Henning,
It was your test results that made me try Adox XT-3, and I'm glad I did. I'm using it the same way I used Xtol, as a replenished developer. Everything seems fine so far.
Steven, thank you very much for mentioning my test results.
For all who are interested in it, here it is:
ADOX XT-3 Developer: Further and Final Test Results
Dear photrio-members, as some of you may remember, some months ago I have reported about my ADOX XT-3 test results. Since then I have done several further very detailed tests with the currently available, final XT-3 version with CAPTURA. In total I have done so much intensive/detailed tests...www.photrio.com
I would be very cautious with such a conclusion. Because ADOX has indeed put quite a lot of effort and additional R&D in its XT-3.
That is completely understandable.
I also much prefer buying from companies I know, which are transparent and communicate with me as a customer in an honest way.
And all that is the case with ADOX.
Best regards,
Henning
Henning,
It was your test results that made me try Adox XT-3, and I'm glad I did. I'm using it the same way I used Xtol, as a replenished developer. Everything seems fine so far.
XT3 is nice stuff, yet to understand long-term storage of the powder, Adox needs to make this available at B&H, I'm not going to air freight developer 8,000 miles
Thanks, John!
I am glad to hear my tests have been helpful for you.
Best regards,
Henning
It's illegal
Henning, not to derail this thread. Do you have any updates on Tetenal? Also there's been concerns about Ilford, any news??
Best Regards Mike
Yes, 7 years ago.Did the Xtol patent expire already?
Since there isn't a public formula of the exact Xtol, it's meaningless to home brew it because it will not be Xtol,
And more importantly, without the sequestrants in the commercial products (original and clones and work-alikes) you can expect poor stock solution life and/or sudden failure from Fenton's reaction. Randomly (seeming) and without warning.
And more importantly, without the sequestrants in the commercial products (original and clones and work-alikes) you can expect poor stock solution life and/or sudden failure from Fenton's reaction. Randomly (seeming) and without warning.
Since there isn't a public formula of the exact Xtol, it's meaningless to home brew it because it will not be Xtol, nor Foma Excel is, nor Adox Xt-3 is.
Xtol is only Kodak Xtol.
"Substitute" is not the same as "exact equivalent". It's very meaningful to use an acceptable substitute for a product if such is available. It appears that for the vast majority of users, there are reasonable substitutes for genuine XTOL. There's nothing 'meaningless' about it.
I find the word choice 'meaningless' in the way you use it here unnecessarily provoking and argumentative. There's no need for it.
It's illegal
It's illegal
It's not illegal to determine the formula of a developer (or anything, really). Patents only cover sales of patented items, not determining their composition.
Xtol was covered by U.S. patent 5853964, which expired in 2016, so anyone is free to use anything covered by that patent in their own products.
Kodak probably would have had difficulty enforcing that patent, however, as there was prior art covering ascorbic acid developers a few decades before Kodak's patent was issued.
Homebrewing the exact replica of Xtol is nearly impossible due to the presence of Diethanolamine (with 16%
sulfur dioxide)
As a general note, patents are creations of domestic law. That means that if I have a patent in Country A, anyone is completely free to make, use or sell the invention in any country except country A.
Ecopro is a product of Freestyle's distribution division, these guys have been around for decades, I have used Ecopro on occasions, looks identical to XTOL, beautiful free flowing white crystals. Like XTOL you need to stir and stir, I have a variable speed propeller mixer
XT3 is nice stuff, yet to understand long-term storage of the powder, Adox needs to make this available at B&H, I'm not going to air freight developer 8,000 miles
In this case diethanolamine-SO2 serves: "two purposes. One is to act as a source of alkali and the other is to act as a silver halide solvent. It is often balanced by the use of Tri Ethanol amine in a weak analogy to Carbonate - Bicarbonate buffer mixtures." (Ron Mowrey).
That's the same complex Hc-110 used to have.
So, looking at Freestyle's online catalog Ecopro version of Xtol references Kodak, of course don't know how close Ecopro version is to Kodak's, does it keep as well as Xtol?
This is https://patents.google.com/patent/US5853964A/en the Xtol patent page
The patent expired in 2016.
Homebrewing the exact replica of Xtol is nearly impossible due to the presence of Diethanolamine (with 16%
sulfur dioxide)
The formula at example 1 preferred developing kit doesn't list any diethanolamine.
If I am not mistaken, Diethanolamine and Sulphur dioxide are found in the original, viscous version of Kodak HC-110
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?