Has anyone else found Eco Pro to be more active than Xtol?

I was wondering what the consensus was Eco Pro? I know that many happily use it as an alternative to Xtol. The last few batches of Xtol I have used have been from Sino Promise, I believe, but the results have been just fine, and in line with my experience to the older Xtol, at least as far as I remember. Once I found out that Sino Promise was having quality problems and no longer in operation, I ordered some Eco Pro. I would have preferred to order Adox XTIII, but the 5L was not available at FotoImpex, B&H or Freestyle. I am in Iceland and need a vendor that can ship there in a reasonable time and price. So I went with the Eco Pro. As I was mixing it, I noticed the orange was a deeper color than I am used to from my previous Xtol batches. I run a small lab, though mostly processing just for myself these days. Still, I have been using Xtol more or less exclusively since 2004 or 5, I think, so I am pretty familiar with it. I process in a Jobo ATL 2200, so development should be very consistent.
The negatives that came from the first batches were pretty "hot". They were still very usable, but the negatives were quite a bit more contrasty, and seemingly with a bit more grain. I tend to prefer my negatives very slightly thin, as I mostly scan, but these would be a bit more appropriate for darkroom printing. I am attaching a picture. The bottom negative was developed 1+1 in the Eco Pro and the top 1+1 in a batch of Xtol that had been stored in a tank with a floating lid. Perhaps it was a bit older, but it is consistent with my other negatives. The Eco Pro is notably more dense. I am sure I can adjust for this, I was just curious if anyone else had had the same experience, or if they had any issues with Eco Pro being inconsistent. I tried it once in the past I believe and did not notice it as being any different than Xtol...

Meanwhile, I hope Adox can ramp up production to suit demand! The addition of the dust controlling compound and better environmental characteristics are very appealing to me, assuming it can be a true one to one clone in terms of development.

I don't have more than one or two examples of the same film in each developer, so my limited experience and small sample size is probably not very helpful. And I use a small tank, so I probably have more variation than you do. I did use the same agitation scheme for both of the rolls below (per Kodak Xtol tech sheet).

Here is a roll of T-Max 400 metered at EI 320 and processed in Kodak Xtol at 1+1 for 8:30 @ 70*F in late 2020:

---

And here is a roll of T-Max 400 metered at EI 320 and processed in Legacy Pro Eco-Pro at 1+1 for 9:15 at 68*F in March 2022:

---

The times and temps I used were different for each roll, but both came from the Kodak Xtol tech sheet, so should be equivalent. Sadly, it looks like there may be more variation in my exposures than what I can see between the two developers(?)

Thank you for the help! It seems fairly similar for you...if anything, a little denser in Xtol. Anyone else have any experience?

Íf the twó developers do in fact act differently and Legacy Pro is not just rebadged then that suggests that whoever ordered Legacy Pro had the money and expertise to conclude that Xtol can be improved upon with no increase in cost to the commissioning party. Is this likely to have occurred? I'd have thought not


pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Íf the twó developers do in fact act differently and Legacy Pro is not just rebadged then that suggests that whoever ordered Legacy Pro had the money and expertise to conclude that Xtol can be improved upon with no increase in cost to the commissioning party. Is this likely to have occurred? I'd have thought not


pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Or, equally likely, that a cheap and cheerful, easier to make and more profitable to sell, somewhat similar facsimile of X-Tol could be put together for sale to those who either couldn't get X-Tol, or who got burned by its relatively recent packaging issues.

runswithsizzers said:

... Sadly, it looks like there may be more variation in my exposures than what I can see between the two developers(?)

Click to expand...

I don't know if it is sad - sounds like the human condition - OK, it's sad. My rules are expose generously and don't over-develop. I let the negative densities fall where they may.

All I want out of a negative is that it capture as much as possible of the scene and that it isn't pathologically defective in some regard.

After that it comes down to printing, where I do have control of the situation.