Adox XT3 Performance in 1L Packaging

[Richard Jepsen]

I was a long time user of XTOL but switched to ID-11 after the Sino Promise package issues in 2021. The second reason for switching is I prefer using 1L vs storing 5L which I can’t consume in 12 months.

ID-11 is currently unavailable due to supply chain issues. As a result I purchased (2) 1L packages of XT3 at the attractive price of $13.00 plus $6.00 shipping. Its amusing that 2 years ago XT3 was unavailable which drove me to use ID-11. The continuing supply chain issues are frustrating. Photographers were spoiled by product availability pre pandemic.

Question #1: How is it that Adox can package a vitamin C developer in 1L size and Kodak failed? Should I be skeptical XT3 in the 1L size will produce consistent results and match the reliability of XTOL in 5L or ID-11 In 1L.

Question #2. Are XT3 developing times for FP-4 and Tri-X in practice the same as Kodak’s published times?

 

[Milpool]

XT3 is a fine product.

It’s not that Kodak XTOL couldn’t be packaged in 1l quantities. Obviously this can be done. There were apparently some problems with the early 1l packaging but that doesn’t mean it is any more difficult to do than packaging 5l. Kodak just stopped doing it.

More recently, sadly, 1l packets of other Kodak-branded B&W developers disappeared. D-76, Dektol. I don’t know if Photo Systems has any plans to re-introduce 1l packets but I doubt it.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I was a former Xtol-R addict, yes this is a confession, but now I've reformed and have a new drug called Adox XT-3. Would I go back to Xtol if I could? No, I really like XT-3 for a replenishing system just because of it being available in both sizes. I made a 5L batch, filled 1 gallon Boston brown jug and used the leftover for the replenisher. If I want to run the system for a loooong time, I will use a 1L package for when I run out of replenisher. Somebody was thinking at Adox!

 

[Richard Jepsen]

John

When you use a replenishment process its not recommended to delute the developer to 1:1….right?

 

[John Wiegerink]

John

When you use a replenishment process its not recommended to delute the developer to 1:1….right?

Correct! You mix it straight-stock, and after it's "seasoned" with several rolls it pretty much acts like Xtol 1+1.

 

[pentaxuser]

I was a former Xtol-R addict, yes this is a confession, but now I've reformed and have a new drug called Adox XT-3. Would I go back to Xtol if I could? No, I really like XT-3 Somebody was thinking at Adox!

Or possibly and more accurately, somebody at Adox in supplying a 1L pack was thinking of the customer more seriously than was true of Kodak

pentaxuser

 

[miha]

It’s not that Kodak XTOL couldn’t be packaged in 1l quantities. Obviously this can be done. There were apparently some problems with the early 1l packaging but that doesn’t mean it is any more difficult to do than packaging 5l. Kodak just stopped doing it.

Can you back this up with sources? Preferably from Kodak. I know it sounds logical, but reality might be different. Thanks.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Or possibly and more accurately, somebody at Adox in supplying a 1L pack was thinking of the customer more seriously than was true of Kodak

pentaxuser

 

[Milpool]

I don’t understand. Are you suggesting a smaller bag is too difficult to make compared with a 5l bag?

Can you back this up with sources? Preferably from Kodak. I know it sounds logical, but reality might be different. Thanks.

 

[mshchem]

I would have ZERO concerns. One thing ADOX does very well is confectioning chemicals, film and paper. Packaging is excellent.

 

[miha]

I don’t understand. Are you suggesting a smaller bag is too difficult to make compared with a 5l bag?

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm just asking you to back up your reasoning with sources. Don't get me wrong, what you wrote certainly seems plausible, however I suspect we don't know the exact reason why Kodak decided to drop the 1 L packaging.

 

[MattKing]

The problem isn't with making the double bags to make 1 litre of stock ("1 litre bags").
It is with the much higher costs associated with making and distributing 5 sets of 1 litre bags vs the costs of making and distributing one double bag that make 5 litres of stock. Particularly, when it turned out that the bags chosen for the earlier 1 litre size turned out to create problems, and would have needed to be replaced with even more expensive versions.
Would people be willing to pay almost the same amount for the 1 litre packaging as for 5 litre packaging? Probably not.
I expect as well those little, tiny bags that would have been for the Part B in the early 1 litre packages were a PITA.
If I were Photo Systems, I would seriously consider offering a smaller than 5 litre option, but 1 litre options for almost every powdered chemical probably cost just too much for any US based manufacturer to be able to sell them profitably.

 

[miha]

If I were Photo Systems, I would seriously consider offering a smaller than 5 litre option, but 1 litre options for almost every powdered chemical probably cost just too much for any US based manufacturer to be able to sell them profitably.

But they do (Kodak, Formulary, Arista), hopefully with a profit

 

[MattKing]

But they do (Kodak, Formulary, Arista), hopefully with a profit

The "US based" qualification is important.
Compliance, packaging and worldwide distribution costs may very well constitute most of the cost of a 1 litre double bag of powder developer.

 

[miha]

Aren't Kodak, Formulary and Arista US based?

 

[Paul Howell]

Kodak did make Extol in a 1 lit or quart size when Extol was first released. I stopped using Extol due to the sudden "death" issue which Kodak fixed and Kodak stopped making the smaller version. I have used the Foma 1L version of Extol which worked quite well, but it is expensive. At this point Kodak (Sino Promise) no longer makes a D76 in quart size.

 

[MattKing]

Aren't Kodak, Formulary and Arista US based?

Now they are, although it is a bit harder to identify with Arista, as that is more a distributor and brander than a manufacturer.
But neither Arista nor Formulary concern themselves (much) with worldwide distribution.
I repeat the question: "Would people be willing to pay almost the same amount for a 1 litre package and a 5 litre package"?

 

[MattKing]

At this point Kodak (Sino Promise) no longer makes a D76 in quart size.

Sino Promise has given up the Kodak branded still photo chemical business. US based Photo Systems now has obtained the rights from Eastman Kodak. Photo Systems were previously doing some of the contract manufacturing for Kodak Alaris, followed by Sino Promise.

 

[miha]

I repeat the question: "Would people be willing to pay almost the same amount for a 1 litre package and a 5 litre package"?

I wouldn't, but there are several European manufacturers offering 1 litre packages.

 

[MattKing]

I wouldn't, but there are several European manufacturers offering 1 litre packages.

Which may very well be related to the realities of selling (mainly) into European markets.
In particular, shipping and taxation realities, but also realities relating to labelling and statutory compliance.
For example. back in the day, one of the challenges that Kodak Canada/Canadian Kodak had with Kodak branded product related to the statutory requirement for bilingual labelling - packages that were labelled for the US market could not be legally sold in Canada.
Issues concerning package size have almost nothing to do with the contents of most such packages.

 

[miha]

Kodak did make Extol in a 1 lit or quart size when Extol was first released. I stopped using Extol due to the sudden "death" issue which Kodak fixed and Kodak stopped making the smaller version.

It was sold as a 2x1L pack; I'm still keeping the "other half" I purchased in 1999, as a souvenir. Here it is:

 

[Paul Howell]

Legacy Pro and Artista Pro only makes dry film and paper developers in gallon sizes. same with Ultrafine branded powder kits, 1 gallon and larger sizes. Photographers Formulary sells their powdered including a version of D76, DK 50 and Edwal 12 developers in 1liter kits. The only reason I would buy a liter size kit is that I no longer shoot enough film to use a gallon kit and I hate dumping it down the drain or taking it to the hazmat disposal station.

 

[pentaxuser]

It all sounds as íf not making a 1L bag was all due to forces outside of Kodak's control,Matt. It would have liked to cater for this demand by customers but just couldn't afford to but somehow Adox can. I always had a feeling that things were always stacked against Kodak There have been other products where similar arguments have applied or been applied. As I say it's not a lucky company - seemingly

pentaxuser

 

[madNbad]

Now they are, although it is a bit harder to identify with Arista, as that is more a distributor and brander than a manufacturer.
But neither Arista nor Formulary concern themselves (much) with worldwide distribution.
I repeat the question: "Would people be willing to pay almost the same amount for a 1 litre package and a 5 litre package"?

In part to the realities of home development. I started with HC-110, moved to Rodinal because of the long shelf life of theses liquid developers fit the amount of processing I was doing. There was also the benefit of low cost per roll but I wanted to try some different developers. The Film Photography Project offers their version of several developers including a D-76 clone offered in both one and five liter packages. The price between the two is about four usd. I bought the one liter package and using it at 1+1 with Tri-X my cost is around two USD per roll. I like the results and I'm able to use the entire batch long before it's expiration date. I have one package of the FPP-76 left and then it's on to Xtol. The onus will be on me to expose enough film to use five liters of Xtol within its six month lifespan. If I was using medium format, it would be a breeze but with 135, even at 1+1, that still equals forty rolls of thirty-six exposures. The cost drops to about forty cents a roll.
One liter packaging makes sense for photographers exposing a few rolls a month and want the choice of a developer like D-76 or Adox XT-3 and not just the concentrated liquids.
On the other hand, I have all the stuff to make caffenol.

 

[MattKing]

The price between the two is about four usd. I bought the one liter package and using it at 1+1 with Tri-X my cost is around two USD per roll.

How many are willing to pay that two USD amount per roll?
Is there enough of a market at that price for it to make business sense for the various suppliers - trading into the markets they trade into - to market that product?
I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess that @pentaxuser is not within that willing-to-pay group.
Just as there are customers who would prefer X-Tol in larger than 5 litre packages, there are customers who want the cheapest possible 1 litre packages. Unless one runs a store like "Bulk Barn", no packaging solution is going to suit everyone.