Kentmere Ktol Ascorbic Acid Powder B&W Film Developer

Just saw this on the in the 'new this week' section of the Freestyle site. The description says its 'equivalent in quality and results to Kodak Xtol'. I would guess that it's not completely chemically equivalent, since I understand XTOL is still under patent.

I will be interesting to see what people's experience with this is. I've never seen it before.

Jerry Leeper

Well, it's also only available in 5 gallon increments, so they seem to have at least duplicated most of the notable xtol properties, including the bad ones.

I kinda wish they'd be a little more original while Kodak is still making xtol.

It's available in 5L, not 5 gal. packages, and it sells for less than the Kodak product. I'd say that was pretty good if it is indeed the same thing. I can't source XTOL locally or via mail order for less than that, and 5L doesn't last long enough for it to go bad on me. Looks like Kentmere is producing copies of D-76 and Dektol as well, also at a lesser price. Worth a shot.

jleeper said:

Just saw this on the in the 'new this week' section of the Freestyle site. The description says its 'equivalent in quality and results to Kodak Xtol'. I would guess that it's not completely chemically equivalent, since I understand XTOL is still under patent.

I will be interesting to see what people's experience with this is. I've never seen it before.

Jerry Leeper

Click to expand...

I was curious about these chemicals after reading this post and there is no mention of them on the UK Kentmere site, only the USA site.
I am wondering if these are bonafide Kodak chemicals packaged for Kentmere with Kodak`s approval?
If they become available in the UK with lower cost than the Kodak brand label, then I am definitely interested, thanks for posting this information.

Based on the MSDS:
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/msds/kentmere/Kentmere_KTOL_Powder_Developer.pdf

It is produced by a company called Photo Systems, Inc.

Comparing the listed products, there are indeed similarities:

KTOL

Part A
SODIUM SULFITE
SODIUM METABORATE
PENTETIC ACID, PENTASODIUM SALT

Part B
SODIUM SULFITE
SODIUM ERYTHROBATE
SODIUM METABISULFITE

XTOL

Part A:
Sodium sulfite
Sodium metaborate, tetrahydrate
Diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid pentasodium salt
4-hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidinone

Part B:
Sodium sulfite
Sodium isoascorbate
Sodium metabisulfite

It seems however that the MSDS for KTOL does not list the developing agent. In Kodak's formulation, it's the pyrazolidinone, a derivative of phenidone, which is superadditive with the sodium isoascorbate, IIRC. I don't see anything similar in KTOL.

mhv said:

Based on the MSDS:
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/msds/kentmere/Kentmere_KTOL_Powder_Developer.pdf

It is produced by a company called Photo Systems, Inc.

Comparing the listed products, there are indeed similarities:

KTOL

Part A
SODIUM SULFITE
SODIUM METABORATE
PENTETIC ACID, PENTASODIUM SALT

Part B
SODIUM SULFITE
SODIUM ERYTHROBATE
SODIUM METABISULFITE

XTOL

Part A:
Sodium sulfite
Sodium metaborate, tetrahydrate
Diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid pentasodium salt
4-hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidinone

Part B:
Sodium sulfite
Sodium isoascorbate
Sodium metabisulfite

It seems however that the MSDS for KTOL does not list the developing agent. In Kodak's formulation, it's the pyrazolidinone, a derivative of phenidone, which is superadditive with the sodium isoascorbate, IIRC. I don't see anything similar in KTOL.

Click to expand...

MSDS`s don`t always provide the full list of constituents, if you try looking up the MSDS for Paterson products, you will see what I mean. AFAIK, Kodak no longer produce their own photo-chemistry.
The product names are too obviously close to the Kodak one`s which is why I suspect that there may be some agreement between Kodak and Kentmere.
Remember that it wasn`t long ago that Kodak ceased production of B/W papers and that Kentmere might be filling the void.

As I speculated in another thread, this new line of chemicals is probably the fruit of Freestyle contracting with the manufacturer of Kodak chemicals to produce the exact same products under the Kentmere brand. Kentmere is probably just licensing their name. It's unlikely that anyone would put the R&D effort into reverse-engineering Kodak's line, so it's most likely that the stuff just comes off the same production line.

Keith Tapscott. said:

I was curious about these chemicals after reading this post and there is no mention of them on the UK Kentmere site, only the USA site.
I am wondering if these are bonafide Kodak chemicals packaged for Kentmere with Kodak`s approval?
If they become available in the UK with lower cost than the Kodak brand label, then I am definitely interested, thanks for posting this information.

Click to expand...

I believe that Kodak has sold off the unit that produces B&W chemistry.

So this Kentmere-badged product may indeed be produced from these operations - in which case Kodak approval is not necessary since EK no longer owns those operations!

I would not be surprised to learn the unit has excess capacitythese days, so this seems as good a way to attack it as any...

aldevo said:

I believe that Kodak has sold off the unit that produces B&W chemistry.

So this Kentmere-badged product may indeed be produced from these operations - in which case Kodak approval is not necessary since EK no longer owns those operations!

I would not be surprised to learn the unit has excess capacitythese days, so this seems as good a way to attack it as any...

Click to expand...

If Kentmere steps in to pursue production of the XTOL formula, then the more credit to them. I'd be glad to order my developer from them (I'm sure Rob Skeoch in Canada would be able to distribute it locally as well).

The only thing I'm wondering about is this: when MYTOL was published, the patent laws made it so that commercial sale of an XTOL derivative was prohibited. So two things are possible: either Kodak has sold/licensed their IP rights concerning XTOL, or the patents have expired. Or was it the case that the IP rights were not in Kodak's hands when they sold off the chemicals division?

Keith Tapscott. said:

I was curious about these chemicals after reading this post and there is no mention of them on the UK Kentmere site, only the USA site.
I am wondering if these are bonafide Kodak chemicals packaged for Kentmere with Kodak`s approval?
If they become available in the UK with lower cost than the Kodak brand label, then I am definitely interested, thanks for posting this information.

Click to expand...

The MSDS sheets and the fact that we know that these are being produced by Photo Systems, Inc. make me think that these are NOT repackaged Kodak chemicals. Does anyone know who is manufacturing the Kodak chemicals?

These days B&W photo chemistry isn't rocket science, we can whip up a reasonable XTOL substitute, MYTOL, in our kitchen or garage. It wouldn't be that hard for someone like Photo Systems, Inc. to package a similar compound.

I am also thinking this is more of a FreeStyle effort than a Kentmere initiative. If you look at the pictures on the web, there's a 'FS somthingorother' (can't make out the word, just stylized 'FS') near the bottom of the label. If you look at the Kentmere USA website, the contact for information for dealers is a FreeStyle toll-free extension. And the copy for the products and the whole 'just like Kodak' concept seems so, so FreeStyle.

And the MSDS for these chemicals is titled:


I'm convinced that either FreeStyle has found a formula close to XTOL that isn't covered by Kodak intellectual property rights or FreeStyle is convinced that Kodak won't protect their rights, or FreeStyle is counting on a mix of the two to protect itself.

I guess this stuff is rather new, so I doubt that many people have used much of any of the Kentmere chemicals at this point.

My question still is how close to XTOL is this stuff really. MSDS seems to say 'close but...'. Who knows, it might even be better than XTOL. But I'm not sure I'm willing to chance of there being a perceptible difference for the $0.04 per 35mm roll difference in price.

Jerry

aldevo said:

So this Kentmere-badged product may indeed be produced from these operations - in which case Kodak approval is not necessary since EK no longer owns those operations!

Click to expand...

That wouldn't necessarily be true. Kodak could still have exclusive rights to the formula, but contract it out to another company to manufacture. That company would probably only have rights to manufacture it for Kodak, not for anyone else.

Hi All:
Kodak sold its' chemical mfg'ing. here in the U.S.A. and France to a Canadian firm called "Champion Chemtech, Ltd". Mfg'ing. for U.S.A. and Canada takes place at the Kodak (ex-Kodak?) facilities in Rochester with ex-Kodak employees. The products are marketed with the Kodak name.

The chemicals marketed as "the same or similar formulations as Kodak"... are made by "Photo Systems, Inc." (remember Unicolor?) for Freestyle and sold by them using the Kentmere brand name.

Cordially, Howard Tanger

mhv said:

Based on the MSDS:
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/msds/kentmere/Kentmere_KTOL_Powder_Developer.pdf

It is produced by a company called Photo Systems, Inc.

Comparing the listed products, there are indeed similarities:

KTOL

Part A
SODIUM SULFITE
SODIUM METABORATE
PENTETIC ACID, PENTASODIUM SALT

Part B
SODIUM SULFITE
SODIUM ERYTHROBATE
SODIUM METABISULFITE

XTOL

Part A:
Sodium sulfite
Sodium metaborate, tetrahydrate
Diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid pentasodium salt
4-hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidinone

Part B:
Sodium sulfite
Sodium isoascorbate
Sodium metabisulfite

It seems however that the MSDS for KTOL does not list the developing agent. In Kodak's formulation, it's the pyrazolidinone, a derivative of phenidone, which is superadditive with the sodium isoascorbate, IIRC. I don't see anything similar in KTOL.

Click to expand...

The KTOL recipe may indeed contain pyrazolidinone in one of its various forms.

about 0.1 gram of pyrazolidinone per liter should be enough to do the job and you are not required to include that small an amount of chemical on an MSDS.

jleeper said:

That wouldn't necessarily be true. Kodak could still have exclusive rights to the formula, but contract it out to another company to manufacture. That company would probably only have rights to manufacture it for Kodak, not for anyone else.

Click to expand...

That is certainly possible. It's also possible that EK would allow the product to be produced for Kentmere if the latter agrees to market the product at their own cost and pay EK a licensing fee.

I also see in Freestyles catalog that Kentmere has a HC-110 type developer without the Yellow color or the thickness of Kodaks developer. Anyone tired this or have any idea of the chemical makeup?

Leo

lkgroup said:

I also see in Freestyles catalog that Kentmere has a HC-110 type developer without the Yellow color or the thickness of Kodaks developer. Anyone tired this or have any idea of the chemical makeup?

Leo

Click to expand...

Maybe it's PC-Glycol + DEA. DEA has higher pH than TEA when dissolved in water. Propylene glycol has lower viscosity. Kodak is obsessed with sulfite and HC110 has no ascorbate. I have no idea what could be done this way. If I get hold of some DEA I will find out.

Foma in the Czech Republic make a range of photo chemicals, one of which called Excel is according to some reports I've read very similar to Xtol.

Champion Chemicals also manufacture the old and superb May & Baker range of photo-chemicals.

Ian

kiku said:

Hi All:
Kodak sold its' chemical mfg'ing. here in the U.S.A. and France to a Canadian firm called "Champion Chemtech, Ltd". Mfg'ing. for U.S.A. and Canada takes place at the Kodak (ex-Kodak?) facilities in Rochester with ex-Kodak employees. The products are marketed with the Kodak name.

The chemicals marketed as "the same or similar formulations as Kodak"... are made by "Photo Systems, Inc." (remember Unicolor?) for Freestyle and sold by them using the Kentmere brand name.

Cordially, Howard Tanger

Click to expand...

Sorry to bring back an ancient thread, but I am using Ktol and as far as usage goes it is identical to Kodak Xtol from everything I can see. I'm using it 1:1 or 1+3, etc... and my pushing and diluting are the same results as with Xtol.

It seems that the ingredients of baggy A differ from Xtol. Xtol is nice and dry and pours out of the pouch easily like fine sand. Ktol is all chunky and sticky. Think brown sugar.

Baggy B seems identical.

It's pretty obvious that it's not made by Kodak. The packaging is different.

I've been using Arista Premium 400 and Ktol lately and it might as well be Tri-X and Xtol.

Just a tip for the spendthrifts like myself.

Brac said:

Foma in the Czech Republic make a range of photo chemicals, one of which called Excel is according to some reports I've read very similar to Xtol.

Click to expand...

I just developed a couple of rolls of Forma Pan 400 in Excel I bought from Freestyle, seems to very similiar to Xtol, nice smooth tones, good blance between grain and sharpness. Avilable in 1 L, one of the reasons I stopped using Xtol was that Kodak stopped marketing it in 1 L and only marketed the 5 L size. At this point I am considering using either Edwal FG 7 or Ecel as my standard developer for 35mm.

It's worth adding that X-tol type developers were around many years before Kodak released Xtol. There's a Swedish Patent dating from the late 1950's for Ascobic acid based developers, this was quite broad based and included Ascorbic/Metol & Ascorbic/Phenidone formulae. I doubt it's a co-incidence that Xtol was only introduced after this Patent lapsed.

Ian