed.
John
(btw my most recent experience was in the early 2000s, not a newbie but with 20+ years processing experience, while it is possible that it was "user error" that I couldn't develop my film, I don't really think it was... )

[Sal Santamaura]

John, I find your personal vendetta against XTOL and anyone who uses it, or posts factual information about it, amazing. :)

Michael is a meticulous darkroom worker. He took the time and plotted those results. When mixed and stored appropriately (i.e. using iron-free water, preferably distilled, as well as in an oxygen-free environment, preferably in glass containers), XTOL stock solution is utterly reliable and long-lived.

Paul, I don't know what you mean by "hard density areas" in negatives. Does this refer to alternative process printing where extreme contrast negatives are appropriate? If so, then yes, XTOL might not be the one to use. I've found something like Ilfotec HC can push density off the chart, approaching O.D.=4.0. For silver printing, however, I've never found an XTOL-developed negative to be lacking. Look at Michael's curves. ID-11 negatives don't deviate upward from XTOL negatives until O.D.=1.7 for TMX and O.D.=2.2 for TMY-2. And even then, only by 0.1/0.3 at the very highest of exposures.

Milam, don't be discouraged. Stick with XTOL. There's no need to obtain ID-11 instead.

[Michael R]

Well, my post wasn’t only intended as support for XTOL. The point I was really making is that particularly concerning large format film, good old D-76/ID-11 will produce results virtually indistinguishable from properly working XTOL, so if one is fed up with XTOL or scared or XTOL etc. etc. I’m saying you can simply use other things (or scratch mix them yourself) without worrying about leaving anything material on the table. In fact you can also use D-23 in place of D-76.

I know you do things differently (caffenol + Ansco 130, etc.) but that doesn’t mean the data is wrong. Do you think Kodak would have bothered to release XTOL in the first place if it was only capable of producing thin, low contrast negatives?


Hi Micheal

You can post all the charts you want, it doesn't change someone's personal experience with the developer. Maybe for whomever took the time and plotted out the curves on the chart
that was their experience, but with the handful of emulsions and personal experiences I had with that developer, it was nothing like that. I've never used D76 or ID 11, but a handful of other developers
which gave me a completely different experience, different negatives, different prints different everything. ...
more power to you if you can get xtol to look like d76, no matter the format processed.
John
(btw my most recent experience was in the early 2000s, not a newbie but with 20+ years processing experience, while it is possible that it was "user error" that I couldn't develop my film, I don't really think it was... )

[jnantz]

but that doesn’t mean the data is wrong. Do you think Kodak would have bothered to release XTOL in the first place if it was only capable of producing thin, low contrast negatives?

I think the graphs seem like those produced using an industrial lab, the same way iso of films are determined. I've never gotten "box speed" out of any film I have used ( I don't think the saint did either ). it doesn't mean the data is wrong it means that regular people using the film and chemistry might not get the same results. Yes I do think they would have released the developer if there were problems with it, and they did. Just like companies that released papers that had 900 year longevity claims and they shifted 3 months after printing. Xtol was created when their site in Rochester NY was the equivalent of a super fund site and Eastman Kodak was the worst polluter in the world / in the mid 1990s. The developer was advertised as a "non toxic" type developer ( probably to take some of the heat off the rest of their operation ) and was riddled with issues. It not only had problems with contrast but EK had their data guides that suggested people use the developer at such extreme dilutions that it ran out of developing agent and "died" before the film was developed .. I believe if you look up "Xtol sudden death syndrom" you can read about it. Of course there are always people to declare that XSDS never happened, the people who had problems watched too many episodes of "the x-files", it was user error, a figment of the person's imagination who was processing the film, or there were other factors involved ( the person doesn't know how to process film &C ) because of the extreme fan base Xtol seems to have, but it doesn't really change the facts that it's had and still has issues.
as they say "mistakes were made". Regarding me, I would never suggest anyone to use it because its not worth potentially ruining one's film, and using expired sacks of Xtol purchased cheep off the internet is in my mind is an accident waiting to happen, like chocolate milk colored Dektol or Chinese Amidol. People obviously can write off my posts as ravings of someone who has an axe to grind, I just think its a terrible developer and with so many different options out there, either pre made or to be made from scratch, not sure why anyone would bother using the stuff, especially expired stuff purchased "cheap" when 4x5 film costs like 2$ a sheet not to mention the time taken to get to the place where one sets up their camera, and time standing around in the dark converting the latent image to a negative.>> YMMV <<

[Michael R]

John,

The graphs are not esoteric lab gobbledygook. They are simple sensitometry, directly applicable to everyday normal use. Expose film, develop film, read densities. I know you don’t like graphs or curves, but they tell the story. They show how the film/developer combination can be expected to render a subject.

If anything, it’s your own working habits and preferences which are outside the norm. Your insistence, for example, on using loooong expired films. How do you think that affects film speed?

Again I’m not advocating for or against XTOL, and I’m not trying to convince you or anyone else to use it, but honestly you are totally mischaracterizing it and regurgitating disreputable misinformation.

I’ve already suggested D-76/ID-11 or even D-23 as very close substitutes, not to mention other commercially available formulas. If one is unable to get sufficient density, or if one is unable to get full ISO emulsion speed from D-76, it’s not the developer. Rather, it’s what IT people call a code 12.

[jnantz]

Michael, I am aware of what charts and curves are and what they do, I find them to be misleading, like a TicTok cooking video.
Contrary to what you have suggested, I didn't start using expired film until maybe 2005, and it was purchased fresh in 2001. It was purchased for a job that vanished because of 9-11 and I didn't sell it and lose my shirt, and I didn't have a kidney to sell to purchase fresh after all the film went up in price. I don't have the luxury of being able to buy fresh film. All the films I processed using Xtol from 1997-2004 were fresh films. My shooting "habits" - 1/2 box speed for every film I used, and process habits - times, temperatures and agitation schemes the manufacturer prescribed, nothing out of the ordinary. The only developer I have ever had trouble with is XTOL. Unfortunately I wasted a lot of effort between 1997 and 2004 trying to get XTOL to work for me, it didn't, I moved on. Sorry to not be a fanboy, but I'll warn people that it doesn't build density and contrast well, just like I warn people to only use TMAX RS with sheet film (or they potentially will get metallic green dichroic fog on their negatives). It seems a disservice on one of these websites to only ring praise when a developer that might not work as advertised, seeing 4x5 film can cost around $2/sheet and it is known to not build contrast and density well. Life's too short for bad negatives. I'm very happy that you have been able to get the xtol to work for you, Im also very happy you enjoy sensitometry, seems like fun if you like that sort of thing. I have different things I am interested in.

[Michael R]

It’s not about enjoying sensitometry. Of course that isn’t what photography is about. But it’s a useful way of objectively comparing and characterizing the tone reproduction of materials, processes etc.

Anyhow it’s not worth arguing over. It’s just a developer.


Michael, I am aware of what charts and curves are and what they do, I find them to be less useful than practical experience, sorry. I didn't start using expired film until maybe 2005, I didn't have a kidney to sell after all the film went up in price after that and my needs changed, I no longer had the luxury of being able to buy fresh film, and I sold off lots of my things ( retouching desk, record cutting lathe &c ) and a lot of my work went digital. All the film I processed using Xtol from 1997-2004 were fresh films, that were newly purchased at either Hunt Photo in Melrose MA or SBI Sales in Boston. My "habits" pre 2005 were 1/2 box speed for every film I used, and process using times, temperatures and agitation schemes the manufacturer prescribed, nothing out of the ordinary, and it worked for the handful of developers I had used prior to XTOL and those I have used after ditching XTOL. At the time I was doing newspaper / corporate photojournalism, editorial and other assignments, I didn't have the time or money to hope my film was going to be ok for my clients. I had to use what worked ( and I tried for 7 years off and on when I had the time and $$ to get it to work ). You should search Eboink for old Kodak Data Guides for when XTOL came out, these days they recommend stock, 1:1, 1:2 ... previously they recommended dilutions including 1:10, which gave people enough trouble that they stopped recommending extreme dilutions. You might also look into reports by the EPA (US GOVERNMENT) 1990s, common knowledge that EK was pretty much the worst polluter on the planet. Plenty of companies run interference campaigns, it wouldn't surprise me if EK did as well. Unfortunately I wasted probably $500-$1000 worth of film and chemistry between 1997 and 2004 trying to get XTOL to work for me, it didn't and I moved on. I'd rather use something that easily builds density / contrast on my films I am not fond of thin negatives. I'm very happy that you have been able to get the Tang to work for you, Im also very happy you enjoy sensitometry, seems like fun if you like that sort of thing. Sadly I have different things I am interested in.

[jnantz]

It’s not about enjoying sensitometry. Of course that isn’t what photography is about. But it’s a useful way of objectively comparing and characterizing the tone reproduction of materials, processes etc.

Anyhow it’s not worth arguing over. It’s just a developer.


We can agree about that, it's not at all what photography is about, but I find graphs and charts ( like gear and advertising ) a distraction, and potentially misleading.

[Michael R]

We can agree about that, it's not at all what photography is about, but I find graphs and charts ( like gear and advertising ) a distraction, and potentially misleading.

You have to admit you at least liked the nice orange colour of part A that went clear with part B ;)

[jnantz]

You have to admit you at least liked the nice orange colour of part A that went clear with part B ;)

LOL. I know, it's the only thing I like about the stuff.

[noahsamuelmosko]

2023 same problem. It is impossible to mix it without having shit loads of powder undissolved. XTOL was my favourite developer for years. I gave it up few years ago because of this issue. I bought two packs last week as I wanted to give it another chance but it is still unusable. Bellini in Italy makes liquid style xtol, anyone tried it? Also Foma makes Excel, but never tried it either. I stick with Ilford as they seem to be the only company that still produces decent quality products for reasonable price.

[Michael R]

I haven't had a problem with XTOL but Adox/Fotoimpex makes a good XTOL clone called XT3. Ilford doesn't make an equivalent, but XTOL was only a very slight improvement over D-76 anyway so Ilford ID-11 would be the simplest/cheapest solution to the problem.


2023 same problem. It is impossible to mix it without having shit loads of powder undissolved. XTOL was my favourite developer for years. I gave it up few years ago because of this issue. I bought two packs last week as I wanted to give it another chance but it is still unusable crap. Bellini in Italy makes liquid style xtol, anyone tried it? Also Foma makes Excel, but never tried it either. I stick with Ilford as they seem to be the only company that still produces decent quality products for reasonable price.

[lassethomas]

2023 same problem. It is impossible to mix it without having shit loads of powder undissolved. XTOL was my favourite developer for years. I gave it up few years ago because of this issue. I bought two packs last week as I wanted to give it another chance but it is still unusable. Bellini in Italy makes liquid style xtol, anyone tried it? Also Foma makes Excel, but never tried it either. I stick with Ilford as they seem to be the only company that still produces decent quality products for reasonable price.

Yes, Adox makes XT3, which also solve dissolves much more easily. I've never seen any difference between XTOL and XT3. I've used both.
XTOL usually takes at least 30 min of stirring to dissolve for me.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Strange... the batch I've been using mixes in like it's supposed to. My previous batch was a bit stubborn though. I found if I heated it up to about 35C, most of the ittle annoying floaties dissolved.
Whenever I mix up a new batch, I ALWAYS do a quick clip test...

[Sal Santamaura]

I've posted in this and many other threads about my cache of XTOL, explaining that I mix it with distilled water and store it in full 250ml glass bottles, i.e. "one dose" size. Things have been slow for me the last couple of years. My last five liter batch was mixed July 31, 2021. In recent weeks I've finally started using it on a half dozen rolls, some of which were tests to confirm its potency. The sensitometric results of those Delta 100 tests are identical to what I got years ago with fresh XTOL.

Again, distilled water and appropriate storage make all the difference. Don't be mislead by the experience of anyone who hasn't used XTOL in decades. It's a perfectly fine developer.

[Joseph Kashi]

I've been mixing XTOL for years without a problem - I also use distilled water for this step. An inexpensive magnetic lab chemical mixer from Amazon really helps speed mixing Part A.

I've been mixing my stock as 2.5 L without problems rather than the regular 5L stock. The more concentrated 2.5L stock lasts longer and one simply needs to remember to dilute that more concentrated stock appropriately to the desired dilution.

As I typically use XTOL 1:2 as a partially compensating developer, I add 5 parts of distilled water to 1 part of the concentrated stock. I have not experienced any problems with this approach, which I attribute to the use of distilled water to make up the developer.

[noahsamuelmosko]

I've posted in this and many other threads about my cache of XTOL, explaining that I mix it with distilled water and store it in full 250ml glass bottles, i.e. "one dose" size. Things have been slow for me the last couple of years. My last five liter batch was mixed July 31, 2021. In recent weeks I've finally started using it on a half dozen rolls, some of which were tests to confirm its potency. The sensitometric results of those Delta 100 tests are identical to what I got years ago with fresh XTOL.

Again, distilled water and appropriate storage make all the difference. Don't be mislead by the experience of anyone who hasn't used XTOL in decades. It's a perfectly fine developer.

I used it for years, then I stopped. I started again and now I'm disappointed again. I loved xtol and I still want to use it, but it is unusable at least the batch I have (exp 2024). Listen to other opinions mate, the fact that you have only a good experience does not mean other lie about it. I developed hundreds of rolls with xtol with great outcome but I got few packs that are shit that's all. And it happened both times I wanted to give it another chance.

[Sal Santamaura]

I used it for years, then I stopped. I started again and now I'm disappointed again. I loved xtol and I still want to use it, but it is unusable at least the batch I have (exp 2024). Listen to other opinions mate, the fact that you have only a good experience does not mean other lie about it. I developed hundreds of rolls with xtol with great outcome but I got few packs that are shit that's all. And it happened both times I wanted to give it another chance.

It is the opinion of others who've trashed XTOL for decades that I always listen to and refute. Whether or not manufacturing issues might have caused some problems recently, XTOL itself does not deserve to be put down.

Your comment underscores why I never bother with the "Introductions" category. Your unjustified imputation that I consider others' posts "lies" tells me more about a newcomer than any post there could.

[Sal Santamaura]

It is the opinion of others who've trashed XTOL for decades that I always listen to and refute...


sal I have only spoken of my personal experiences which were not because I was a noob or mixed it wrong or had no idea how to expose and develop film, my experiences lasted for years. yes, I kept trying and trying because of all the good things I heard about this miracle developer but sadly no miracles for me...

Yes, John, it's your XTOL trashing that I refute whenever you post it. Because your personal experience from decades ago does not provide reliable information about the product of decades since when handled appropriately. Also, XTOL is not a "miracle" developer. Rather, it's one that accomplishes three things compared to Kodak's previous "standard" D-76. First, it walks a bit more softly upon the land. Second, it increases film speed / shadow detail / sharpness with less grain. Finally, it requires that one use only 100ml of stock solution per 80 square inches of film compared to 250ml for D-76.

I've never accused you of lying, a charge the new member here made against me. You have undoubtedly described your experiences accurately. However, the repetitive nature of those posts and their "old data" character combine to qualify as "trashing XTOL" in my mind. Couching them as "my personal experience" does not obscure the fact that they denigrate the product unjustifiably and, it seems intentionally. Try to mix and store XTOL as I've described above, then report back about your experience. If it's still the same, I'll stop refuting. :)


...kind of strange the packets didn't dissolve, as you probably know, the water is required to be about 120-125F and stirred like mad to suspend the chemistry into it,
not sure if you use hot water as prescribed by the instructions but it might help...

Not for XTOL. The instructions


https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/J-109_Feb_2018.pdf

specify 65-85 degrees F.

[Sal Santamaura]

...it's comical someone with almost 40 years experience professionally developing film isn't permitted to say a developer is terrible...

Of course you're permitted to. You did. And whenever you do or anyone else posts that XTOL is terrible, I'm permitted to point out that proper mixing/storage is required and, when that's done, it's an excellent developer.

None of this concerns any recent potential manufacturing issues. Rather, it addresses XTOL's essential characteristics.

[jnantz]

Of course you're permitted to. You did. And whenever you do or anyone else posts that XTOL is terrible, I'm permitted to point out that proper mixing/storage is required and, when that's done, it's an excellent developer.

None of this concerns any recent potential manufacturing issues. Rather, it addresses XTOL's essential characteristics.

it's essential characteristics seem to be, terrible at building contrast and density! seems like a past present and future manufacturing issue. LOL
regarding "proper mixing / storage" required, I did all of that, and it didn't work.. might. be new england water supplies (from 2 states ) and distilled water purchased at CVS are bad.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Xtol was designed to go into solution at room temperature. I do warm the water up (I never use tap water... always distilled) to mid 30 C's if there is a ton of crud floating on the top. That takes care of it. No ill effects. Have been using Xtol-R on and off for three years and quite like it.

[MartinP]

Yes, Adox makes XT3, which also solve dissolves much more easily. I've never seen any difference between XTOL and XT3. I've used both.
XTOL usually takes at least 30 min of stirring to dissolve for me.

Over here in Europe, I have tried the Foma version as well as the Adox one, both in the small one liter size.

Both seem to work well at the developing side of things and to last well in storage -- though I have used them to capacity (I only risk going to 70% of claimed capacity, then get nervous) within a couple of months so the stuff doesn't sit there for ages in a bottle. The Adox makes pretty much no dust (some proprietary production technique) and dissolves more easily than the Foma, which is itself very easy requiring no more stirring than ID11 for example. I have been using ordinary tap-water to mix it.

If the Kodak product is a bit rough these days, try the Adox. It is the Rolls-Royce version, from the selection I have tried so far.

[NorthSands]

Just reading this thread as I'm down to my last couple of packs of a big stash of c2012 Xtol that is running low but still working perfectly. After reading mixed views on the reliability of the new batches from Kodak I bought some XT3 to hopefully take over things once I'm used up my original stash. From what I gather it has near identical (if not better) characteristics to the original Xtol.

I do want to weigh in on my own experiences of using Xtol for almost 20 years and many, many rolls of film - everyone has different setups and workflows so I think it's important we see a range of real life opinions here - even if they differ to our own.

I primarily shoot night time scenes, nearly always Ilford HP5 or occasionally Delta 100/Acros 100 in 120/5x4 and Xtol has always been my go to developer after I dabbled with Microphen and ID11 early on. I dilute the Xtol 1:1 usually, have pushed up to 6400 (sometimes beyond) and the negs are always beautiful - dense enough to give plenty of shadow detail but without blowing the highlights. To my eye the grain isn't excessive given the higher rated speed(s) and I find they print and scan equally well.

I mix up 5L at a time, store at room temp (10-20C in the North of the UK) and don't take any special precautions with decanting into smaller bottles - touch wood have never had any go bad although it's rare a batch lasts me longer than 3 months due to being used up before then.

The only film I've had less than satisfactory results were with Kodak's own Tri-X 400, comparitively thin negs even with extra development times. The images were still acceptable but not to my preference. However, this might have been more due to reciprocity failure (ie user error) than developer choice, as HP5 seems to fare much better for longer exposures than Tri-X. There's generally no way to accurately meter the scenes of near pitch black I'm often in, and I'd pretty much shot Tri-X as I would have the more familiar HP5 so that could explain it.

That's been my consistent experience with Xtol anyway, for long exposure work and higher speed films I just wouldn't use anything else. Rodinal is my go-to developer for lower speed film shot in the studio and daylight scenes.

As ever, YMMV - I can only offer my own consitently excellent experience of Xtol.

[noahsamuelmosko]

sal I have only spoken of my personal experiences which were not because I was a noob or mixed it wrong or had no idea how to expose and develop film, my experiences lasted for years. yes, I kept trying and trying because of all the good things I heard about this miracle developer but sadly no miracles for me. as I have always said, I am happy you and others were able to get it to work as you desired it to work but for me it wasn't as I desired, various water supplies (including distilled water), handfuls of different films over exposed to hell in stock solution. oh well, great stuff isn't meant for everyone.. LOL




noahsamuelmosko
kind of strange the packets didn't dissolve, as you probably know, the water is required to be about 120-125F and stirred like mad to suspend the chemistry into it,
not sure if you use hot water as prescribed by the instructions but it might help.

good luck and have fun with your xtol!

as mentioned before, I have used xtol on regular basis for years and never had any issues. I've developed hundreds of rolls (and sheets) from 35mm to 4x5 with it. I always use hot distilled water, I know that powder quite well, mixed it tens of times with no problem even with room temp water. This particular batch must be bad I guess. It has 2024 expiry, made in Germany under licence.

[koraks]

it's essential characteristics seem to be, terrible at building contrast and density!
John, I think I mentioned this before, but I've used instant mytol (an xtol clone) for alt. process negatives on several occasions. It must be very different to XTOL, even though it's also a lowish-pH, high-sulfite P/C developer, as it is capable of building density like crazy! It's very easy to get sufficient density for salt prints using mytol on e.g. fomapan 100. That's more density than anyone would ever need for multigrade printing, and more than needed for most alt. process prints as well. There's nothing in the developer that makes it inherently uncapable of building density!

[koraks]

I know that type of negative; I got some in a folder here somewhere, too. Generally I'm not patient enough to print through an entire Armada of silver, so I try to back it off a little ;)

[peter schrager]

I just mixed up some Xtol and it works just fine...