B&H Lists XTOl (5L) as Discontinued

Kino · Sep 23, 2023

XTOL joins the others in Developer Valhalla...

Alan Edward Klein · Sep 23, 2023

Roseha said:
I also send film to LTI and had mailed them 4 rolls of black and white this week. They called me to let me know that there would be a delay of a few days while they tested the Ilford chemicals as XTOL was no longer being manufactured.

This was the first I'd heard about the XTOL discontinuation.

When they return the negatives back, please report here how they came out.

warden · Sep 23, 2023

Kino said:
XTOL joins the others in Developer Valhalla...

View attachment 349645

What a cool ad!

SodaAnt · Sep 23, 2023

warden said:
What a cool ad!

Extra points if you can find the grammatical error in the ad.

MattKing · Sep 23, 2023

SodaAnt said:
Extra points if you can find the grammatical error in the ad.

"at all temperature from 60 to 90F"

Anon Ymous · Sep 23, 2023

"At all temperature"?

juan · Sep 23, 2023

The ellipsis ... There's nothing left out of the sentence.

warden · Sep 23, 2023

SodaAnt said:
Extra points if you can find the grammatical error in the ad.

The run-on sentence bothers me most but I’ll forgive.

MattKing · Sep 23, 2023

warden said:
The run-on sentence bothers me most but I’ll forgive.

I have a feeling that there are a couple of Photrio members on your Ignore list ......

relistan · Sep 27, 2023

More money for companies with good service and community support like ADOX and Ilford/Harman and less money for companies with bad service like Sino Promise is fine with me. Sorry if that is the end of the line for XTOL officially, but the spirit lives on in perfectly good replacements.

pentaxuser · Sep 27, 2023

MattKing said:
"at all temperature from 60 to 90F"

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

bluechromis · Sep 27, 2023

SodaAnt said:
There are alternatives. Mytol, for example, uses sodium sulfite and sodium metaborate for this function. People who have used Mytol (I haven't) report that it behaves identically to Xtol for all intents and purposes.

I use D-23 for all my film developing, but I plan to mix up a batch of Mytol just to try it out. If it works well, I might switch.

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

SodaAnt · Sep 27, 2023

pentaxuser said:
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

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.

bluechromis · Sep 27, 2023

runswithsizzers said:
I don't know how much you know about Kodak Xtol's "long reputation" but it is worth mentioning, that reputation is not all good. There are many references to sudden Xtol failures. I believe one of the two authors of the Film Developing Cookbook refused to use Xtol ever again after ruining some important negatives in Xtol-gone-bad. More recently there were several batches of Xtol recalled by Kodak Alaris. In spite of that, I continue to use and recommend Xtol (and Eco-Pro), but I do take the extra step of checking my stock solution for activity before each processing run.

I have done a fair bit of reading about Kodak Xtol and the other ascorbic acid + phenidone developers like LegacyPro Eco-Pro, Adox XT-3, Fomadon Excel, etc. While they may not be "exactly the same," I have never heard anyone say they could see any differences in the resulting negatives. Unless someone can offer evidence suggesting otherwise, I believe it is fair to say Xtol and the Xtol-clones are functionally equivalent.

Personally, it makes no difference to me whether I use Kodak Xtol or LegacyPro Eco-Pro. I might be able to say the same about Adox XT-3 and/or Fomadon Excel, but those products are more difficult to obtain here in the US, and I have not yet tried them.

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.

SodaAnt · Sep 27, 2023

bluechromis said:
home-mixed clones may perform very well also, albeit without a long-lasting stock solution for most.

That's not an issue for me as I mix developer only when needed and use it as a one-shot.

Sanug · Sep 27, 2023

I use Adox XT-3 since quite a time with excellent results. I have no need for the Kodak original Xtol.

Henning Serger · Sep 27, 2023

John Salim said:
Simple question:
Will XTOL ever be manufactured again ?

I assume Kodak are struggling to find a company capable of making this 'soup', and I'd hate to see it disappear forever ( ... as it's been my standard developer since it was introduced back in the early 1990's ).

John S

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

Tony-S · Sep 27, 2023

Sanug said:
I use Adox XT-3 since quite a time with excellent results. I have no need for the Kodak original Xtol.

Sure, but where can you buy it? It’s been out of stock in the USA for a few months.

dasBlute · Sep 28, 2023

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

Sanug · Sep 28, 2023

Well, I live in Germany. For me it is easy to order from Fotoimpex.

Sal Santamaura · Sep 28, 2023

Sanug said:
I use Adox XT-3 since quite a time with excellent results. I have no need for the Kodak original Xtol.

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

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.

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.

Roger Cole · Sep 28, 2023

runswithsizzers said:
I don't know how much you know about Kodak Xtol's "long reputation" but it is worth mentioning, that reputation is not all good. There are many references to sudden Xtol failures. I believe one of the two authors of the Film Developing Cookbook refused to use Xtol ever again after ruining some important negatives in Xtol-gone-bad. More recently there were several batches of Xtol recalled by Kodak Alaris. In spite of that, I continue to use and recommend Xtol (and Eco-Pro), but I do take the extra step of checking my stock solution for activity before each processing run.

I have done a fair bit of reading about Kodak Xtol and the other ascorbic acid + phenidone developers like LegacyPro Eco-Pro, Adox XT-3, Fomadon Excel, etc. While they may not be "exactly the same," I have never heard anyone say they could see any differences in the resulting negatives. Unless someone can offer evidence suggesting otherwise, I believe it is fair to say Xtol and the Xtol-clones are functionally equivalent.

Personally, it makes no difference to me whether I use Kodak Xtol or LegacyPro Eco-Pro. I might be able to say the same about Adox XT-3 and/or Fomadon Excel, but those products are more difficult to obtain here in the US, and I have not yet tried them.

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.

Roger Cole · Sep 28, 2023

Sirius Glass said:
I have been using XTOL for over a decade and never had a sudden death or any other problem. Anyone knowing what they are doing developing film will always test a developer before using it to develop film especially if the developer has not been used for a long time. Therefore, I always test any developer before using. This is not rocket science.

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.

retina_restoration · Sep 28, 2023

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.

ags2mikon · Sep 28, 2023

Who holds the IP rights for these products? K/A or SP?

B&H Lists XTOl (5L) as Discontinued

Kino

Alan Edward Klein

warden

SodaAnt

MattKing

Moderator

Anon Ymous

juan

warden

MattKing

Moderator

relistan

pentaxuser

bluechromis

SodaAnt

bluechromis

SodaAnt

Sanug

Henning Serger

Tony-S

dasBlute

Sanug

Sal Santamaura

Roger Cole

Roger Cole

retina_restoration

ags2mikon

B&H Lists XTOl (5L) as Discontinued

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency