I have read this post, and I think it can be disregarded. The author of the post doesn't state any real data points, and doesn't include samples that support his results.
In addition, there are an abundance of tests online that support XT-3 having the same characteristic curves as X-Tol.
I would recommend placing an order for a 5L container from somewhere like Freestyle (they also stock XT-3). I like the clayton ones, they're REALLY cheap and easy to come by, and if you want to standardize on X-Tol you'll be using it a lot.
That's a relief, haha! But if I start looking at XT-3 over Xtol, is that just as good? Or should I actually prefer a 5L batch of Xtol/XT-3? I assume you just mean to make a long-lasting 5L stock rather than 1L increments from 1L kits?
I have read about this problem of Xtol causing some precipitate and XT-3 apparently doesn't?
Hm, Freestyle doesn't have an 5L bottles by Clayton. Are the Clayton ones nonpermeable plastic? When I was browsing fotoimplex I was kind of jealous that they had those nice wide-mouthed glass reagent bottles, but the ones I was finding on amazon from cursory searches were a lot more or had a narrow mouth.
I'm using narrow-mouthed glass bottles and I don't like how they make things like blix come sloshing out or drip down the lip instead of out. I got a development tray purely to keep any splash contained and it still is messy.
I misspoke - X-Tol is not a citric acid developer but an *ascorbic acid* developer. I would highly recommend grabbing a copy of Anchell and Troop's The Film Developing Cookbook, it's got lots of great info about this topic and takes a nice road between scientific chemistry and darkroom application.
In short, Metol (and hydroquinone as well) are stable silver halide developer in their base forms, and at least one of the two is included in most developers due to this property.
For sodium isoascorbate (the ascorbic-acid based developing agent in X-Tol) to function as a developer, it requires the presence of a compound called Diethylene-Triamine-Pentaacetic Acid (DTPA) to counteract any mineral impurities in the water or other chemical compounds. If this balance is thrown off, X-Tol will suddenly fail, producing very thin negatives or no negatives at all.
I see. And I imagine the ascorbic acid based developer is, depite how difficult it is, . Thank you for the recommendation, I'll check it out!
On the subject of making a less than 4 litre quantity of XTol with all the powder dissolved in it, it is interesting to see that
@Sanug has had success getting all the powder dissolved into less than 4 litres of water. I've never been able to do that, without there being at least a moderate amount of un-dissolved powder left at the bottom of the container.
It is that issue of solubility that limits this approach.
If I go 5 I'll probably just get a full bucket and figure out the storage. The thing about making it more concentrated is it'd be a lot easier to store.
And on the subject of whether intensification will help, probably not.
Intensification is useful for negatives that have density in all the appropriate locations, but could benefit from increased contrast contributing extra density.
Your negatives seem too under-developed for that.
Interesting. So it requires a lot more silver to work?
The test is described on this page under "Making Sure Your Xtol Hasn't Gone Bad". I use the paper test, not the film test.
Kodak Xtol Developer - Unofficial Resource Page
www.covingtoninnovations.com
Very useful, thank you! I had actually seen something like this (Cinestill has a video where they explain tests for developers/fixers/bleach) but I hadn't figured to use them.
Something interesting the site mentions is that the 1L kits were causing problems which is why they moved to the 5L kits. However, Adox has a 1L kit for XT-3, is there any concerns about quality for
that kit?
@Crysist I regularly develop Acros in XTol-R, and never get thin negatives. In regards to mixing in other developers, like Rodinal, been there done that. It works quite nicely...but that is with properly mixed up XTol...
Just had to make sure! Because before this thread I hadn't considered just making a portion of the stock would cause issues.
I’m not referring to measurement errors on your part but rather the fact that of the total powder volume in each packet, the relative proportions of each compound are very different.
Consider that of the roughly 250g total dry weight of part A, only 1g of that is Dimezone-S (the Phenidone derivative in XTOL). If you pour 25g of part A powder you’d have to be quite lucky to end up with 0.1g of Dimezone-S. You might get more, or more likely less. What if it is significantly less? This is the primary developing agent, so not a good start.
Etc. You get the idea (we don’t need to go through each ingredient).
Ah, okay I see. Is that related to why you must use at least 100mL per roll? I know it's different for the powders, as you mention in your example, and in solution I figure they're far more homogenous so it seem like it's a different reason. Why does it apparently stop working lower than 100mL? Also, higher dilutions (more than 1:1, going by Kino's link) seem to be an issue for some, but I don't know if that's due to having less than 100mL of developer in that working solution or it's actually while having more and the dilution itself becomes an issue.
