Alert about a possible problem batch of Xtol

[Oren Grad]

There is an alert about a possible problem batch of Xtol (2019/08/09) following the recent shift in manufacture:

https://twitter.com/KodakProFilmBiz/status/1197212541753143297

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thanks for that, Oren.

 

[pentaxuser]

The announcement seems to state a specific day/month/year. Do we take it that the problem only exists with any A+B packets produced on that day and no other day?

Has Kodak now added a specific day/month/year of manufacture to ts packets and if so where is this found? I have older packets which still have the name Kodak Professional XTOL as written on the packets in the link but not all in block capitals as in the announcement A bit confusing to state the name in block capitals but then show packets with what I assume to be the existing real font with only XTOL in block capitals

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Oren Grad]

The announcement seems to state a specific day/month/year. Do we take it that the problem only exists with any A+B packets produced on that day and no other day?

The company has not posted anything about any other batch. It's up to you to decide whether to assume that other batches are OK until proven faulty, or faulty until proven OK.

Has Kodak now added a specific day/month/year of manufacture to ts packets and if so where is this found?

Apparently so. Follow the link to the Twitter post and click on the picture to enlarge it - the information is shown very clearly toward the bottom of the front of the packet.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Oren. I have been able to find it now. Let's hope that my inference is correct - that's its one day's production and not that the problem is one of it being that here are some bad packets with that date and it may extend to other as yet unknown dates

pentaxuser

 

[cmacd123]

The announcement seems to state a specific day/month/year. Do we take it that the problem only exists with any A+B packets produced on that day and no other day?
pentaxuser

perhaps the factory only makes a batch every so often, s one batch would have a specific day marked, the next batch might not have been made until sometime later.

 

[AgX]

Thank you.
Most interesting is this warning on the background of the lack of warning on the backing paper issue.

However there is no such warning on their main site. Me who never uses Twitter would never have learned of this issue would there be no Apug.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I'm still working through a couple of packs of XTOL "best before" 2016 which are working fine, so haven't needed to restock yet.

 

[Oren Grad]

Most interesting is this warning on the background of the lack of warning on the backing paper issue.

However there is no such warning on their main site. Me who never uses Twitter would never have learned of this issue would there be no Apug.

It also went up on their Facebook page. Given the role social media play these days, and those two channels in particular, I think that was a reasonable approach for getting the word out quickly. And I say that as someone who is not registered on either Twitter or Facebook. You don't have to be in order to keep an occasional eye on them or to take a look if someone elsewhere flags an item of concern.

 

[peter k.]

However there is no such warning on their main site.

Sooooo how do we know if its real?

 

[Oren Grad]

Thanks Oren. I have been able to find it now. Let's hope that my inference is correct - that's its one day's production and not that the problem is one of it being that here are some bad packets with that date and it may extend to other as yet unknown dates

The uncertainty is frustrating for sure, and I can understand if folks who have been around long enough to have experienced the packaging issues with Xtol early on are especially skittish.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

D76 FTW!

 

[pentaxuser]

The uncertainty is frustrating for sure, and I can understand if folks who have been around long enough to have experienced the packaging issues with Xtol early on are especially skittish.

In my case I have never experienced a problem with Xtol so in my case I am only concerned that a company should be prepared to reveal as much as it can in as accurate a way as it can and while these days Facebook and Twitter might be important communications avenues for companies have we really abandoned announcements on the company's site

I thought that peter k made a good point given that anyone studying the standards of Facebook and Twitter should have doubts that both the former are impeccable in terms of their scrutiny.

pentaxuser

 

[Tom Kershaw]

D76 FTW!

D-76 is certainly one option and works well in a Jobo.

 

[Tim Gray]

For reference, there has been a thread in rangefinderforum the past few days about a problem with XTOL. I assume it is related to this announcement.

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=170004

 

[mshchem]

I received a package this week from B&H. It's from the suspect batch. I stockpiled XTOL when Tetenal got in trouble. The new stuff is still made in Germany, by who?

Here's Kodak's picture, not mine.

 

[mshchem]

My pouch of the part A feels like as someone on the rangefinder forum states "like cookie dough" . The part B bag has free flowing powder the A bag has mushed up clumps. I held it up to light, it doesn't look like any XTOL I've ever seen. It's made some place in Germany.
I wonder if ........ no never mind.

It may be an attempt to minimize the dust, which is obnoxious on the old Tetenal product.

This sucks.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

It may be an attempt to minimize the dust, which is obnoxious on the old Tetenal product.

This sucks.

I pour the "old" Tetenal made Kodak XTOL directly into the water so haven't suffered too much with dust, however the packaging of those it not as robust compared to the older style 'Made in USA' XTOL.

 

[AgX]

It also went up on their Facebook page. Given the role social media play these days, and those two channels in particular, I think that was a reasonable approach for getting the word out quickly. And I say that as someone who is not registered on either Twitter or Facebook. You don't have to be in order to keep an occasional eye on them or to take a look if someone elsewhere flags an item of concern.

Often I get blocked completely from accessing Facebook for weeks. Yes, it is good means to get such warning out, but there is no reason not to put such information on their regular site too.

 

[villagephotog]

For what it's worth, I bought a package of XTOL from Adorama 3 weeks ago and mixed it up into stock solution, and it's been fine. I threw away the packaging, but I'm 99% sure it's the 'new' stuff. Adorama's product description said it was, and Adorama was out-of-stock on XTOL for 2-3+ months while the manufacturing changeover was happening, so it seems impossible that I could have somehow ended up with a package of the old stuff.

I've developed 6 or 7 rolls of 120 film in it over the past 3 weeks — Tri-X, TMAX 400, and HP5+ — at a 1+1 dilution and all developed normally, i.e. as I expected based on using XTOL for a couple of years. Again, I don't have the packaging anymore, so I don't know if it was the same batch that's noted in Kodak's tweet. I still have about 3 liters of stock solution left; as of a week ago it was working at full strength.

Also FWIW, during the period that XTOL was unavailable, I bought a package of the Eco Pro LegacyPro Ascorbic Acid developer and used it with 3-4 rolls of film over about a month. It worked just fine, and exactly like XTOL as far as I can tell (I didn't do any meticulous tests of it; just developed some film and got the results I expected.)

 

[peter k.]

but there is no reason not to put such information on their regular site too.

They might be just trying to prove it to themselves!!! ... As it seems to be a real issue.

On B&H reviews ...
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...ofessional_xtol_developer_powder.html/reviews
is the comment about it showing underdevelopment.

We find this very interesting and funny in a sense, we just started learning a new film Tmax 400 and decided to also try it with a new developer, yep Xtol. So have no experience with this developer, but its the new Xtol dated as stated.
In my testing.. we have also had the same experience, of seemingly underdeveloped, but have had nothing to compare it to, as we have never used this developer before.
So either the developer is begone... or Kodak needs to create a new develop timing status for it. Time will tell

Ha... were retired retarded, so maybe will try that with what we have left.
Crazy!!!

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I suspect all manufacturers (apart from Fujifilm?) have experienced occasional production problems. I've had a couple of issues with ILFORD films recently that I've still not fully resolved the cause of.

Tom

 

[pentaxuser]

Going back to the Kodak announcement for a moment it would appear from its wording that Kodak has made the assumption that not all of that batch is suspect so you have to try the Xtol and then contact Kodak if the negatives are below par i.e. you cannot simply return the packets and are then furnished with fresh packets that are know to be OK?

So has anyone tried to contact his supplier to see what the supplier's exchange policy is i or done as the announcement says and contact Kodak. This it seems to me is the acid test in terms of Kodak's response

mshchem, so far it appears to be only you who are in this situation. Can I ask what it is you will do?

I do hope that Kodak handles this situation sensibly and recognises the customer needs to be given proper consideration. You get one and only one chance when developing a film. There is no rescue route for the film if the developer is inactive but you have used it

pentaxuser

 

[mshchem]

I think Kodak Alaris is doing the best they can trying to get ahead of this. This isn't a Eastman Kodak problem like occurred with the 120 backing paper. New supplier, new mixing equipment, something probably malfunctioned and didn't add correct quantities. I have one bag of the new stuff, I want to help KA resolve this.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

I have long been a supporter of Xtol from the beginning way back in 1996 and I've been through all the mess with the two different types of Xtol Sudden Death and this early report of "cookie dough" texture to Part A is consistent with the original packaging failure. To recap, the original formulation was in two foil lined packages with Part A in a smaller (much smaller) package and the Part B much larger, in both soon to be discontinued 1 liter size and the 5 liter size. The edge seal of the smaller Part A package wasn't up to shielding from moisture, and being based in Hawaii with only boat shipments of chemicals by Kodak (pre-digital reorganization) made this issue quite apparent. The face to face conversation with the area Kodak representative revealed that they also had the same issue with another product, Kodak Sepia Toner in the smaller size, from the boat travel. I can recall standing in the shop (Larry's Super Save on Young Street for those of you who remember) with the rep and opening up a sealed box of 1 liter Xtol and all of the Part A's in the box were as hard as candy, not a free powder. He took all of the store's stock back. Within a few months Kodak had changed the packaging dropping the 1 liter size and then both Part A and B of the 5 liter size were adjusted to be nearly the same volume of powder. I was explained to me from the rep that the Part A volume was increased by splitting up the total volume of Sodium Sulfite in to equal amounts into the Part A and Part B, as well as the improvements in the packaging. Xtol was stable in this form except for the iron sensitivity (Fenton reaction).

Xtol was the combined effort led by two highly educated and trained top Kodak research scientists using the full capacity of the greatest photo-chemistry research laboratory ever with the resources and budget of Kodak at its most profitable with the expressed goal of not only eliminating Hydroquinone from the developer due to soon to be increasing environmental regulations but to improve the capacity and extend the useful life of Xtol in a replenished lab system. When the Xtol project was initiated Kodak was under a huge pressure internally and externally to improve their environmental impact. Commercial black and white labs which were an industry standard used either D-76 or Microdol-X as a replenished system, and Kodak recommendations were to dump the full amount from the tanks after 6-12 months. Xtol changed that, offering better image quality with a single solution (no more separate Replenisher formulas of a developer) and if monitored properly, an extended life span of the replenished batch. A really great product but by the time it made it to market ( it took over 10 years to formulate and test) the market conditions had changed and Kodak cut corners on the packaging (sound familiar?).

I knew of photographers in my area who tried Xtol when it first came out, had the failure of the 1 liter size and never ever used it again, sticking with D-76 or others which totally negated all the effort put in to Xtol. I guess the current executives of what we could call now "Kodak" are too young to recall the errors made. These new reports of yet another manufacturer for "Kodak" chemicals having the same packaging issues do nothing to help the already tarnished reputation of Xtol, despite what I still feel is a superior and wonderful developer.
I will seek out a couple of the new packages of Xtol from a few sources and test and will be quite vocal about any issues on this forum and to Kodak and I hope others will as well.