Comment about XTOL in Adox / Lina Bessonova video

[mshchem]

The best marketing move Kodak could (and should) make, would be to offer their powder chemistry in tin cans, or even in glass bottles. Ok, would be 1$ more expensive, but well worth it on so many levels, including the customer experience.

Enough with the plastic bags crap. Do they sell sardines and tuna in plastic bags? They could, but people wouldn’t buy that crap, even if freshness was guaranteed to last. There is a point where the customer starts getting insulted.

These new bullshit-oversized-one-bag-fits-all-our-oxydized-chemistry is fankly starting to tick me the wrong way.

Bring back the good old cans, bring back the good old folklore into the people’s darkrooms. Make people happy.

I mixed up a can of Kodak Selectol, produced in 1969. Typical of the old EKCo, perfectly white crystalline material of uniform size to prevent separation. Works fine. And when your done you have a neat empty can. Nobody made (or sourced) photo chemicals better than Kodak in it's prime.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I said I would like Kodak to bring back packets to make 1l. It is much more convenient for me - and I suspect many others - to work with 1l of stock solution. This is how I always mixed D-76, Dektol etc.

I know this will not happen, especially since Kodak seems to be moving in exactly the opposite direction.

I did not say anything about cans or jars. That is ancient history.

I wrote that I do not like dealing with the larger volumes. They are a pain in the ass to mix and store, and you are suggesting I mix and store the larger volumes. Perfect.

For starters, I would have to mix two 1 liter packages so I would have one as started replenished XTOL and one as stock XTOL. I might as well start with 5 liters and store the stock both the replenished XTOL and all the stock XTOL in 1 liter bags [see above].

 

[NB23]

No need to go into PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT discussions. Such a boring subject.

I stated what I’d like to have, as an active And paying customer. All the rest is not of my business. Frankly, I do not care about how and why will kodak get the chemicals to the stores.

My role starts and ends as a customer, PERIOD. Give me d76 in a tin can and I’ll gladly pay the extra 1.12$. No need to lecture me on the state if the market. I have my university degrees.

They don't package powdered chemicals in cans or bottles any more because it is a lot more expensive and, in the case of bottles, difficult to ship cans and bottles.
In olden times that NB23 preferred, they used to have enough volume to fill up multiple trucks at a time, and those trucks delivered to warehouses and stores, not tiny mail boxes in multiple unit apartment buildings. Shipping issues weren't nearly as critical back then.
I'd be prepared to pay a bit more for more durable plastic containers that are better suited to low volume users -- things like a package of X-Tol that contains two sets of 2.5 litre packages.

 

[mshchem]

Oh please. You are the monday morning quaterback, as far as I’m concerned. I am telling you what I, as a consumer, would want. And what WAS DONE during the golden years, before they all sold their mothers and started cost-cutting everything.

I, the consumer, want my dry chemicals to be offered in two forms.

1: In tin cans. I would LOVE this.

2: Powder in 1 Liter brown bottles, with a 1” opening and with an embossed Kodak Logo, and a big yellow cap. These bottles would get reused and would prove to be a very effective long term marketing move.

I’m fed up withe the cost-cutting ungraceful plastics of all kinds. Give me a tin can or a brown bottle. I will pay the 1.12$ extra.

Yeah, it wasn't Chemists and Engineers that pushed for the change. Manufacturing, Purchasing, and Management got sold on cutting costs. Same thing all over..

 

[MattKing]

No need to go into PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT discussions. Such a boring subject.

I stated what I’d like to have, as an active And paying customer. All the rest is not of my business. Frankly, I do not care about how and why will kodak get the chemicals to the stores.

My role starts and ends as a customer, PERIOD. Give me d76 in a tin can and I’ll gladly pay the extra 1.12$. No need to lecture me on the state if the market. I have my university degrees.

No lecture intended.
Just a response to the implied question: "Why don't they still use bottles and cans?"
The reason being that they can't sell them to the majority of the buyers, at prices that buyers would be willing to pay.
The difference would end up being a lot more than $1.12

 

[mshchem]

1969 Selectol I opened last week

 

[DeletedAcct1]

1969 Selectol I opened last week
View attachment 260904

When Kodak was KODAK!

 

[NB23]

1969 Selectol I opened last week
View attachment 260904

This is what the extra hypothetical “1.12$” buys me.

If this was in a bag... i believe the podwer would have been brown by now.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Lotsa people in this discussion have purchased a lot of packs.

As you probably know, people like me have jumped on buying a lot of the old packs because Kodak was messing up with its products, AGAIN. And they did, as was expected.

Now it is just a matter of time before the powder expires, because it does. Kodak, in its true american spirit, understood that its chemistry shouldn’t be lasting forever, and that’s when they chucked the tin cans for bags. In other words, to f*ck the customers.

Now you know why tin cans are better and why kodak discontinued them: because it wasn’t making business sense to offer such a reliable product.

As someone who sells film and chemistry online, I can tell you that their moves are not because they're trying to screw the customer, but to save the customer some money. Shipping glass bottles and tins is exceedingly expensive, and prone to getting damaged in transit when shipping from a reseller to somebody at home. Properly packing it so that doesn't happen very quickly costs more than the product you're shipping, and very few people are willing to pay more for shipping than the product that they're buying. XTOL is a perfect case in point. If it was shipped in a glass or metal tin multipack (part A and part B), the actual cost of the product would go up to about ~$15 from its current ~$11.99. The current plastic packaged product weighs ~20 oz. before packing it for shipping it. Go figure how much it'll cost to ship a 20 oz product in a padded mailer coast to coast. Now, go price out the cost of a sturdy box that won't crush and break whatever is inside it when it has a bunch of other heavy boxes stacked on top of it, then figure what it'll cost to ship that coast to coast.

With the current packaging, a padded mailer costs about $0.50, and shipping 20-24 oz. coast to coast is about $10 bringing your total cost up to ~$22-23. Going to glass or metal tins will easily increase that quite a lot, as boxes typically go via a different shipping method, and sturdy boxes are really expensive, relatively speaking. The padded mailers also have an advantage as they are flexible and rarely sustain damage in transit, even when getting stuffed into a tiny mailbox, which is something you can't do with a box. I can tell you that the cost to box it in an appropriate box and ship it will easily be ~$15 or more.

Are you willing to pay $15+ to ship a product that costs about $15? And to do all that so you can buy it once and have it last longer? The offset in shipping costs alone actually makes it more expensive over just buying it in the plastic package, and just buying another one if it goes bad before you used it. It's one of those false economy things. You think it costs less, and at first blush, logically, it does cost less, until you actually go figure out what it'd actually cost the customer by the time it's in their hands, then you find out that it doesn't actually save the customer any money and has more downsides than upsides. Also, if your shoot volume is so low that you can't finish off a 5 liter package of XTOL before it goes bad, then why are you developing your own film? Certainly not so you can save some money. You're not shooting enough to save money over sending it to a lab.

You see the same thing with 36 vs 24 exposure rolls. Unless you always shoot one emulsion and shoot *a lot*, 36 exposure rolls aren't really worth it because often times you're just blasting off the last handful of frames just so you can finish the roll and go get it developed. Logically, 36 exposure rolls cost less per image than 24 exposure rolls, but how many of those images are throw aways because you were just trying to finish the roll? Same principle. Logically, you want 36 exposures for "better economy", but in practice, 18-24 exposures (or less) is about right for a lot of things you'd shoot. Per image it's more expensive, but the total cost is lower because 24 exposure rolls cost less and you can just shoot it and go get it developed without having a significant number of throwaway images that you shot just trying to finish the roll.

 

[Sirius Glass]

As someone who sells film and chemistry online, I can tell you that their moves are not because they're trying to screw the customer, but to save the customer some money. Shipping glass bottles and tins is exceedingly expensive, and prone to getting damaged in transit when shipping from a reseller to somebody at home. Properly packing it so that doesn't happen very quickly costs more than the product you're shipping, and very few people are willing to pay more for shipping than the product that they're buying. XTOL is a perfect case in point. If it was shipped in a glass or metal tin multipack (part A and part B), the actual cost of the product would go up to about ~$15 from its current ~$11.99. The current plastic packaged product weighs ~20 oz. before packing it for shipping it. Go figure how much it'll cost to ship a 20 oz product in a padded mailer coast to coast. Now, go price out the cost of a sturdy box that won't crush and break whatever is inside it when it has a bunch of other heavy boxes stacked on top of it, then figure what it'll cost to ship that coast to coast.

With the current packaging, a padded mailer costs about $0.50, and shipping 20-24 oz. coast to coast is about $10 bringing your total cost up to ~$22-23. Going to glass or metal tins will easily increase that quite a lot, as boxes typically go via a different shipping method, and sturdy boxes are really expensive, relatively speaking. The padded mailers also have an advantage as they are flexible and rarely sustain damage in transit, even when getting stuffed into a tiny mailbox, which is something you can't do with a box. I can tell you that the cost to box it in an appropriate box and ship it will easily be ~$15 or more.

Are you willing to pay $15+ to ship a product that costs about $15? And to do all that so you can buy it once and have it last longer? The offset in shipping costs alone actually makes it more expensive over just buying it in the plastic package, and just buying another one if it goes bad before you used it. It's one of those false economy things. You think it costs less, and at first blush, logically, it does cost less, until you actually go figure out what it'd actually cost the customer by the time it's in their hands, then you find out that it doesn't actually save the customer any money and has more downsides than upsides. Also, if your shoot volume is so low that you can't finish off a 5 liter package of XTOL before it goes bad, then why are you developing your own film? Certainly not so you can save some money. You're not shooting enough to save money over sending it to a lab.

You see the same thing with 36 vs 24 exposure rolls. Unless you always shoot one emulsion and shoot *a lot*, 36 exposure rolls aren't really worth it because often times you're just blasting off the last handful of frames just so you can finish the roll and go get it developed. Logically, 36 exposure rolls cost less per image than 24 exposure rolls, but how many of those images are throw away because you were just trying to finish the roll? Same principle. Logically, you want 36 exposures for "better economy", but in practice, 18-24 exposures (or less) is about right for a lot of things you'd shoot. Per image it's more expensive, but the total cost is lower because 24 exposure rolls cost less and you can just shoot it and go get it developed without having a significant number of throwaway images that you shot just trying to finish the roll.

Come on Adrian, you are talking common sense and business sense with a healthy dose of logic. You cannot do that on the internet! Stuff like that just destroys conspiracy theories and the anti-Kodak, anti-Fuji, and anti-Ilford crowd who prefer to spew their prejudices and condemn those companies. You need to sit back and quaff a Dry Gin Martini or two while you reflect on what you did to those folks with your response. [I am buying the drinks.]

 

[NB23]

Of Course they are trying to screw the customer, ultimately.

It is called “ Planned obsolescence”. Basically, planned obsolescence is a marketing trick to screw the customer big time.

It’s the goal: S-c-r-e-w-T-h-e-C-u-s-t-o-m-e-r.


But what they do not care understand is that, ultimately (again), they are screwing themselves more, each time.

You wanna good example? Easy; look at where they were, and look at where they are now.

End of common sense from me. I won’t add anything else on the matter.

 

[MattKing]

It is called “ Planned obsolescence”.

A package of consumables with a "best before" date of at least two years from date of production is packaged based on a "planned obsolescence" rationale?
It is a consumable, not something you are supposed to use until your grandkids are old enough to inherit it from you.
Do you buy canned evaporated milk because you are convinced the dairies are trying to cheat you by suggesting you throw a jug of milk out if it has been in your fridge for more than two weeks?
If you want to argue for more variety in size of packaging, so as to more accurately meet the needs of more people, I'm happy to support that argument.
And an argument for somewhat more robust packaging - to extend that two years to three or four - I'd be happy to see the cost numbers on that.
But 1969 vintage cans only make sense for collectors and people on Earth to Mars expeditions.
Or for a company who could produce product and package and distribute it in cans efficiently and economically - which the 1969 version of Kodak could, but no modern entity could do now.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Come on Adrian, you are talking common sense and business sense with a healthy dose of logic. You cannot do that on the internet! Stuff like that just destroys conspiracy theories and the anti-Kodak, anti-Fuji, and anti-Ilford crowd who prefer to spew their prejudices and condemn those companies. You need to sit back and quaff a Dry Gin Martini or two while you reflect on what you did to those folks with your response. [I am buying the drinks.]

Make a copy with Matt substituted for Adrain

 

[NB23]

Marketing is a vast subject and I do not plan to talk about it in a photography forum (wtf). Even though I am academically qualified to do so.

Take your car. Its engine can easily run one million miles. Doesn’t mean you will necessarily drive it for 1 million miles. But knowing that brings you peace of mind and a very important marketing theory: pride of ownership. This is what keeps you as a customer.

kodak is extremely badly run. We all know that. But they went to the extent as to modify hc-110 and make it a perishable Good. Planned obsolescence.

ilford will not go there with ilfotec-hc.

Who will win? Ilford, obviously.

 

[MattKing]

kodak is extremely badly run. We all know that. But they went to the extent as to modify hc-110 and make it a perishable Good. Planned obsolescence.

ilford will not go there with ilfotec-hc.

Who will win? Ilford, obviously.

Kodak, because they have diversified their sources for manufacture, reduced reliance on an entity that just arose from near death by receivership, brought production back to North America (still their largest market), and still have a product that performs the same way and will last for a reasonable number of years.
They will only lose the business of purchasers who need a bottle of developer to last for years past the "best before" date - an extremely unprofitable group.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Then again anoher https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172936 problem with the new Hc-110.
It seems troubles at Kodak Alaris are never-ending...

 

[MattKing]

Then again anoher https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172936 problem with the new Hc-110.
It seems troubles at Kodak Alaris are never-ending...

This isn't news, and has been discussed earlier on Photrio.
This notice was posted in August on the "Chemicals" page on Kodak Alaris website.
"Update: HC-110 precipitate; August 14, 2020

We’ve had reports of precipitate forming in the bottom of unopened bottles of HC-110 developer
Our investigation has shown that crystals form with freezing. As a result, our supplier is making minor change to make the formulation more robust to cold temperatures. Testing indicates this will resolve the issue.
New / improved batches will begin shipping by the end of August
If you have additional questions, please contact ProPaperChem@kodakalaris.com"

 

[mshchem]

A package of consumables with a "best before" date of at least two years from date of production is packaged based on a "planned obsolescence" rationale?
It is a consumable, not something you are supposed to use until your grandkids are old enough to inherit it from you.
Do you buy canned evaporated milk because you are convinced the dairies are trying to cheat you by suggesting you throw a jug of milk out if it has been in your fridge for more than two weeks?
If you want to argue for more variety in size of packaging, so as to more accurately meet the needs of more people, I'm happy to support that argument.
And an argument for somewhat more robust packaging - to extend that two years to three or four - I'd be happy to see the cost numbers on that.
But 1969 vintage cans only make sense for collectors and people on Earth to Mars expeditions.
Or for a company who could produce product and package and distribute it in cans efficiently and economically - which the 1969 version of Kodak could, but no modern entity could do now.

Matt, of course you are correct that these big cans were in a completely different distribution network. My goodness we still shipped things in boxcars by rail. The packaging had to be bulletproof, wet proof etc. Kodak wouldn't distribute directly to the end user, pros and shutterbugs went to a shop, these cans were likely displayed on shelving behind a counter. We still buy soup to nuts in cans, glass bottles, every know form of plastic. No one impulse buys XTOL because it comes in a snazzy can or has pictures on the labels. I remember my Dad getting Kodachrome in the painted metal cans. Each film had a different color scheme, so cool, no added value in mail order. I will say I buy some Ilford films because, in part they still come in individual boxes, with an end flap that I can stick into the memo holder. And by the way if you take care, bags last. I am still using England made Bromophen, when Ilford had it's problems in 2003-04 I bought 10 5L boxes of Bromophen, I checked I have two boxes left, I received in December of 2004 from B&H.it takes me 6 months to a year to go through 5L or 20L of working solution. I divide the stock into 250mL Nalgene bottles, lasts for over a year.
Cans are cool, but logic dictates how things are done today.
Still just incase

 

[mshchem]

Absolutely. I mix the five liters and store in in one liter air evacuated containers. That is why I cannot see the advantage of dry developers in a glass jar or a can. Pour out a liter's worth of XTOL by eye? Are you f****g kidding me? That would only increase the cost of the packaging for theoretical improvements, if you have a large enough pin head to dance on.

My record for XTOL stock solution in a plastic soda bottle, absolutely full to the top is a little over 11 years. It looked like pale beer. I added about 20 % to the developing time. Negatives looked and acted completely normal. I split every solution I make into full bottles of stock solutions. I even repack rapid fix to keep it from sulfur (izing, ating??)

 

[MattKing]

Matt, of course you are correct that these big cans were in a completely different distribution network. My goodness we still shipped things in boxcars by rail.

My Dad grew up in the same neighbourhood as the Kodak plant in Toronto, Ontario. His father (my grandfather) worked for CN trucks as a driver, and did pickups and deliveries there during the Depression years. Dad would from time to time get to ride in the truck when my grandfather had a Kodak delivery. He clearly remembered being a kid and getting to ride in the back of the truck sitting on the silver bars being delivered to Kodak for their manufacturing needs.
Yes, things have changed a bit!

 

[mshchem]

My Dad grew up in the same neighbourhood as the Kodak plant in Toronto, Ontario. His father (my grandfather) worked for CN trucks as a driver, and did pickups and deliveries there during the Depression years. Dad would from time to time get to ride in the truck when my grandfather had a Kodak delivery. He clearly remembered being a kid and getting to ride in the back of the truck sitting on the silver bars being delivered to Kodak for their manufacturing needs.
Yes, things have changed a bit!

The story I've heard is the bars were originally (not by Kodak) in a weight and shape that you needed two hands to carry one. I'm pretty sure Eastman still has a silver nitrate business, but nothing like the good old days.
That was back in the day, if you bought a 5000 ounce contract for delivery at a future date, you were there, probably your Dad and Grandfather, to take delivery.
Now days, they trade more than exists in the world in an hour. Settle with dollars. We have a big CN yard in Cedar Rapids. Former Rock Island road, they still had crumbling round houses for the old steam engines when I was a kid. Not sure how Canadian National ended up with the line.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Come on Adrian, you are talking common sense and business sense with a healthy dose of logic. You cannot do that on the internet! Stuff like that just destroys conspiracy theories and the anti-Kodak, anti-Fuji, and anti-Ilford crowd who prefer to spew their prejudices and condemn those companies. You need to sit back and quaff a Dry Gin Martini or two while you reflect on what you did to those folks with your response. [I am buying the drinks.]

lol... I call it staying in business, which is much preferable to going out of business.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

We still buy soup to nuts in cans, glass bottles, every know form of plastic

we sure do, but if you’ll notice, most people go to the store to buy it. Why? Shipping it to the home is waaay too expensive.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

It is a consumable, not something you are supposed to use until your grandkids are old enough to inherit it from you.

I equate it to demanding that all the groceries you buy last until your grand children are old enough to eat them.

those types of customers are not profitable, and companies need to make money so they can stay in business. If they don’t stay in business, you don’t get to keep getting the product. It’s in the interest of the customer for the company to be profitable. Not profitable = extinction. Extinction = no more product.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...It’s the goal: S-c-r-e-w-T-h-e-C-u-s-t-o-m-e-r...

Actually, all the packaging changes discussed in this thread are called "stay in business."

When Mike's can of Selectol was manufactured in 1969, how many photographic customers had the ability to use a digital camera? A cell phone? None. Silver halide photography was the only option, and Kodak was massively dominant, both over the amateur market and professional practitioners. Volumes were huuuuuge. Cost of packaging in cans was whatever it was. Customers in both segments paid whatever Kodak charged. There were virtually no other choices, at least at the quality and consistency level Kodak provided.

Today, despite talk of a "film revival," the market for silver halide products is minuscule compared to digital imaging, which dominates massively over amateurs and professional practitioners. Kodak, irrespective of prior management blunders that are discussed endlessly, is but one player in this new niche. A monochrome film developer like XTOL is a niche within a niche. Forget about the shipping premium that putting XTOL in cans might impose. Manufacturing cost alone compared to plastic bags would push the price of the product (one that's already drawn complaints for decades) into completely unsellable territory. Competition in the niche is intense. Ask Mirko how price sensitive things are.

In my opinion, just like speculation about Kodak Alaris' licensing agreement with Eastman Kodak, those who know Kodak's marketing strategies aren't talking, and those who are talking don't know. Irrespective of whatever "qualifications" they claim to have.