• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

B&H Lists XTOl (5L) as Discontinued

XTOL joins the others in Developer Valhalla...

 

When they return the negatives back, please report here how they came out.
 
warden said:
The run-on sentence bothers me most but I’ll forgive.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that there are a couple of Photrio members on your Ignore list ......
 
MattKing said:
"at all temperature from 60 to 90F"
Click to expand...

I take it you mean the grammatical mistake is that it should be temperatures using the plural as there are 30 temperatures at one degree intervals between 60 and 90. Unless of course the correct word in U.S. grammar is in fact temperature as in I study maths in the U.K. but others in the U.S. study "math" or "do the math"

pentaxuser
 

Another Xtol clone is Instant Mytol. It uses somewhat easier-to-find ingredients. What is especially interesting about Instant Mytol is that there is a version where solution A is made up in organic solvents, which gives it a superior shelf life. The part B, dry s. sulfite is added when mixing the working solution. It might be possible to have a part B already dissolved in water. If used as a one-shot, having the stock solution in an organic solvent may be the future of these ascorbate developers. Some of the complexity and obscure ingredients of Xtol are there to preserve the stock solution when mixed with water. If the stock is preserved by organic solvents there is less need for the exotic stuff in Xtol. I have used Instant Mytol, but not done testing of it. It seemed to work like Xtol.
https://photosensitive.ca/easy-film-developers
 

The correct usage in U.S. grammar (and I believe UK grammar as well) is temperatures. There are infinitely many temperatures between 60 and 90 degrees Fahrenheit.

Math or maths is an abbreviation of mathematics. In the states we just cut it off at math while you lot cut it off there and put back the ‘s’ from the full word. To us, “maths” sounds weird, but I’m sure you all think “math” does.
 

Re: historic problems with Xtol: Steve Anchell did say he got fired from a job due to a failed batch of Xtol. If he is harboring a grudge about that, it didn't prevent Anchell and Troop in FDC 2nd ed. p. 61 from describing Xtol as the latest evolution of the solvent developer. Part of it is that early on, people just didn't understand ascorbate developers and the need to protect them from the Fenton reaction. There had never been a widely used ascorbate developer before, so Xtol represented a revolutionary new technology. Usually, there are problems to sort out with a new technology. For example, the first jet airliner, the Comet, had major problems.

There is also the need to test the developer regularly, and in the FDC 2 p.62, they describe a quick way to do that using photo paper. If Anchell had tested his Xtol, he might have avoided the problem. Now we know various methods of preserving Xtol stock in airtight containers.

There were also problems with the 1 L packaging of Xtol and, more recently, quality control issues with non-Kodak manufacturers, and those are valid concerns. Given that ascorbate developers are now a more mature technology, I agree that the commercial Xtol clones may be just as good as Kodak's. It would require testing to prove it, but home-mixed clones may perform very well also, albeit without a long-lasting stock solution for most.
 
  • Sanug
  • Deleted
  • Reason: Duplicate/quote
I use Adox XT-3 since quite a time with excellent results. I have no need for the Kodak original Xtol.
 

Hello John,

some weeks ago I met one of the 'grandseigneurs' of the Chinese photo industry. He is active there with his companies for decades and is extremely well connected in China and Asia.
He told me about the problems Sino Promise has, and his assessment is that it is unlikely that they can get back into business again.

Maybe you just try ADOX XT-3. Here I have reported about my test results: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/adox-xt-3-developer-further-and-final-test-results.184641/

Best regards,
Henning
 
Well, I live in Germany. For me it is easy to order from Fotoimpex.
 
Sanug said:
I use Adox XT-3 since quite a time with excellent results. I have no need for the Kodak original Xtol.
Click to expand...

Tony-S said:
Sure, but where can you buy it? It’s been out of stock in the USA for a few months.
Click to expand...

dasBlute said:
I got some directly from Adox, at a cost of course, but it arrived in about 3 days, and it makes beautiful negatives.
Click to expand...

I have a lifetime supply of XTOL, the early stuff made in USA from more than a decade ago, stored in a manner I discussed with the Kodak engineers who invented it. The last time I mixed a five liter batch, then decanted it into 20 250ml glass bottles, it performed exactly like it did when brand new. Stored that way, it has lasted at least a year with no change in sensitometric results.

However, I'm shooting less film these days. Based on Henning's and others' posts, I decided to try XT-3, since it's available in one liter packages. I ordered 10 one liter packs last week directly from FOTOIMPEX; they arrived here on Tuesday. Note that while DHL Express shipping isn't inexpensive, with powdered developers like XT-3 going from quantity one to 10 only added a couple of EURO to the minimum shipping charge. My total cost per pack came out to less than $10. Had I purchased the same thing from Freestyle (were it in stock, which it isn't), cost per pack with sales tax would have been just under $9. A small premium to pay for availability/convenience.

In the next few days I'll mix some and use it on a couple of rolls recently exposed. Looking forward to being unable to distinguish the negatives from previous ones developed in XTOL.
 

I'm kind of in that group. I lost some important negatives to the early Xtol not long after it came out. I haven't used it since. I know the problems were supposed to be fixed but there have always been so many alternatives I just haven't been interested in trying again.

I understand being annoyed at the loss of a favorite product but black and white film developers are not exactly the proverbial rocket science. There are plenty of others available both functionally identical and otherwise and it's easy to mix your own developers (albeit maybe not Xtol clones though from some of the above that doesn't seem that hard either) if it should come to that. I've been doing photography off and on since the late 1970s and many favorite products have come and gone. You adapt and move on.
 
Last edited:

Mine was literally brand new. Sure I should have tested it before using it but I'd just mixed it and it looked fine. It basically didn't work. Highlights only. Impurities, moon in the wrong sign, whatever, I just never tried it again.
 
Let's not forget that some of the recent Sino Promise batches of chemistry have been defective in one way or another, including Xtol. In a single order, I ended up with bad batches of Xtol, Dektol and D-76, so I swore off "Kodak" chemistry at that point (about 2.5 years ago). It's pretty much irrelevant now, since it's unlikely that Sino Promise will resume manufacture of anything branded Kodak anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register