MattKing
Moderator
I don't know how similar the ramifications to Harman the issues were, but it is pretty clear that the upheaval caused all sorts of problems.
As I understand it, some of the production is actually now coming from the USA.
XTOL failure
-
A
- Thread starter Melvin J Bramley
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Free Free vintage darkroom equipment - must be picked up SOON, Los Angeles area
- Started by Spudboy555
-
For Sale Kodak No. 3-A Autographic Model C, Giant negatives!
- Started by Erik L
-
For Sale Nice No. 1-A Folding Pocket Kodak Special Model C
- Started by Erik L
-
Want to Buy Olympus TTL Auto Shoe Cord F 0.6M for F280 flash
- Started by nbagno
-
For Sale Kodak No. 2 Folding Pocket Brownie Model B
- Started by Erik L
Forum statistics
I don't know how similar the ramifications to Harman the issues were, but it is pretty clear that the upheaval caused all sorts of problems.
As I understand it, some of the production is actually now coming from the USA.
I see many reasons to stick with Adox XT-3. It never failed.
Agreed. I won't use the "Kodak" product anymore - it can't be trusted, IMO.
I mix my Xtol with de-ionized water , I keep the replenished solution in a 10 L jar in order to keep the volume/surface relationship as high as possible , I fill it to the top and let it bleed off so there isn't the smallest air bubble left. Then I close tightly and I keep it in the dark. I started this batch sometime during 2016 and it still works fine. Before using the solution I filter it through a coffee-filter ( disposable !!!!! ) in order to get rid of some junk that always forms.
Karl-Gustaf
Karl-Gustaf
I just developed another roll of Tri X at plus 35% of the recommended times and with constant agitation..
The film is drying at the moment but a visual inspection shows dramatic increase in the contrast of edge markings.
It is becoming obvious that the published development times for Tri X in Xtol cannot be taken seriously!!
The film is drying at the moment but a visual inspection shows dramatic increase in the contrast of edge markings.
It is becoming obvious that the published development times for Tri X in Xtol cannot be taken seriously!!
A bit of context. As others have pointed out, Kodak brand chemistry has seen multiple manufacturing companies and owners over the last nearly two decades. Tetenal (allegedly) made a beautiful version of XTOL, made in Germany. Then it went to another site in Germany, problems began, then to the USA etc, etc.
I've never had any problems, period, but I'm certain that there are/were bad batches of XTOL, bad Dektol too.
If you are wanting to continue to use XTOL, before going off the recommended development times (the times developed decades ago by Eastman Kodak Company, pre bankruptcy), you need to test any suspicious batch of chemistry. By suspicious, unfortunately, that basically means anything that is not coming directly from B&H or Cinestill or other behemoth, places that turn over inventory monthly. Or, by knowing exactly what you are buying, not sure how that's possible?. There's a store within a hundred miles of me that's still selling brand new bags, 1 gallon, Kodak Microdol-X. It would probably work fine, but I sure would test. I don't think Microdol-X has been made in this millennia???
I've never had any problems, period, but I'm certain that there are/were bad batches of XTOL, bad Dektol too.
If you are wanting to continue to use XTOL, before going off the recommended development times (the times developed decades ago by Eastman Kodak Company, pre bankruptcy), you need to test any suspicious batch of chemistry. By suspicious, unfortunately, that basically means anything that is not coming directly from B&H or Cinestill or other behemoth, places that turn over inventory monthly. Or, by knowing exactly what you are buying, not sure how that's possible?. There's a store within a hundred miles of me that's still selling brand new bags, 1 gallon, Kodak Microdol-X. It would probably work fine, but I sure would test. I don't think Microdol-X has been made in this millennia???
I think your assertion about XTOL being affected by age or improper storage isn’t quite accurate in this case. Based on what was written, the failure was sudden, previous films developed fine, and only the last two rolls came out blank. XTOL typically fails suddenly rather than gradually due to age or shelf time. If it’s mixed and stored properly, XTOL can remain effective, but when it does fail, it’s usually an all-or-nothing situation, impossible to predict.
Check out PC512 published by @relistan. Stock solutions should keep at least a year.
My PC-512 Borax Developer
Hey everyone, I went mostly silent here for a year... life caught up. But early last year while working on two bath developers I ended up with a formula that I liked a lot for a single bath developer. It's not revolutionary at all, but I have been using it a lot and really like the results. You...
www.photrio.com
Hence my testing with the 35mm film tongues before each use. Still my Kodak stock and replenished XTOL rarely goes bad.
I'm betting there are still packages of the "bad" Xtol from years ago, floating around in shop inventory and lurking on customer's shelves. It's worth looking up the batch numbers for the bad batches and see if you have any of those before using them.
Here is a Photrio thread from December 2020 about the bad Xtol that mentions lot numbers:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/kodak-xtol-trade-concern-announcment.180508/
... fortunately the lot numbers are in the opening post for anyone who does not want to read the entire 39 page thread. ;-)
Excellent, thank you.
I still have 2x 5 liter mixes from those numbers. Sino Promise DID eventually send replacements and I had shoved the "bad ones" to the back of the storage cabinet.
Hmmm... Maybe I'll mix one batch and test it.
Hmmm... Maybe I'll mix one batch and test it.
XTOL 5 liter mix on 2/5/23.
Tested on 3/22/24 (uppermost swatch with blue tape - densities are reversed on this sample). Already showing signs of weakening; the lower dot is not dense black, which is the 1:00 development drop; 30 seconds on top.
Tested today, 2/24/25. 1 drop on Ilford MGRC paper (upper) and 1 drop added 30 seconds later (lower) and washed with water stop at 1:00. Fixed TF5 for 1:00.
Bottle #1 -- 1/12 inch in glass container - little to no activity
Bottle #2 -- Half-full, black plastic with air squeezed out partially.
Bottle #3 -- Full to brim, black plastic.
Bottle #4 -- Full to brim, brown plastic.
I could have experimented more, but I simply discarded all. Two years is really pushing your luck, but it shows that XTOL when stored without air can be fairly stable.
Tested on 3/22/24 (uppermost swatch with blue tape - densities are reversed on this sample). Already showing signs of weakening; the lower dot is not dense black, which is the 1:00 development drop; 30 seconds on top.
Tested today, 2/24/25. 1 drop on Ilford MGRC paper (upper) and 1 drop added 30 seconds later (lower) and washed with water stop at 1:00. Fixed TF5 for 1:00.
Bottle #1 -- 1/12 inch in glass container - little to no activity
Bottle #2 -- Half-full, black plastic with air squeezed out partially.
Bottle #3 -- Full to brim, black plastic.
Bottle #4 -- Full to brim, brown plastic.
I could have experimented more, but I simply discarded all. Two years is really pushing your luck, but it shows that XTOL when stored without air can be fairly stable.
As outlined here under "Making sure your XTOL hasn't gone bad":
https://www.covingtoninnovations.com/xtol/
"The first spot should be dark gray, and the second one, medium gray. After fixing they will be quite warm-toned."
Thanks for that. I've got one batch of PC-512 Borax going over two years and I think @Alan Johnson may have one older than that.Check out PC512 published by @relistan. Stock solutions should keep at least a year.
My PC-512 Borax Developer
Hey everyone, I went mostly silent here for a year... life caught up. But early last year while working on two bath developers I ended up with a formula that I liked a lot for a single bath developer. It's not revolutionary at all, but I have been using it a lot and really like the results. You...
The only drawback to XT-3 is the sometimes spotty availability issues here in the States and now the possibility of tariffs causing a price fluctuation. I think the issue of availability will iron itself out over time. The only Kodak chemicals I have left are a very old cardboard keg of Kodalk(sodium metaborate), one box of rapid fixer and six foil packets of Kodak Technidol Liquid Developer. Switching from Xtol the Adox XT-3 was totally painless. Plus, it was/is much easier to mix, in my opinion. That said, I never had any issues with Xtol's performance and the only reason I switched was I cross-contaminated my working batch of Xtol replenished. I needed some new Xtol and couldn't get it anywhere. It was a time period where they were switching manufactures and things were iffy at best. It was XT-3 to the rescue and I haven't looked back.
.
I have a small batch of PC-512, but it's not as old as yours and I haven't used it lately. That will change when the leafs start budding out here and there's something besides dual and dreary.
I love XTOL, never had a problem. However, Adox is supposed to be making "Original Recipe" HC-110. That's probably the best route for occasional use. That and Rodinal.
You can do the clip test, I use that method to test my developer and fixer before each batch of processing to make sure both of them are healthy. Just leave a bit of film in the developer for the duration that you will use the developer to develop your actual film and see if it produces a very black negative.
Yes I have been doing a quick and dirty clip test, but deciding if the density is dark enough is somewhat subjective. Trying to decide if buying paper just for this test would be any better. I don’t print at home.
Do you have a sensitometer?
Otherwise if you have a clip from the fresh XTol, and another one from the current test, you should be able to tell the difference. As far as I know, XTol usually lose its property sharply not gradually and refurbishing it constantly would work as well...
That has been my assumption, as well, but I don't really know. These recent posts about thin negatives from Xtol make me wonder if the developer is actually suffering from reduced activity, which does not quite fit with the legend of "sudden death"?
Here's my experience. I leave it to you to judge whether this fits in to your assumption but I think it may be a variation on your reduced activity premise. I was doing the same clip test as Fatih and what I noticed was that towards the end of its life the test was just giving a slightly less black leader and at the same time the Xtol itself had turned from a clear water colour to a slightly straw colour but was still producing usable negs
Matt King commented that an increase in development time was probably all that was needed
Yes eventually I am sure it would have ceased to have worked at all but it was far from "sudden death" I had kept it in a winebag and at that stage it must have been 18 months to 2 years old
It may be that Melvin has experienced the same phenomenon when he discovered that an increase of 30% in development time was needed However this should have occurred many months later. Failure, even part failure, after 10 weeks in full glass bottles indicates to me that the particular Xtol was not up to standard
pentaxuser
Last edited:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |