Fresh XTOL from PSI and thin Negatives

@Andrew O'Neill ok great, it helps a lot when troubleshooting to have numbers available. “Thin” is only helpful if someone else agrees it is thin to them.

I subscribe to the belief that AA laid out in The Negative’s appendix to develop to a specific target density range, and I have chosen 1.20-1.30 for normal negatives that print well on grade 2. And at that density most of my negatives do print well on grade 2 with ilford fiber warm tone glossy paper.

I include the fb+f in my numbers. So fb+f reads 0.19, my zone I reads 0.29 (aka +.10 above fb+f) and my zone VIII reads 1.57 (aka 1.28 above zone I). That is for 35mm 400TX with XTOL 1+1 @ 20°C in a Paterson 5 reel tank, with 30s of initial agitation and then 5s of agitation every 30s for 13m30s.

If it’s any help to anyone my last two tanks of 400TX were a 1 stop pull at 11m. That gave fb+f at 0.18, Zone I at 0.27 and VIII at 1.32 (range of 1.05 from I to VIII). Haven’t had a chance to print them but I expect my high contrast scenes to print well on grade 2, but most of the normal/flat negatives to need grade 3 or 4. Perks of shooting in the desert

Yes, I learnt the ZS through Adams' books.

Dissolve in distilled water for best results.

Augustus Caesar said:

Dissolve in distilled water for best results.

Click to expand...

Not a bad idea when troubleshooting! But also wouldn’t help here, unless making it $2 more expensive is helpful. When the issue popped up at my new darkroom (new chemistry, and after 8-12 months of using Acufine exclusively) I thought it was odd so I tried distilled water to mix and it didn’t change my time at all. I also tried using D76 to compare against my old notes. But that D76 was brown in the package so I didn’t investigate further.

Personally I am ok with the packaged times being inaccurate, the mass dev chart is too if you actually care about making negatives that print well for you in your own darkroom. The results are still a fine grained totally rich negative with great shadow separation. It just takes a few minutes longer than it did before the pandemic flipped the tables on our supply chain. Though I do wish Kodak would take the time to update their information, it’s not the end of the world if you have the means and time.

Bottom line is you’ll have to test your materials to get the results that work for you. There’s still some magic in the chemical process and sometimes that’s frustrating but it beats staring at pixels all day

xtol121 said:

Though I do wish Kodak would take the time to update their information, it’s not the end of the world if you have the means and time.

Click to expand...

As there is no Kodak maintained information about XTol any more, it is Photo Systems that you need to address your wish to.
The problem of course is that there are references to the old XTol numbers in the film datasheets, which are hosted by Kodak Alaris.

Maybe the sun is getting weaker

I don't have any problems

MattKing said:

As there is no Kodak maintained information about XTol any more, it is Photo Systems that you need to address your wish to.
The problem of course is that there are references to the old XTol numbers in the film datasheets, which are hosted by Kodak Alaris.

Click to expand...

As someone who spends more time on this forum than I would care to admit I am acutely aware of the situation unfortunately. However until the labeling of the package ditches the Kodak logo I do still believe it is their (Kodak TM/C with a circle around it/R or whatever) problem. As a consumer (I'm not a lab, I'm not a photofinisher, I have no Kodak Alaris account or whatever, I just buy their junk at Freestyle) I look at the big yellow Kodak logo and I buy their product and I use it as they advertise/advise it and it does not work as expected and I could be upset. And most people probably end their journey there. But as a photographer who cares about how my pictures come out I understand that I should test any materials that I use in my process.

All of this to say, I think Kodak is doing a disservice to customers by not holding up certain standards to their suppliers and distributors. But I think this delves further into a topic that isn't covered on this particular post. For this post, I think anyone that is doing any sort of work that they consider valuable they should test their materials and make sure it lives up to their expectations and either find a way to make it work or move to a product that works the way it's intended to without all of the fuss. That's an individual choice and commitment that each user has to make, but the fact that they need to waste $15 for developer and a tank full of film to come to that conclusion is a shame, and all of the business of Kodak selling rights to whoever and blah blah blah that led us here is a damned shame. I just want to use the stuff and move on, but instead I'm here on a forum...

Back off topic really quick though (did I ever really get on topic?)!!! I've found my way through this mess because I care about the process more than most people who casually engage with photography, but I fear Kodak is doing more harm by allowing a product to be sold with their logo on it than they would be by canning the entire operation until they find a way to make it simple. accurate, dependable, and according to their own data sheets which should be the end all be all of questioning. Whether it's x y or z that's selling the stuff.

@mshchem care to share your densitometer readings at Kodak's supplied times? Or a photo of a print done at grade 2 of an "average scene"?

I would be thrilled to hear I've had 16-24 "bad" 5L bags of XTOL over the last 18 months but I do find that unlikely. In reality I think something changed in the supply line and Kodak (?* photo systems, alaris, Sino promise, etc.) never bothered to do the tests to update their data sheets that photographers rely on because at this point they are not photographers or concerned with photography at all. They're just chemistry manufacturers/distributors. And that's ok for me, I can manage. But I do worry about the brand damage and long term effects this has on people that don't have access to a darkroom or densitometer and get lousy results and subsequently write off the entire brand. I care a lot about my 35mm Tri-X and how it looks when developed in XTOL 1+1 and I don't want the product to change or get discontinued.

xtol121 said:

I think anyone that is doing any sort of work that they consider valuable they should test their materials and make sure it lives up to their expectations and either find a way to make it work or move to a product that works the way it's intended to without all of the fuss.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I believe this is a valid point, whether or not the chemistry you purchase is considered "reliable/trustworthy" or more in the "unreliable/risky" category.

xtol121 said:

I would be thrilled to hear I've had 16-24 "bad" 5L bags of XTOL over the last 18 months but I do find that unlikely. In reality I think something changed in the supply line and Kodak (?* photo systems, alaris, Sino promise, etc.) never bothered to do the tests to update their data sheets that photographers rely on because at this point they are not photographers or concerned with photography at all. They're just chemistry manufacturers/distributors. And that's ok for me, I can manage. But I do worry about the brand damage and long term effects this has on people that don't have access to a darkroom or densitometer and get lousy results and subsequently write off the entire brand. I care a lot about my 35mm Tri-X and how it looks when developed in XTOL 1+1 and I don't want the product to change or get discontinued.

Click to expand...

I’ve lost interest in “Kodak” chemistry. In 2019, I purchased multiple packages of D-76, Xtol, and Dektol from different suppliers, only to find that every single package was labeled as “from a bad lot” and unusable. “Kodak” acknowledged the issue.

This wasn’t an isolated incident. I’d previously bought Xtol and encountered similar problems, where it either didn’t perform as expected or didn’t work at all. Consequently, in 2019, I concluded that “Kodak” chemistry was no longer a viable option and decided to move on. As far as “brand damage” is concerned, it couldn’t have gotten any worse for me. To this day, I refuse to purchase any “Kodak” chemistry, regardless of the manufacturer. It’s now under the ownership of Photo Systems, and I hope they’re making progress, but I’m not willing to experiment and find out. Instead, I create my own developers from scratch or opt for Adox chemistry, which performs exceptionally well and I believe is more reliable. I’m aware that I’m not alone in this decision.

Despite this, I still purchase Kodak films annually, albeit in smaller quantities. I firmly believe that Kodak films are 100% reliable and consistent. TMY is a remarkable product, and good old Tri-X isn’t bad either. (It’s unfortunate that sheet film sizes are now beyond my budget, though - I have no intention of paying $20 per sheet of 8x10.) TMX in 35mm is a game-changer, enabling me to achieve results that surpass any other film (in my opinion). Unfortunately, the reliability of “Kodak” chemistry is a different matter.

@retina_restoration your experience is exactly how I fear it has gone for most users, and I don't blame you one bit. It's a mess out there and certainly not for the faint of heart. I'm happy to hear you're still satisfied and purchasing Kodak films. I wish their chemistry lined up to the historically fool proof film offerings. Also, your TMX review has me interested in giving that a go!

There are more problems with current Kodak products. Kodak has been switching their 35mm films from triacetate to PET (polyester) carrier (base) since 2018. First the Portra 800, then Gold 200 and now Portra 400 and Ektar are getting thinner and thinner. This causes considerable problems for roll transport machines, as the films are often not transported correctly and get stuck in the machine. There is then a jam and the films are damaged.

Thinner films are also a problem when adjusting these in a darkroom enlarger. Unfortunately, for us, the change of carrier/base material is a deterioration in quality.

Than problems with XTOL after Tetenal. We have been using this developer for 20 years. The batches that Tetenal produced were always of the highest quality. Chinese batches from Sino promise were almost unusable. I have sent all these facts to Kodak Alaris because they are our trading partners (I try a contact photosys in 2025).

Now I have developed a Tri-X in X-Tol (currently 04/2024 - Made in USA) once again.
The film is again clearly underdeveloped and shows these densities via fog:

- Zone I: no drawing (density 0.02) my target value: 0.09 to 0.11
- Zone V: 0.49 my target value: 0.65 to 0.75
- Zone VIII: 0.85 my target value: 1.25 to 1.35

This is a completely different result from what I have known for many years with X-Tol (where the densities were very close to my target values). This is a test. We do not use Adox products and have an XTOl-like developer prepared by Mörsch, which corresponds 100% with our determined values in the machine. There is therefore no reason to continue buying Kodak chemistry. Not with these problems. If a formulation is changed and parameters deviate drastically from previous data sheets, this must be communicated.

Chuck_P said:

I'm stepping into that realm of mixing from dry chemical and am currently waiting for my scale and what I need to mix BT2B. However, I currently do use the packaged XTOL (with no issues so far)..............it may be a topic for another thread but would be interested in trying an XTOL-like developer that you seem to favor, probably would be a good starting point.

Click to expand...

A few things to consider...

It is easier to scratch-mix D-76 than XTOL (especially if you want to store it), and D-76 is very XTOL-like when it comes to working characteristics. XTOL is great but keep in mind it was only a very slight improvement over D-76 from an image structure perspective and the sensitometry is virtually the same.

If you decide you really want to replicate the working characteristics of XTOL with a home-made developer - including the use of ascorbate, and want it to have a reliable shelf life, I suggest acquiring some DTPA (the important iron/copper chelating agent in XTOL). This compound has historically been somewhat difficult to source for home use but if I remember correctly Artcraft now sells it, which is handy. The best you can do is probably to mix the formula in Zawadzki’s original Kodak patent. Alternatively search here for “Mocon” which was a project to formulate a stable two-part XTOL concentrate.

Milpool said:

A few things to consider...

It is easier to scratch-mix D-76 than XTOL (especially if you want to store it), and D-76 is very XTOL-like when it comes to working characteristics. XTOL is great but keep in mind it was only a very slight improvement over D-76 from an image structure perspective and the sensitometry is virtually the same.

If you decide you really want to replicate the working characteristics of XTOL with a home-made developer - including the use of ascorbate, and want it to have a reliable shelf life, I suggest acquiring some DTPA (the important iron/copper chelating agent in XTOL). This compound has historically been somewhat difficult to source for home use but if I remember correctly Artcraft now sells it, which is handy. The best you can do is probably to mix the formula in Zawadzki’s original Kodak patent. Alternatively search here for “Mocon” which was a project to formulate a stable two-part XTOL concentrate.

Click to expand...

Thank you for that information, when you mention XTOL is slightly better than D-76 in terms of image structure, what exactly are you referring to? Thanks.

xtol121 said:

All of this to say, I think Kodak is doing a disservice to customers by not holding up certain standards to their suppliers and distributors.

Click to expand...

Photo Systems licenses the trademark. They are not a distributor. They are not a supplier. They are selling their own product, for which they have paid money in order to add a trade name - Kodak.
Just as Harman Technology paid money to the receiver to use the name "Ilford", and to acquire from that reciiver certain other assets.
There is no other connection - legal or contractual - between Eastman Kodak and the production of Kodak branded photo chemicals made by Photo Systems.
Eastman Kodak has had no connection with those photo chemicals - other than licensing the brand name - since the bankruptcy.
EK doesn't even have a direct connection with the film datasheets - those are now entirely Kodak Alaris.
EK has no more control over what Photo Systems are doing, as long as the terms of the brand licensing are complied with.
For example, if you look at the Photo Systems website for Kodak branded products, you will probably note that Photo Systems seem to be in the process of discontinuing use of the product name "HC-110" in favour of Kodak branded "High Capacity" film developer.
Perhaps the name "XTol" will be the next to go.

Joerg Bergs said:

There are more problems with current Kodak products. Kodak has been switching their 35mm films from triacetate to PET (polyester) carrier (base) since 2018. First the Portra 800, then Gold 200 and now Portra 400 and Ektar are getting thinner and thinner. This causes considerable problems for roll transport machines, as the films are often not transported correctly and get stuck in the machine. There is then a jam and the films are damaged.

Thinner films are also a problem when adjusting these in a darkroom enlarger. Unfortunately, for us, the change of carrier/base material is a deterioration in quality.

Than problems with XTOL after Tetenal. We have been using this developer for 20 years. The batches that Tetenal produced were always of the highest quality. Chinese batches from Sino promise were almost unusable. I have sent all these facts to Kodak Alaris because they are our trading partners (I try a contact photosys in 2025).

Now I have developed a Tri-X in X-Tol (currently 04/2024 - Made in USA) once again.
The film is again clearly underdeveloped and shows these densities via fog:

- Zone I: no drawing (density 0.02) my target value: 0.09 to 0.11
- Zone V: 0.49 my target value: 0.65 to 0.75
- Zone VIII: 0.85 my target value: 1.25 to 1.35

This is a completely different result from what I have known for many years with X-Tol (where the densities were very close to my target values). This is a test. We do not use Adox products and have an XTOl-like developer prepared by Mörsch, which corresponds 100% with our determined values in the machine. There is therefore no reason to continue buying Kodak chemistry. Not with these problems. If a formulation is changed and parameters deviate drastically from previous data sheets, this must be communicated.

Click to expand...

Where are you getting the idea that Eastman Kodak is changing the thickness of the acetate on Portra 400 and Ektar. This is nonsense.

If you are running a laboratory you should be running test strips even on black and white. I've not had a problem with any XTOL, not Tetenal made (beautiful stuff) not pre-bankrupcy made in USA, not post Tetenal made in Germany, not USA made SinoPromise or USA PSI made and owned.

I use reverse osmosis water for everything, I warm the water in a microwave oven to the recommended temperature and finally I use a variable speed propeller (stainless steel) mixer. Takes me about 2 minutes with the prop to get everything dissolved. Magnetic stirrers don't work worth a darn when mixing large amounts of powder.

Oxygen is the ENEMY with XTOL along with anything other than absolutely pure water.

I've tried Adox, works fine but it's a completely reformulated substitute for XTOL, the yellow color is beautiful, looks like lemonade.

Peace be with you. Mike

MattKing said:

Photo Systems licenses the trademark. They are not a distributor. They are not a supplier. They are selling their own product, for which they have paid money in order to add a trade name - Kodak.

Click to expand...

Precisely why I put “Kodak” in quotes when referring to the chemistry.

Chuck_P said:

Thank you for that information, when you mention XTOL is slightly better than D-76 in terms of image structure, what exactly are you referring to? Thanks.

Click to expand...

Generally for developers there is what has commonly been referred to as the speed-grain-sharpness triad. Picture a triangle with each of those characteristics at a vertex. The idea is that the more you optimize for one (or at best two) of those characteristics the more you compromise on the other(s).

The substantial net overall improvements (mostly throughout the second half of the 20th century) were in emulsion design. When it comes to black and white negative developers XTOL was really the first and last to “top” D-76 in terms of balancing speed, grain and sharpness. It amounts to tiny improvements in sharpness and graininess at full emulsion speed, but nothing to write home about. And in particular if one is using large format or even medium format film it is totally inconsequential.

One nice thing about XTOL though, is that it functions as its own replenisher. That can be a very handy and economical way of using it.

To quote myself “…Kodak (?* photo systems, alaris, Sino promise, etc.) never bothered to do the tests to update their data sheets that photographers rely on because at this point they are not photographers or concerned with photography at all. They're just chemistry manufacturers/distributors.”

“and all of the business of Kodak selling rights to whoever and blah blah blah that led us here is a damned shame. I just want to use the stuff and move on, but instead I'm here on a forum...”

@MattKing I believe this obfuscation you described does a lot to damage the brand name of Kodak. I see it time and time again on this forum and elsewhere, and these are just the die hard nerds that care enough to involve themselves with a photography forum. The average user doesn’t develop their own film but if they google at all they will come across these threads and see people are unhappy and possibly make their decision that they don’t trust Kodak because of that. It doesn’t matter who owns it or sells it or whatever, the bottom line is it erases trust in Kodak (and whoever has the sticker on their shirt) as a whole. And anything that damages Kodak has potential to damage materials that I’d like to continue using for a very long time.

My position here beyond this most boring conversation of who sells makes distributes license etc. though is that if anybody cares they can still do tests and make it work. I’m thankful the materials are available and it would be a great day if all the Kodaks of the world could get together and clean up the mess they’ve made.

xtol121 said:

To quote myself “…Kodak (?* photo systems, alaris, Sino promise, etc.) never bothered to do the tests to update their data sheets that photographers rely on because at this point they are not photographers or concerned with photography at all. They're just chemistry manufacturers/distributors.”

“and all of the business of Kodak selling rights to whoever and blah blah blah that led us here is a damned shame. I just want to use the stuff and move on, but instead I'm here on a forum...”

@MattKing I believe this obfuscation you described does a lot to damage the brand name of Kodak. I see it time and time again on this forum and elsewhere, and these are just the die hard nerds that care enough to involve themselves with a photography forum. The average user doesn’t develop their own film but if they google at all they will come across these threads and see people are unhappy and possibly make their decision that they don’t trust Kodak because of that. It doesn’t matter who owns it or sells it or whatever, the bottom line is it erases trust in Kodak (and whoever has the sticker on their shirt) as a whole. And anything that damages Kodak has potential to damage materials that I’d like to continue using for a very long time.

My position here beyond this most boring conversation of who sells makes distributes license etc. though is that if anybody cares they can still do tests and make it work. I’m thankful the materials are available and it would be a great day if all the Kodaks of the world could get together and clean up the mess they’ve made.

Click to expand...

Have you contacted Photo Systems and asked about this?

mshchem said:

Where are you getting the idea that Eastman Kodak is changing the thickness of the acetate on Portra 400 and Ektar. This is nonsense.

If you are running a laboratory you should be running test strips even on black and white. I've not had a problem with any XTOL, not Tetenal made (beautiful stuff) not pre-bankrupcy made in USA, not post Tetenal made in Germany, not USA made SinoPromise or USA PSI made and owned.

I use reverse osmosis water for everything, I warm the water in a microwave oven to the recommended temperature and finally I use a variable speed propeller (stainless steel) mixer. Takes me about 2 minutes with the prop to get everything dissolved. Magnetic stirrers don't work worth a darn when mixing large amounts of powder.

Oxygen is the ENEMY with XTOL along with anything other than absolutely pure water.

I've tried Adox, works fine but it's a completely reformulated substitute for XTOL, the yellow color is beautiful, looks like lemonade.

Peace be with you. Mike

Click to expand...

Where in the world? Just buy Portra 160 which is now on the thinner base. Writing is on the wall that Ektar and Portra 400 will most likely follow. And I agree @Joerg Bergs the thinner base is a pain in the butt to use in the darkroom. It doesn’t load on to reels as easy and has a tendency to crease easier while loading into print file sleeves. I’m not a fan at all, but it still shoots the same thankfully

mshchem said:

Where are you getting the idea that Eastman Kodak is changing the thickness of the acetate on Portra 400 and Ektar. This is nonsense.

Click to expand...

Not an idea, just a fact, that new Portra 400 and Ektar based on a thin PET base, not acetate. We develop hundreds of rolls a week and there was a change during the last months. Like P800, Gold200, Kodacolor years before…

xtol121 said:

and it would be a great day if all the Kodaks of the world could get together and clean up the mess they’ve made.

Click to expand...

I like the way you expressed this.

MattKing said:

Photo Systems licenses the trademark. They are not a distributor. They are not a supplier. They are selling their own product, for which they have paid money in order to add a trade name - Kodak.
Just as Harman Technology paid money to the receiver to use the name "Ilford", and to acquire from that reciiver certain other assets.
There is no other connection - legal or contractual - between Eastman Kodak and the production of Kodak branded photo chemicals made by Photo Systems.
Eastman Kodak has had no connection with those photo chemicals - other than licensing the brand name - since the bankruptcy.
EK doesn't even have a direct connection with the film datasheets - those are now entirely Kodak Alaris.
EK has no more control over what Photo Systems are doing, as long as the terms of the brand licensing are complied with.
For example, if you look at the Photo Systems website for Kodak branded products, you will probably note that Photo Systems seem to be in the process of discontinuing use of the product name "HC-110" in favour of Kodak branded "High Capacity" film developer.
Perhaps the name "XTol" will be the next to go.

Click to expand...

Matt, is this true that Eastman Kodak is using Estar base for Portra and Ektar color film???

Milpool said:

Generally for developers there is what has commonly been referred to as the speed-grain-sharpness triad.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I had in my mind that you were primarily referring to the grain and thus the apparent sharpness.

Milpool said:

Have you contacted Photo Systems and asked about this?

Click to expand...

I have not and I do not intend to. I’ve already done my testing and found a way to make it work for me and I’m satisfied with that. I do not know what good it would do to tell Photo Systems their chemistry isn’t operating like the chemistry that was produced overseas years earlier, or by some other company in the distant past. Truly, I believe if they cared about it they would have done some testing and released updated information.

I think I have every version of XTOL in my storeroom. I don't have a densitometer.

It's weird that the formulations are always at fault on the weaker side? If things were crazy and out of control densities would seem to be all over.

Supply chains have collapsed, never know where the ingredients come from anymore. Bummer.

Well if the film base is indeed getting thinner maybe 72 exposure rolls will make a come back.