Kodak XTOL trade concern announcment

[removedacct1]

What I find strange, is that with 1200+ employees at Alaris, we don't have a single one here commenting on these issues, even if anonymously. ?

I don't find it strange at all. If I worked for Kodak Alaris, there's no way I'd voluntarily subject myself to the ire of this group.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't find it strange at all. If I worked for Kodak Alaris, there's no way I'd voluntarily subject myself to the ire of this group.

Yes unfortunately we are infested with Kodak haters, Ilford haters and Fuji haters. Maybe Sean will fumigate the website.

 

[removedacct1]

I don't want to keep buying the same brand. I want to be buying from the people who made the original.

Ummmm, good luck with that.

 

[MattKing]

I don't want to keep buying the same brand. I want to be buying from the people who made the original.

I can't think of any manufacturer who actually sells photo chemicals that they manufacture and sell under their own name and own brand.
Sino Promise make (in China) the Kodak branded colour photo chemicals they sell. They got the factories from Kodak Alaris, although I don't know what the name on those factories is.

 

[AgX]

Well, Adox meanwhile produce some stuff themselves.

 

[Dave Krueger]

I'm confused by those who still refer to "Kodak" as if it is a single entity and also by the defensiveness of those who think criticism of rather serious defects as being "anti-Kodak".

I don't even see Eastman Kodak as a subject of this discussion since they apparently have nothing to do with the products anymore or the problems that people have been complaining about. As I see it, the problem many people have isn't merely due to the fact that Xtol has manufacturing defects. I think some people are unhappy because these defects are not trivial, extend across multiple products, affecting multiple batches, and the response from Kodak Alaris (which is not Eastman Kodak) has been weak and ambiguous.

[edit] I know Kodak is a brand name and is a single entity in that sense. But, what I meant above is that it is not a single corporate entity or business because the brand is shared among independent companies.

 

[removedacct1]

Maybe get off the Complain Train and buy the components you need to compound your favorite developer yourself? That's what I'm doing for the foreseeable future, with the exception of Formulary's PMK, which I will continue to buy. I've bought what I need to make D-76 at home, (Artcraft) and it will be simple, reliable, and I can make only as much as I need at any given time. What could be better?

 

[pentaxuser]

That is what I always got when I used this develop regularly. I never worried about it. They just seemed to vanish after a while in their storage bottles. The new batch I mixed up last weekend did not have those white specs floating around, and that bothered me... until I started developing. All 8, 8x10 negatives I ran through looked great.

Yes I have seen a few particles on the bottom of the mixing vessel but grinding them with a flat bottomed plastic stirrer always worked. In what must be over 10 years of use I have never had a problem with Xtol and frankly until recent months I never gave a second thought to Xtol clones but the continuing uncertainty with it has caused a kind of "drip drip " erosion in my faith in Xtol.

Once uncertainty creeps in, it is difficult not to be affected. It's a feeling that somehow control has been lost and no-one really cares enough to take the problem by the scruff of the neck. A pledge of replacement is not really enough. I need my faith restored in it and so far all that has happened is that it is further eroded.

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have not had any problems with XTOL. Sometimes manufacturing problems happen. Get over it.

 

[pentaxuser]

I have not had any problems with XTOL. Sometimes manufacturing problems happen. Get over it.

Thanks Sirius, when I am slightly depressed and express doubts I can always rely on you for tough love. Was that you I saw in Fort Apache or "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon?

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thanks Sirius, when I am slightly depressed and express doubts I can always rely on you for tough love. Was that you I saw in Fort Apache or "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon?

pentaxuser

I am a good hand holder.

 

[MattKing]

Only engineering counts.

Engineering never brought a product to any user anywhere.
Marketing, on its own, never created anything useful.
When they work together, they can create magic.
To quote my late father, who spent a third of a century in the marketing department of Canadian Kodak, mostly as the manager of a customer service department in a Kodak lab, a quote/paraphrase from George Eastman:
1st, the customers;
2nd, the employees;
3rd, the shareholders.

 

[wyofilm]

Kodak lab, a quote/paraphrase from George Eastman:
1st, the customers;
2nd, the employees;
3rd, the shareholders.

Matt, I'm sorry. Those days don't exit for the Kodaks anymore. And I am sorry about it. Just like there is no Alfred Bader of the Aldrich Chemical Co. asking for customers to "Please bother us." and meaning it.

My mother used to work at Xerox as a chemist in their heyday in the 70's in their special research labs. That Xerox doesn't exist today any longer. It is best to find the new jewels and support them when possible. The Kodaks are a mess.

 

[MattKing]

You couldn't be more wrong about that. Innovation is actually studied now. Look it up.

Innovation is wonderful, but Engineers are remarkably lousy at making sure that anything useful comes out of their work.
And I know and understand engineers quite well.
Only physicists are less likely to make anything practical come from what they do (I started out in physics).
If the people who market and develop and distribute film products can hire and obtain the advice of engineers and chemists and other people with technological talents - and they do - then they can and do make sure that good things get to customers.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Innovation is wonderful, but Engineers are remarkably lousy at making sure that anything useful comes out of their work.
And I know and understand engineers quite well.
Only physicists are less likely to make anything practical come from what they do (I started out in physics).
If the people who market and develop and distribute film products can hire and obtain the advice of engineers and chemists and other people with technological talents - and they do - then they can and do make sure that good things get to customers.

An engineer, a physicist and a mathematician were traveling together. One night three fires broke out in each of their hotel rooms. The engineer got a bucket of water and threw it all over the place including the bed which was not on fire, but he did put out the fire. The physicist drew a square box around the fire, filled a glass of water and poured the water one the square's line. The fire burned out to the line and went out. The mathematician stared at the fire, ran into the bathroom, turned on the water, looked at it, touched it, ran back and looked at the fire, again ran into the bathroom, turned on the water, looked at it, touched it, then he came out to the hallway and announced "A solution exists. QED."

 

[wyofilm]

An engineer, a physicist and a mathematician were traveling together. One night three fires broke out in each of their hotel rooms. The engineer got a bucket of water and threw it all over the place including the bed which was not on fire, but he did put out the fire. The physicist drew a square box around the fire, filled a glass of water and poured the water one the square's line. The fire burned out to the line and went out. The mathematician stared at the fire, ran into the bathroom, turned on the water, looked at it, touched it, ran back and looked at the fire, again ran into the bathroom, turned on the water, looked at it, touched it, then he came out to the hallway and announced "A solution exists. QED."

 

[MattKing]

Matt, you clearly do not. I will allow myself to be an expert on this topic. The pop-culture misconceptions that you're alluding to are just that: misconceptions. At my companies we never even hired engineers who are "remarkably lousy at making sure that anything useful comes out of their work".

You clearly don't understand what I am saying.
Your companies were what made useful things out of what the engineers did.
What the engineers and chemists and technologists do is create the potential. And good engineers are very responsive to what other important players do.
It is the people who work with them who make sure that products actually get made, that customers buy them, that products actually get on to store shelves (including the virtual type of shelves), make sure that new customer needs are identified, and make sure that customer problems are dealt with.
Without synergies, nothing really gets accomplished.
The days of vertical integration are over. None of the players do everything in house. You won't find anyone who doesn't rely on contracting or partnerships.
If your complaint was about an unwillingness to employ or contract with or partner with people of expertise, it would be more than valid.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

I can't think of any manufacturer who actually sells photo chemicals that they manufacture and sell under their own name and own brand.

Foma Bohemia

 

[ericdan]

Had something similar to the sudden death syndrome yesterday.
Xtol bought about 2 months ago didn't completely stop working but my negatives are unusually thin.
I developed 5 rolls as usual and all of them look very very thin.

It was the newer version of Xtol and the mix looked a lot yellower than what I am used to.
3 weeks back I developed film using the same mix and it works fine.

After ruining 5 rolls I am really considering switching to a different developer although I really don't want to go through testing and all that again.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Had something similar to the sudden death syndrome yesterday.
Xtol bought about 2 months ago didn't completely stop working but my negatives are unusually thin.
I developed 5 rolls as usual and all of them look very very thin.

It was the newer version of Xtol and the mix looked a lot yellower than what I am used to.
3 weeks back I developed film using the same mix and it works fine.

After ruining 5 rolls I am really considering switching to a different developer although I really don't want to go through testing and all that again.

Did you test the developer before developing the film? I always test ANY developer before developing film. That is considered good lab practice.

 

[removedacct1]

Did you test the developer before developing the film? I always test ANY developer before developing film. That is considered good lab practice.

Exactly.

 

[ericdan]

Did you test the developer before developing the film? I always test ANY developer before developing film. That is considered good lab practice.

Yes. Dropped the leader in and it turned black but I guess not as black as it should’ve turned.

 

[pentaxuser]

Xtol bought about 2 months ago didn't completely stop working but my negatives are unusually thin.
I developed 5 rolls as usual and all of them look very very thin.

It was the newer version of Xtol and the mix looked a lot yellower than what I am used to.
3 weeks back I developed film using the same mix and it works fine.

.

If I have read ericdan's words correctly It seems he bought the new version of Xtol which produced thin negs and yet that same version i.e. the same packet that he had bought 2 months ago was used 3 weeks ago and the negs were fine? So the same liquid stock got stronger?

Or in fact the same mix to which he refers was not in fact the same mix in that sense. It is a different mix i.e a different 2 packets that we assume was part of the same factory mixed Xtol that may or may not have been poured into many thousands of packets. If it is different packets to which he refers, then we cannot know if it was in fact the same mix and while in the latter case a leader test each time might tell him its efficacy I think the point he makes is that it looked the same but was not. Thus is the price of Xtol the need to test it each time you buy it?
So it would seem that in ericdan's experience of the "new" Xtol is like Forrest Gumps's box of chocolates in that you never know what you are going to get

It is this kind of uncertainty surely that makes users look for alternatives

pentaxuser

 

[ericdan]

Bought the xtol 2 months ago. Used it once and had normal results. Used it again and had thin negatives. Stock solution was stored in PET bottles topped off with wine preserver gas.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks, ericdan, for the clarification so the stock solution you made was the same but the thin negs occurred later in that stock's life. The way it was written suggested to me that it was the opposite way round. It was thin negs at first then later OK negs.

It sounds as if later in the stock's life was approx 5 weeks later. While this does seem a rapid deterioration a lot may depend on how the stock was stored in the interim

How was it stored?

Thanks

pentaxuser