Kodak XTOL trade concern announcment

Auer

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Messages
928
Location
sixfourfive
Format
Hybrid
Thank you.
I'll go with Eco Pro.
 

Tom Kershaw

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
4,974
Location
Norfolk, United Kingdom
Format
Multi Format

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,042
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format

It is odd that they haven't mentioned what the problem is, I agree. Last time they said there was an Xtol underdevelopment issue (my words, I can't remember how they put it) but not this time.

It's also strange they they made the announcement on Facebook (where they have 34K followers) but haven't warned the larger Instagram community (85K followers).
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,956
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
AgX said:
Fotoimpex on Fomadon Excel:

"Longevity of working solution 4 weeks. Please do not store longer, as this developer can suddenly turn over without a discolaration (similar to Xtol). It then does not develop at all, instead of a bit less."
Click to expand...
Thanks AgX I feel that the above may have a lost something in translation or if not it puzzles me. I have difficulty believing that in a full container with no ingress of air Excel will only last 4 weeks. Kodak claims 6 months or about 26 weeks assuming calendar months if stored in full unopened bottles. From my experience of Xtol in a winebag which I am sure is not as good as full bottles with secure screw-tops then 6 months is very conservative. I cannot say that Fotoimpex is wrong as I have never used Excel but at least it would be nice to know if this is Fotoimpex's own statement and has not come from anything Foma has stated to Fotoimpex and secondly if this 4 weeks is for an unopened container of stock solution

Frankly if Fotoimpex is right about 4 weeks then unless you have a stock of exposed films ready for development or want to use it a stock solution for 120 films and dump it after one use so it only does 2 x 120 films ( 500ml per film) then yes it represents a very poor developer in longevity and a very expensive one as well

However you are right that if this translation is correct then Excel does exhibit sudden death after 4 weeks without even the indication that Xtol gives which is that of some deterioration to a pale straw colour which is this not sudden death but as I say indicates only some deterioration which may or may not be compensated for by extra development time. It is that part I have put into bold script that is the unknown for me but on some film that I will expose on shots that do not matter I will attempt to test this

pentaxuser
 

radiant

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
2,135
Location
Europe
Format
Hybrid

Adox / Lina Bessonova video had about the underdevelopment https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/comment-about-xtol-in-adox-lina-bessonova-video.179546/ - could this "trade concern" have something to do with this?

About just posting to FB: oh man I hate FB. Why information is nowadays only in some stupid web service.. Internet has become handicapped. But I guess they knew what shitstorm this will raise so no need to post it elsewhere
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
I repeatedly raised that Facebook issue. If they reach people via Facebook, that is good. But not stating such at their own website too is bad. Their website is free accesible for most people in the world, what cannot be said for Facebook. I myself not being a member at Facebook often have difficulties accessing even parts of their sites, in the past some had been completely unaccesible for non members for many days.
 

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,042
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format

I don’t have any facts about the trade concern but I won’t be surprised if it’s underdevelopment from some cause. Significant underdevelopment is the symptom that I reported and my problem came from one of the bad batches. I know that’s just one data point but still.

I hope when they come back to the office after the holiday they use every means at their disposal to warn people that are about to ruin their photographs with bad chemistry. Posting a message on Facebook is not nearly enough.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,956
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
AgX said:
I stuck to the original german text as much as possible and am sure I got it right contentwise.
Click to expand...
I fear you got the translation correct It is just that the translation makes Xtol look like a very superior product in comparison with Excel. Who would want to buy a developer that has a maximum life of only 4 weeks as a stock solution in an unopened bottle if that is what Fotoimpex means? Not me certainly. If Fotoimpex does not mean this then it need to say exactly what it does mean.
I really do have difficulty in believing that Excel has to be used or dumped after 4 weeks

The problem on Photrio is that we seem to have so few who have used it and can say how long its working life is. Arcadia4 had good experience but as one shot and hasn't mentioned if it was used in less or more than 4 weeks or if one shot was stock or diluted 1+1. Was this 135 fllm or 120? At stock and then dumped and if it is for 120 films then Excel becomes expensive but is likely to last for its alleged 4 weeks All you have to do is wait until you have exposed 2 x 120 films and at stock you can use it in one session or say 2 sessions in 2 days at most but at a cost

pentaxuser
 

removedacct1

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2014
Messages
1,875
Location
97333
Format
Large Format
jawarden said:
Significant underdevelopment is the symptom that I reported and my problem came from one of the bad batches. I know that’s just one data point but still.
Click to expand...

I had two packages of Xtol from one of those recalled batches, which I mixed up about 6 weeks ago, and used it on a few rolls the same day. They came out surprisingly thin. I checked my development time for that film and I was correct, so I concluded that it was yet another bad batch. Turns out I was correct.
Waiting to get a reply from K/A
 

petrk

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
119
Location
Prague
Format
Multi Format
I use Fomadon Excel in a replenished mode, usually more than year from an original stock. I hear exactly the same complaints about Excel as they say about xtol. sudden death for example. But these are often situations that cannot be well traced back to the real cause. Or decrease in activity. Not my experience fortunately. At least nothing unusual happened to me after about 6 years of working with Excel. I cannot support Fotoimpex's recommendation for dumping Excel after a short time. however, caution is necessary, so I test for Excel activity before each development. I just act exactly like I have an Xtol.
 

petrk

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
119
Location
Prague
Format
Multi Format
Hi Tom, I am not alone in this. I do use Excel replenished for third year now. In my experience yes, it is possible.
Edit: in my opinion, other copies of the original xtol can be used in this way too.
 
Last edited:

Arcadia4

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
319
Location
UK
Format
Multi Format
To answer @pentaxuser post above yes i use Fomadon excel in 1+1 one shot basis with 135 or 120. I tend to process on a batch basis over a couple of evenings when i ve accumulated a few films to process, so i dont keep the stock longer than a month.
 

Tom Taylor

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2005
Messages
567
Location
California
Format
Multi Format
I just finished processing for alternative printing four 8x10 Fuji Acos negatives using Kodak Xtol developer which I mixed yesterday using distilled water and all four were uniformly thin including the rebates notwithstanding that the time in the developer was 22.5 minutes. The negatives were shot with different lens on different days using a Sekonic L758-dr light meter to determine exposure. The Kodak catalogue number is 105 8338 with a manufacture date of 2019/08/09 and expiration date of 2022-08.

 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,956
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Arcadia4 said:
To answer @pentaxuser post above yes i use Fomadon excel in 1+1 one shot basis with 135 or 120. I tend to process on a batch basis over a couple of evenings when i ve accumulated a few films to process, so i dont keep the stock longer than a month.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this. So that 4 x120 and 8 x135? Thus things look brighter already in terms of Excel use. We appear to have a conversation going now on whether Excel offers a genuine alternative to Xtol and in the crucial area of its longevity. I don't think its ability in terms of its Xtol developing properties, shall we say, has ever been in doubt. Simply it was its rather alarming short shelf life as stock that was worrying

I don't think your use of it as a one shot and in less than a month can cast much light on this. Not your fault of course. However we are gathering posts that strongly suggest it (a) last much longer than 4 weeks and can be used via the replenishment route

In the Xtol paper Kodak gives instructions on an Ilford kind of replenishment. I say Ilford simply because Microphen uses just such a method which is use and pour back into the 1L of stock adding increased development as the number of films developed increase.

What Kodak say about Xtol is that 1L is capable of developing 15 films per litre of stock with no increase in time over the first 5 films then an increase of 15 percent over normal dev time from films 6-10 then finally another 15 % from films 11-15. Now this is remarkable both in terms of the number of films and relatively modest dev time increase.

While Excel may not manage this kind of economy can anyone say if they have tried this method and if so did they use the Kodak times and at what point did they decide to dump the 1L stock as becoming too risky to use for their own peace of mind?

Thanks all and to any future user who cares to contribute

pentaxuser
 

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
14,661
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
 

Craig

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
2,330
Location
Calgary
Format
Multi Format
Are the affected batches fairly new production? Those bags look nothing like then I ones I have in stock, and the catalogue number of the ones I have is 5160361.
 

runswithsizzers

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,758
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
I reported what I thought might be a development problem <here> Those results were from one of the batches of Xtol listed as having a "trade Concern"

In my case, the first roll from a fresh batch of Xtol developed normally, but a few days later a second roll was thin, with very thin rebates.
 

Adrian Bacon

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
2,086
Location
Petaluma, CA.
Format
Multi Format



As much as I like XTOL and have a huge amount of time invested in working out development times for a bunch of films for replenished XTOL, having one recall is borderline unacceptable, more than once in a reasonably rapid succession is very troublesome. Maybe it's time to start evaluating Ilford DD for use in my lab. I really don't want to have to, but, I'm just not seeing XTOL as a reliable long term thing right now. For me, it *has* to be reliable.
 

Jon Buffington

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
747
Location
Tennessee
Format
35mm
Good luck on a reply. I am awaiting well over a week for my reply to d76 issue (both batches I have bought this year are bad). All hear in my in box is crickets. Almost ordered XTOL last week with a bulk purchase from Freestyle but very glad I didn't now. Will see how there house brand d76 stuff works. Back to my NOS 25 year old bottle of hc110 until it runs out.
 

wyofilm

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2017
Messages
1,158
Location
Wyoming
Format
Multi Format
MattKing said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that you are right, which demonstrates a lack of professionalism. They are not serious.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,939
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
I think they are very serious.
I'm concerned that public relations is now coming from Sino Promise, not the former Kodak Alaris people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…