XTOL not mixing well and not working any more!

[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/site...9_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...