Kodak XTOL trade concern announcment

[Tom Kershaw]

Translation of my post: My photographs are valuable so I will not weigh and measure chemicals. If yours are not feel free to play junior chemist.

I use XTOL from Kodak but I've found mixing my own developers from the constituent chemicals gives very reliable results.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've used the Eco-Pro/Legacy-Pro. It is identical to X-Tol. B&H lists it in stock.

Are those sold in dry form, or as premixed stock? And isn't their Legacy-Pro a D-76 clone (seems I read it's more like F-76, with phenidone or Dimezone replacing the metol).

Translation of my post: My photographs are valuable so I will not weigh and measure chemicals. If yours are not feel free to play junior chemist.

You could as easily say, "My photos are valuable, so I will not trust the quality control of those to whom they are not. if yours are not, feel free to let someone else mix developer for you (or just send your film out)."

I've had a couple development failures since I started processing my own film again in 2003. Not one has been due to an error in mixing my own chemicals -- nor to a chemical quality control problem at Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, etc.

They've been due to trying to get one too many rolls out of expired/exhausted developer. Both of them.

If you don't trust your ability to mix chemicals, why would you trust you ability to dilute or replenish correctly? Better just mail those rolls away, pay enough for each roll processed to buy a couple bags of Xtol (or a Cinestill C-41 kit). wait a couple weeks to see your negatives -- and play the blame game when something goes wrong. At least when my film isn't printable or scannable, I know where to point the finger.

 

[David Lindquist]

I recently mixed up some of the 2019/10/07 date code. Heven't used it yet. Have been planning to test it first due to earlier reports of XTOL problems.

"Trade concern" is an odd euphemism. Sounds more like someone neglected to pay a tariff than produced a bad batch of chemistry.

David

 

[Donald Qualls]

Eco Pro is an XTOL clone, sold as a two part powder.

Yes, and apparently it self-replenishes just as Xtol does. The original statement about those included Legacy Pro as if it were the same product -- it's not, it's a D-76 replacement.

 

[eddie]

Are those sold in dry form, or as premixed stock? And isn't their Legacy-Pro a D-76 clone (seems I read it's more like F-76, with phenidone or Dimezone replacing the metol).

I think Legacy-Pro is the company, and Eco-Pro is the line of chemicals. The X-Tol is packaged/mixed/used identically to the Kodak version.

 

[eddie]

Their D-76 replacement is called L-76.

 

[pentaxuser]

I am sure there are a number of Photrio members whose skill and determination make it perfectly possible for them to make their own Xtol or indeed coat their own printing paper etc but this does not describe 99.9% of film users so for the sake of the continuation of Xtol SinoPromise better be able to eradicate the current Xtol problem and ensure it doesn't happen again.

pentaxuser

 

[mshchem]

I’m not sure what that has to do with maturity, the value of my photographs, or anything I wrote lol.

There's a lot of crazy people on the Internet. I'm one of them. It's when you mix Swedish cameras with German lenses, people tend to pop off at anything.

Goddamn it!

I blame it on Covid 19 and fluoridation of water. That's why I sleep with my head covered in aluminum foil. Next to my mule Pedro!

XTOL, WHEN THEY PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!

 

[mshchem]

Maybe to eliminate packaging concerns we can get the new owners to put it up in metal cans. I mixed up a can of 60 year old Selectol (D-52) a couple weeks back. Perfect clean white powder, no clumps, perfect.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I am truly saddened by this. I really hope they can get their act together.

another reason for meto stick to self mix from bulk.

 

[relistan]

And reintroduce 1l packets while they are at it.

Foma makes Fomadon Excel in 1L packages and it's a reliable XTOL clone
https://www.foma.cz/en/catalogue-fomadon-excel-detail-422

 

[Rowreidr]

Any point in storing the affected chemistry in airtight container with oxygen displacement, assuming its the bags and not the chemistry?

 

[Jonno85uk]

Foma, when judged by its films, is no better than Alaris when it comes to QC. Sorry but if I am forced to pick an alternative I'll go with this.

I can't seem to find that on the other side of the pond.

 

[removedacct1]

I only mix XTOL from scratch directly from the bags, first Solution A and then when Solution A has completely absorbed the all the particles, I slowly add Solution B. So simple, no weighing. For me, I would never venture into buying and mixing the constituents because my photographs are valuable, perhaps unlike yours, and I have the maturity to wait for the products I need to be available and that is rarely hard since I can go to many suppliers.

The problem here is that twice in very recent times, Kodak has recalled several batches of Xtol which have proven to be inconsistent/unreliable in performance, so I would think that if you value your negatives, you’d chose reliability above all. The unreliability factor has many of us looking for an alternative, which I believe is a reasonable response.

 

[pentaxuser]

I can't seem to find that on the other side of the pond.

Even if you could find it, the key question is: Who makes this Legacy stuff? Can we be sure it is not the same as the makers of Xtol. The same question can be applied to the Foma products as well. Anyone know who makes both products?

If the problem with batches of Xtol lies in an inherent fault with it that presumably only occurs occasionally otherwise all Xtol would be affected, then the cure is Sinopromise ensuring that the fault is eliminated once and for all. We know that Xtol used to be fine so it shouldn't be that difficult to continue successful manufacture, should it?

There has to be a serious intent to do this of course and yes I see no reason why the "new broom" called SinoPromise cannot come up with suitable packaging for 1L We know that for low volume users Xtol has its problems of stock storage over the longer term so it would seem to make sense to produce 1L as well as 5L

pentaxuser

 

[Kino]

I would bet that almost no upper management in Alaris has even developed a single roll of film in their lives, nor printed a single print in a darkroom.

Therein lies the problem to me...

 

[wyofilm]

I would bet that almost no upper management in Alaris has even developed a single roll of film in their lives, nor printed a single print in a darkroom.

Therein lies the problem to me...

I believe you are right. A complete disconnect between the products they sell and those that make and use use them. The worst 'middle man' possible. I just hope KA can hold things together well enough to keep selling Kodak color (and b/w) film stock.

 

[pentaxuser]

So if I were to look for an equivalent Xtol clone and I am based in the U.K. is the Foma product already mentioned my only option? Are there some differences in its make-up and who makes it? Can I be sure that if Tetenal makes Xtol and if so can I then be sure that it does not make the Foma product such that the Foma product is free of the current Xtol defects?

Has anybody here used both Xtol and Foma's Xtol and if so was the latter every bit as good a developer as Xtol used to be?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Peter Schrager]

So if I were to look for an equivalent Xtol clone and I am based in the U.K. is the Foma product already mentioned my only option? Are there some differences in its make-up and who makes it? Can I be sure that if Tetenal makes Xtol and if so can I then be sure that it does not make the Foma product such that the Foma product is free of the current Xtol defects?

Has anybody here used both Xtol and Foma's Xtol and if so was the latter every bit as good a developer as Xtol used to be?

Thanks

pentaxuser

never used it because XTOL is always available. Try it and find out!
Freestyle has a clone that is called EcoPro and I have read it duplicates XTOL. Available after January 6

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use XTOL from Kodak but I've found mixing my own developers from the constituent chemicals gives very reliable results.

Then you are a better chemist than I am. So there! [And I will stomp off!]

 

[relistan]

Foma, when judged by its films, is no better than Alaris when it comes to QC. Sorry but if I am forced to pick an alternative I'll go with this.

In a decade of using various of their chemistry I've never seen a problem. I've had one roll of film with issues. Contrast that with the common experience with Kodak films (backing paper, anyone?) and constant complaints about chemistry (XTOL, D-76, etc). I've got a bag of XTOL to return here, not for the first time. Never had that with Foma chemicals. Do what you like, of course, but people should know it's a reasonable option. Yes, it's more expensive.

 

[relistan]

Even if you could find it, the key question is: Who makes this Legacy stuff? Can we be sure it is not the same as the makers of Xtol. The same question can be applied to the Foma products as well. Anyone know who makes both products?
pentaxuser

AFAIK Foma makes all their own stuff except R09.

FYI ADOX has said they are introducing an XTOL clone. I am sure it will be exactly as well managed as the rest of their stuff. Top quality and reliable.

 

[Kino]

[QUOTE="relistan, post: 2362575, member: 65484"
FYI ADOX has said they are introducing an XTOL clone. I am sure it will be exactly as well managed as the rest of their stuff. Top quality and reliable.[/QUOTE]

ADOX, from everything I have read and see online, is staffed with people who are passionate about film and the process of photography.

I think this will be what decides who survives well into the future, while others slowly screw themselves into the ground with "trade concerns"...

 

[relistan]

ADOX, from everything I have read and see online, is staffed with people who are passionate about film and the process of photography.
I think this will be what decides who survives well into the future, while others slowly screw themselves into the ground with "trade concerns"...

You can tell the folks at ADOX love the products: it shows. All of it that I have used has been excellent.

 

[MattKing]

I would bet that almost no upper management in Alaris has even developed a single roll of film in their lives, nor printed a single print in a darkroom.

Therein lies the problem to me...

I'm not sure about that.
I do know that the people in management that I have had contact with at both Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris have deep, sometimes multi-generational roots in the film and photo-chemical industries. It is true that they may have been like my dad who spent over a third of century working for Kodak Canada, and almost always relied on a lab to handle his film and prints.
For my dad, the only exceptions were a brief amount of time spent learning at the employee darkroom - I still have the colour enlargements he made of my brother and I as toddlers/infants - and when my dad taught me how to develop and contact print my first films. We were both reading the Kodak how to publications together - I was 11.
Kodak Alaris is a marketing company, but most of the people there were there when Eastman Kodak and its international subsidiaries were marketing directly to retailers and large commercial end users. Quality control issues are definitely something that they would have familiarity with.