Comment about XTOL in Adox / Lina Bessonova video

[braxus]

Im curious what comes of this whole issue. I just got back into developing film and Xtol was my choice. The chemistry I got is fresh new batch stuff and the 8 rolls I did in it, I saw no issues with the developer what so ever. Lots of strong blacks in the neg. I would try Adox's version if it came to Freestyle, but I gather it will be priced well above Kodak, which is typical of their products. I love Adox films, so I will watch this. But so far I see no reason not to continue using the Kodak product.

 

[mshchem]

If people want to fret about Kodak XTOL try this it's been around forever and is a fine substitute for regular XTOL.

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/7477...corbic-Acid-Powder-BW-Film-Developer-(Makes-5

 

[mshchem]

B&H has the Eco Pro in stock, 11.99 free shipping orders over 49 bucks. Problem solved until Kodak Alaris gets their stuff in order. By the way the Legacy product uses Mylar packaging. Pretty darn good package.

 

[KPA40]

@Anon Ymous: You're right. Lina confirmed on Facebook that the kit does produce light brown tone on fine grain films such as the Scala films.

As the new reversal kit contains an optional clearing bath, maybee she just skipt it.

 

[AgX]

@Anon Ymous: You're right. Lina confirmed on Facebook that the kit does produce light brown tone on fine grain films such as the Scala films.

But why must one be on Facebook to learn this?
Mirko once said that all information concerning their products will be on the Fotoimpex site. At the moment there is no information what films are to be processed, nor the manual.

 

[pentaxuser]

Problem solved until Kodak Alaris gets their stuff in order.

The question is surely: can we be sure that Kodak Alaris has not now got its stuff in order? The video makes no specific mention of what is now inferior in the new Xtol compared to the old Xtol. Do those two graphs and the lady's statement indicate for certain that new Xtol is inferior to what the old Xtol in terms of being incapable of reaching the old Xtol standards or does it leave it to the viewer to draw whatever conclusions h/she wishes to draw

pentaxuser

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

As the new reversal kit contains an optional clearing bath, maybee she just skipt it.

Interesting hypothesis! @ADOX Fotoimpex should throw light on this.

 

[Anon Ymous]

As the new reversal kit contains an optional clearing bath, maybee she just skipt it.

No, I don't think so. It is very common to see warm gray tones. Take the Studio13 film review for example. Most of the films listed produce warm to light warm tones in their process. I'm a bit surprised that they say the clearing bath is optional, the film certainly looks ugly after washing after the permanganate bleach. There might be something in the second developer that clears the film, but it's rather doubtful.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

the film certainly looks ugly after washing after the permanganate bleach.

Has Adox confirmed that it's permanganate bleach in their kit? The colour of the bleach does indicate permanganate but curiously MSDS on Fotoimpex site makes no mention of permanganate.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Has Adox confirmed that it's permanganate bleach in their kit? The colour of the bleach does indicate permanganate but curiously MSDS on Fotoimpex site makes no mention of permanganate.

Is there a section for the bleach?

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Is there a section for the bleach?

No, there is only a section for the first developer. Now this has led to speculation on Facebook that the bleach in the kit is totally harmless and hence no mention of it in MSDS.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

No, there is only a section for the first developer. Now this has led to speculation on Facebook that the bleach in the kit is totally harmless and hence no mention of it in MSDS.

Or they avoided the publication of the bleach MSDS to not reveal what's the "three year R&D" behind it. Possibly it's the Agfa paper which advocated the use of hexametaphospate 20gr/liter to extendo the bleach shel life.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

No, I don't think so. It is very common to see warm gray tones. Take the Studio13 film review for example. Most of the films listed produce warm to light warm tones in their process. I'm a bit surprised that they say the clearing bath is optional, the film certainly looks ugly after washing after the permanganate bleach. There might be something in the second developer that clears the film, but it's rather doubtful.

The clearing bath IS NOT OPTIONAL.
It serves the purpose of re-exablishing the film sensitivity to light, because permanganate bleach destroys it.
So it MUST be used.
Plus, the final slides warm tone is very dependent of the film's intrinsic Ag grain structures and it cannot be changed at all via processing.

 

[Anon Ymous]

The clearing bath IS NOT OPTIONAL.
It serves the purpose of re-exablishing the film sensitivity to light, because permanganate bleach destroys it.
So it MUST be used.
Plus, the final slides warm tone is very dependent of the film's intrinsic Ag grain structures and it cannot be changed at all via processing.

I seriously doubt that the clearing bath has anything to do with reestablishing light sensitivity, have you got any references to this? The bleach stains the film, that's for sure, but there's a chance that the second developer may act as a clearing bath in an unexpected way, see this. I've seen this happening with wash water after the permanganate bleach being poured in a beaker that previously had some D19. The pink wash water became clear by the time it hit the beaker. While not ideal, I suspect this works fairly well.

The film itself is obviously the most important factor for the colour of the slides, but I seriously doubt that FD and SD don't affect it at all.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

I seriously doubt that the clearing bath has anything to do with reestablishing light sensitivity, have you got any references to this?

Yes, as per Gran Haist book, vol. 2, page


The strong oxidizing compounds used in bleach baths attack the sites for
latent image formation in the residual silver halide to be used for forming
the positive image.40
-4
3 As a result, this silver halide is of very low light
sensitivity. The presence of sulfite ions in the clearing bath restores some
of the light sensitivity of the silver halide, apparently by etching away some
of the surface silver halide to reveal subsurface sites for latent image formation.
These internal sites were protected from the destructive action of the
bleaching compound. Thus, sodium sulfite, as it usually does, exhibits a
complex activity involving several actions.

 

[Anon Ymous]

If "this silver halide is of very low light sensitivity", it may still have enough sensitivity for the massive overexposure before the second developer.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

If "this silver halide is of very low light sensitivity", it may still have enough sensitivity for the massive overexposure before the second developer.

Of course

 

[Adrian Bacon]

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?

I saw that too. Unless they actually post results, I’ll consider it speculation.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Whether this is a batch issue, or a more permanent problem.......certainly more regularly tests have to be done to make a final judgement.

I suspect it may have been a batch issue. When I ordered in my last batch of xtol, it turned out to be the bad batch. I contacted KA and they promptly replaced it with a newer batch code and assured me that it would perform to my expectations. I’ve since mixed up about half of the packets I have on hand and have run most of it through my replenished bottle and it’s been business as usual.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Don't rely on this video: Xtol is a fantastic developer when it works 100%. Fantastic, period!

Finally something we agree on.

 

[mshchem]

The question is surely: can we be sure that Kodak Alaris has not now got its stuff in order? The video makes no specific mention of what is now inferior in the new Xtol compared to the old Xtol. Do those two graphs and the lady's statement indicate for certain that new Xtol is inferior to what the old Xtol in terms of being incapable of reaching the old Xtol standards or does it leave it to the viewer to draw whatever conclusions h/she wishes to draw

pentaxuser

I use XTOL almost exclusively. This video doesn’t mean much to me.

The FACT is that Kodak Alaris is in turmoil. Whether justified or not, social media, like that of this charming young person, put out all sorts of opinions. Often these opinions are interpreted as fact. I've been using XTOL from the beginning. I have tested the new formula and had no problems. What a image of a computer monitor proves, is beyond me.

There are dozens of options from Ilford, Foma, Freestyle and many others. It's sad to see Kodak and Kodak Alaris in the situation as it is.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

I saw that too. Unless they actually post results, I’ll consider it speculation.

And you're right!!
Lina Bessonova replied to me on Youtube, basically saying that the chemists at Adox weren't probably aware of the Xtol and D76 batch problems and "recalls" by Kodak.
I find it unbelievable if it's the case.

 

[MattKing]

And you're right!!
Lina Bessonova replied to me on Youtube, basically saying that the chemists at Adox weren't probably aware of the Xtol and D76 batch problems and "recalls" by Kodak.
I find it unbelievable if it's the case.

As Adox isn't in the business of selling Kodak, it wouldn't surprise me.
Like as not far more people learned about the batch problems through the internet than actually noticed or experienced them.
It may very well be that the majority of those who actually used product from the problem batches didn't experience or notice the problems. And there are probably many out there that still have product on their shelf that are included in the problem batches, but have no idea of the problems.
The internet has a strange effect on product information. It amplifies some, and tends to exclude others.
In times gone by, when people bought their supplies from stores that they actually visited, those stores were the main information conduit for both customers and the manufacturers. The staff at many of those stores were reasonably knowledgeable, and that aided the manufacturers when problems arose. If a company like Kodak had a problem with a product - and that did happen from time to time - the way that the information came to their attention was really different to how it happens now.

 

[pentaxuser]

Surely if Adox engineers/chemists had found a problem with new Xtol and had evidence then either they decide that they can make a better Xtol which those users will make it clear via the mass communications channels that we now rely on that they have found a better Xtol. That way Adox avoids criticising KA but makes its point without vague reference to Xtol for a matter of a few seconds on a short fairly lightweight video or it goes for broke because it believes that for whatever reason KA has exchanged one product for an inferior one and they provide evidence with a much longer explanation.

What happened in this video was neither. I think, as I said before, that this was a spur of the moment throw-away comment that on reflection might have been better not said. The problem with videos on YouTube is that they are "out there" forever and that for any company needs serious consideration before it is released

pentaxuser

 

[BradS]

yawn...Much ado about nothing.