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.
Foma has a well deserved "dark" past with their roll films, I know too many people swearing that they will never use Foma films again to think it is just pure coincidence. Now could be different and would be great, but please don't try to put Foma history at any level close to Kodak's.
Foma has a well deserved "dark" past with their roll films, I know too many people swearing that they will never use Foma films again to think it is just pure coincidence. Now could be different and would be great, but please don't try to put Foma history at any level close to Kodak's.
Your point is absolutely valid to me even before you mention it, so you don't have to convince me...I use Foma films only in LF (sheets) and I am happy with Fomapan 100 and 200. I apologize for overreacting, it was produced by all the negativity accumulated in so many comments on this thread. I am not a Kodak fan but neither a hater.
A bit late reply, but here it is...The closest formula would be the one in the patent.
However the nagging issue when scratch mixing anything with ascorbate is preventing the dreaded Fenton reaction (premature oxidation of ascorbate). You need the right iron sequestering agent, or else it will be difficult to predict shelf life.
Alternatively, D-76/ID-11 is very close to XTOL in working characteristics. XTOL is my favourite developer, and rather importantly in the history of black and white chemistry, was basically the first (and last) developer to improve on the D-76 speed-grain-sharpness balance. But the improvements are pretty small, so all things considered it is far easier to scratch mix D-76 than XTOL and get nearly/virtually the same results (same tonality, very slightly different image structure).
Thanks for sharing! Good experience to know about.A bit late reply, but here it is...
Any point in storing the affected chemistry in airtight container with oxygen displacement, assuming its the bags and not the chemistry?
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...
While I am mildly annoyed at the inconvenience, I am far more concerned about the financial impact this could have on Tetenal, Alaris and the entire reseller network.This you got with other manufacturers from this sector too, where at least the directors of division once were chemists or engineers who gathered experience inside before.
While I am mildly annoyed at the inconvenience, I am far more concerned about the financial impact this could have on Tetenal, Alaris and the entire reseller network.
You have to figure economically they cannot absorb many of these large-scale errors without it having a detrimental impact on their operations.
Not a good start to 2021!
Fotoimpex warn in their product description of the "sudden death" Fomadone Excel may show, but not so for Xtol.For anybody based in Europe and the U.K. it would appear that whatever Foma's "dark past" was in terms of its films, its chemicals which are made by them are fine. Relistan for one has confirmed his good experience with Fomadon Excel, a clone of Xtol. So there is clearly an alternative "Xtol" available outside of N. America.
I thought I was the only one still in the dark about what is wrong with the current batch of xtol. Is it correct to say that the Facebook post didn't elaborate about the 'trade concern'?Xtol( whatever that problem is?)
In a word and as far as I can see from information the answer is: No, it did not elaborate. Whatever the trade concern is we are none the wiserI thought I was the only one still in the dark about what is wrong with the current batch of xtol. Is it correct to say that the Facebook post didn't elaborate about the 'trade concern'?
So from all of this,, as an upcoming first time Xtol user I should get the Eco Pro?
Seems everything could possibly have issues, but some just seem a bit...much?
Or I could just skip it alltogether I guess, I was only going to try it out of curiosity anyhow, not a real need.
So a warning from Fotoimpex rather than Foma. Does Fotoimpex give any more details about it, such as how does it show, what is the time it can last in containers without any air etc?Fotoimpex warn in their product description of the "sudden death" Fomadone Excel may show, but not so for Xtol.
Yes, D76 is quite close and a reasonable alternative, which is very easy to mix. I didn't use hexametaphosphate for iron impurities, but for the hard water locally. In case I wanted to dilute to 1+1, it would make a difference when using tap water to do so, avoiding precipitates. For some time, I even mixed double strength, without phenidone and ascorbic acid, which I added right before use. This was doable, but a bit of a chore, so I stopped doing it. In all these cases, the Fenton reaction wasn't an issue, because the solution would be used immediately and then discarded.It can certainly be done. The point I was making in my recommendation to Paul consists of the following:
1. Since D-76 is so close to XTOL in working characteristics, it would be a suitable substitution
2. Iron/copper sequestration is important for reliability. Sodium hexametaphosphate will not do it. In addition, the risk cannot be eliminated with the use of purified water as iron impurities can come from other ingredients such as sodium sulfite
3. D-76 is far easier for the average person to scratch-mix. It is also a known formula. We assume the formula in the Kodak patent is the final XTOL formula but we can’t know for certain if small changes might have been made to the relative proportions.
Regarding use of Phenidone in place of Dimezone-S, a general rule of thumb as a starting point is to use a mol/mol substitution.
As part of my outreach to the contacts I have, I specifically requested permission to share the response. My practice is not to disclose emails unless I have that.
"Trade concern" could be something as stupid as there being packages out there with two bags of Part A and no Part B.
Who knows!
The Facebook announcement smacks of what happens when the last person in the public relations office before leaving for Christmas is asked to post something.
Grrr
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?