Don't rely on this video: Xtol is a fantastic developer when it works 100%. Fantastic, period!I spotted this video on YouTube a few days ago:
Curiously, there is a comment part way through about the current product producing lower quality results, but without much detail (3 min 58 secs) - I'm still working through an older batch at the moment but do have one of the new packages in stock. I had thought the recent XTOL problems were down to a packaging issue and not something more fundamental, if indeed this the case?
The first person that is driving the car is Mirko Boddecker, the ceo of Adox.Who were these two people presenting the video? It looked and sounded as if there are employees of Adox but it wasn't clear what their positions are in the company
It was clear that they were alleging that the current Xtol was tested and found to be inferior. There was even a graph demonstrating this on a laptop. It further states that so concerned is Adox that it is working on a replacement that will match the "old " Xtol in quality
I am no lawyer but if these people are employees then a case could be made out for it being an Adox video and as such it contains Adox views and was cleared for release by Adox
If so, I agree that what they had to say about Xtol comes very close to being libel under U.K. law as I understand the definition of Libel
OK it was delivered in a short two line comment and possibly as a means of manly introducing the idea in the viewer's mind of an Adox version of the old Xtol is being produced but nevertheless it did seem to me to be "sailing close to the wind" in legal terms
What wasn't clear is whether the owners of Adox had any knowledge of the video its contents
pentaxuser
Thanks I take it you meant to write "lady" and not lad. It looked to me that the one with the coloured hair was female. The letter "y" makes all the differenceThe first person that is driving the car is Mirko Boddecker, the ceo of Adox.
The lad is Lina Bessanova, an independent photographer and blogger.
typo.Thanks I take it you meant to write "lady" and not lad. It looked to me that the one with the coloured hair was female. The letter "y" makes all the difference
pentaxuser
In spoken English it may sound like “lads and gents” but the correct phrase is “ladies and gents” (or more often, ladies and gentlemen”). A “lad” is a boy.typo.
yes, I meant lady of course...
i've corrected it.
Thanks for pointing it out...
P.S.: incidentally I understand the term "lad" is used in "lads and gents" to identify ladies in the USA... Am I wrong?
The first person that is driving the car is Mirko Boddecker, the ceo of Adox.
The lady is Lina Bessanova, an independent photographer and blogger.
Sure. But not successfully. There's no basis for this.I think Adox could be sued by Kodak Alaris for this video.
Sure. But not successfully. There's no basis for this.
I think Adox could be sued by Kodak Alaris for this video.
Kodak could very well sue Adox for this.
Your case wouldn't stand a chance in court. Adox didn't say anything about new XTOL being inferior. The only one who said anything normative was the blogger herself, whom as far as we know is not an Adox representative. Even if she is, there's little chance for legal prosecution of one company saying something about a competitor's product being inferior (implying competitors' products are inferior is kind of like the default in doing business...) The only thing Adox showed to this blogger who then presented it to the world was two curves. That's not a normative judgement, let alone an instance of defamation.The problem is that Adox cannot afford to say that the new Xtol is inferior to the old one just because they run some tests (??), not disclosing the results. Some batches of the new Xtol suffered some production or packaging problem (there's a Kodak Alaris official statement about this - see here https://www.facebook.com/kodakprofessional/posts/3010366755648311) and maybe the Xtol envelope tested by Adox was one affected. This doesn't allow Adox to make such blunt statement about the new Xtol quality.
Xtol new is NOT inferior in any way to the old Xtol, by any means.
Kodak could very well sue Adox for this.
The problem is that Adox cannot afford to say that the new Xtol is inferior to the old one just because they run some tests (??), not disclosing the results. Some batches of the new Xtol suffered some production or packaging problem (there's a Kodak Alaris official statement about this - see here https://www.facebook.com/kodakprofessional/posts/3010366755648311) and maybe the Xtol envelope tested by Adox was one affected. This doesn't allow Adox to make such blunt statement about the new Xtol quality.
Xtol new is NOT inferior in any way to the old Xtol, by any means.
Kodak could very well sue Adox for this.
No?Your case wouldn't stand a chance in court. Adox didn't say anything about new XTOL being inferior. The only one who said anything normative was the blogger herself, whom as far as we know is not an Adox representative. Even if she is, there's little chance for legal prosecution of one company saying something about a competitor's product being inferior (implying competitors' products are inferior is kind of like the default in doing business...) The only thing Adox showed to this blogger who then presented it to the world was two curves. That's not a normative judgement, let alone an instance of defamation.
Read back what I said.No?
Please listen to 4:05 "rumors that the nex Xtol has been inferior to the old one - Adox made some tests and found the difference to be quite huge".
It's not my case.Your case wouldn't stand a chance in court. Adox didn't say anything about new XTOL being inferior. The only one who said anything normative was the blogger herself, whom as far as we know is not an Adox representative. Even if she is, there's little chance for legal prosecution of one company saying something about a competitor's product being inferior (implying competitors' products are inferior is kind of like the default in doing business...) The only thing Adox showed to this blogger who then presented it to the world was two curves. That's not a normative judgement, let alone an instance of defamation.
It's just an insignificant little blip of noise from some random photog who likes posting youtube vids.
Adox produce some very good products, and I'm sure they know what they're doing. However, it would be useful in this case if Lina Bessonova could explain in what way the "new" XTOL is less effective / inferior compared to previous versions.
I think she is referring to lower gamma?
One thing doesn't exclude another. I called here blogger because that's the capacity we see her in in this video. She's of course also a photographer. On the quality of her work I can't be a judge because I'm only superficially familiar with it (both her videos and her photographic work), but that doesn't change much about my message - there are many very good photogs and very good bloggers/vloggers. That automatically reduces any fragment of their work as a fairly small blip on the radar. An unlikely blip for companies like Kodak to respond to with drastic measures.I dont know why people are saying lina bessanova is a blogger. Shes a top notch photographer who just happens to also have an extremely good youtube channel. Her indepth video on the new ilford paper was excellent.
As there have been rumours that the new Kodak XTOL is way inferior to the original one the ADOX chemists tested both developers and found the difference to be quite huge, so now they are working on a developer that would be exactly like the old one.
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?