Kodak XTOL trade concern announcment

[radiant]

Well, no response to my third query. I'm not going to buy any Kodak chemicals ever. They just don't care.

I developed my first films with Foma Excel yesterday (1+1). The 1 liter mix is actually pretty convient; easy to mix in 1 liter beaker. No need for bucket mixing. Fresh developer - no need to stress about Xtol getting old. The negatives came out (surprise, surprise!) good.

The Excel "small bag" (solution "A") was different color than Xtol, quite orange which turned clear when mixed with the "big bag" (solution "B").

 

[Donald Qualls]

I just dug mine up (sent on 12/31) and did the same. We'll see what I get this time.

Well, still no response from whoever passes as Kodak this year. I can understand them being a little swamped after having not one, but three bad batches of Xtol over the course of a year -- but it's an easy task for an IT geek to set up an auto-reply to at least let the inquirer know their message has been received and, due to volume, may be subject to delayed response.

Is the Great Yellow Father in terminal care? He is a hundred and thirty or so...

 

[removedacct1]

Well, still no response from whoever passes as Kodak this year. I can understand them being a little swamped after having not one, but three bad batches of Xtol over the course of a year -- but it's an easy task for an IT geek to set up an auto-reply to at least let the inquirer know their message has been received and, due to volume, may be subject to delayed response.

Is the Great Yellow Father in terminal care? He is a hundred and thirty or so...

Hey Donald, sorry to hear you're not getting any satisfaction from Big K. I'm equally disappointed to discover a third Xtol recall in a very short timespan, and in response, I have decided I'm just going to mix my own developers. Two of my old standby options are D-76 and Divided D-23 (which I have recently rediscovered, and now I remember why I liked it so much) both of which are ridiculously easy to assemble. Most seasoned darkroom folks will tell you that the differences between Xtol and D-76 (in the hands of a knowledgeable technician) are minimal. So for me, switching back to home made D-76 & D-23 is an easy choice. Artcraft Chemicals has everything you need, and the ultimate cost-per-serving will be half (or less) what you pay Kodak for the packaged version.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

It's hard to go wrong with D-23. Really liking it at 1+3 with Pan F. I'll still give Xtol-R a chance, as so far it's giving me lovely results for HP5, and Acros.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Hey Donald, sorry to hear you're not getting any satisfaction from Big K. I'm equally disappointed to discover a third Xtol recall in a very short timespan, and in response, I have decided I'm just going to mix my own developers. Two of my old standby options are D-76 and Divided D-23 (which I have recently rediscovered, and now I remember why I liked it so much) both of which are ridiculously easy to assemble. Most seasoned darkroom folks will tell you that the differences between Xtol and D-76 (in the hands of a knowledgeable technician) are minimal. So for me, switching back to home made D-76 & D-23 is an easy choice. Artcraft Chemicals has everything you need, and the ultimate cost-per-serving will be half (or less) what you pay Kodak for the packaged version.

That's certainly an option. Replenished D-76 does give pretty similar results (very slightly less sharpness and speed, and very slightly more grain -- unnoticeable unless you're specifically looking for it, in general), and although you can't buy the replenisher any more, it's easy enough to mix, as is the developer itself (and it should be easy, also, to convert the metol to a tenth as much phenidone and get back the speed and some of the sharpness and grain difference). That's probably where I'll wind up if I decide I can't depend on Xtol. Unlike some folks, however, I don't use Xtol rapidly enough to need to buy it every few weeks, so if I can get good batches a couple times a year, I'll be fine. I just need to be sure to keep the bags for a while -- and I need Kodak (whoever that really is this week) to stand behind their product.

Oh, yes, home-mixed D-76 and D-76R will cut the cost from seventeen cents or so per roll with replenished Xtol (as low as fourteen, as I recall, once you start your second five gallons, because you don't have to mix fresh tank solution) to under a dime (maybe as little as a nickel). Both of those costs, however, are low enough to give me that warm feeling of "this is almost free" every time I measure replenisher. The down side of D-76 replenished is it's not immortal like Xtol replenished is. You need to mix fresh tank solution every time you've replenished as much as the original tank solution volume -- so in my case, a two liter tank solution and two liters of replenisher. Admittedly, that's a year or more at my rate of consumption, and it's a figure that might change with a switch to phenidone-based developer, but it puts a lower limit on the cost and an upper limit on the convenience compared to just replenishing 70 ml per roll, forever.

Hence my search thread, recently, for alternative self-replenishing developers (ideally ones I can mix myself). Mytol is a bad choice, because the iron sequestrant Kodak uses in Xtol isn't easy to get, and it's expensive in amateur quantities. The Champion product apparently isn't available in the USA -- but the existence of that product (which, as far as I've been able to determine, doesn't depend on ascorbate) suggests there may be a mix-my-own self-replenishing (hence immortal) developer formula out there, if I can find it.

 

[radiant]

No replies from Kodak yet. Three emails sent.

My xtol seller refunded the chemicals after explaining the situation! So for my part this is done. I'm not going to use Kodak Xtol anymore.

 

[Serg Lavrenchuk]

Hence my search thread, recently, for alternative self-replenishing developers (ideally ones I can mix myself). Mytol is a bad choice, because the iron sequestrant Kodak uses in Xtol isn't easy to get, and it's expensive in amateur quantities. The Champion product apparently isn't available in the USA -- but the existence of that product (which, as far as I've been able to determine, doesn't depend on ascorbate) suggests there may be a mix-my-own self-replenishing (hence immortal) developer formula out there, if I can find it.

Maybe we could find a way to be. As I understand your idea - Mytol is very fragile for iron so that tap water might kill it?
I had the same precaution from the chemist when was thinking what developer to use as a base in the lab. Copper, as I remember was even more deadly for it.
What I know from practice - a batch of Mytol running replenished 80ml/film in a 10L rebuild c41 processor for 1.5 years advice that things are not that bad

We are not using tap water for any chemistry - using home grade osmosis for it instead.

So I don't think MyTol is a bad option. I would even sign under the opposite -> it is super stable in the activity. None of the developers we tried showed that stability.
I would say that times established to give 0.58 contrast index a year ago give this exact digit every day we tested over this year (except moments when we did smth abusing bath ourselves). And it is ecological.
Maybe for home use that is not that much of the issue, but when developing all day long only MyTol gave zero smell from the machine and zero headaches at the end of the day.

We noticed that food-grade ascorbate that presents everywhere is always of the same quality giving no issues. But simple sulfite quality was an issue sometimes. So we use now only BASF in 25 bags.
I think MyTol is a good choice. Probably with some precautions.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I think MyTol is a good choice. Probably with some precautions.

Serg,

This is a useful post, with real life usage explained. I experimented with DS-2 yesterday evening, another ascorbic acid developer, referenced here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/metol-ascorbate-keeping-properties.75541/ - my initial work was one roll of Fuji Acros 120 - original production - and results look good. I used the same time as suggested for T-Max 100. Of the 1000ml made up, I completely filled a 500ml brown glass bottle and may keep this back to test for activity, perhaps in 6 months time or so.

 

[Donald Qualls]

As I understand your idea - Mytol is very fragile for iron so that tap water might kill it?
I had the same precaution from the chemist when was thinking what developer to use as a base in the lab. Copper, as I remember was even more deadly for it.

As I understand it, the issue (even with RO/DI water) is that impurities in the chemicals you use to mix Mytol are what kills it. Sodium sulfite very commonly includes some iron impurities (from my understanding), and borax might include either iron or copper, or both -- in both cases, introduced by the production process or, in borax, present in the naturally occurring form. If you're able to economically source high purity reagent grade chemicals, you might not have this problem, but most home users (like me) aren't willing to pay five or ten times as much for sodium sulfite (doing so removes most of the economy of replenishment) -- if we can even buy that grade in less than barrel quantities requiring a second mortgage.

I had been thinking that there ought to be a PQ developer otherwise equivalent to Xtol, and without ascorbate, it would be immune to iron and copper in the water or source and is self replenishing, but it might be that hydroqinone oxidation products would build up and lead to increasing contrast over time. The alternative would be to find an economically sensible and easily available iron and copper sequestrant to add to Mytol.

 

[Serg Lavrenchuk]

As I understand it, the issue (even with RO/DI water) is that impurities in the chemicals you use to mix Mytol are what kills it. Sodium sulfite very commonly includes some iron impurities (from my understanding), and borax might include either iron or copper, or both -- in both cases, introduced by the production process or, in borax, present in the naturally occurring form.

Thanks. Now I see the idea. Maybe we were lucky to keep up from the first try due to some available chemicals around and maybe enough replenishment.

We had only 3 problems that might have the course chemicals impurities or iron/copper poisoning. 1/3 case -> we washed machine tanks and put the developer back in.
Sensitometer checks showed big underdevelopment. We had to replenish about 1/3 of a tank with a fresh mix to raise activity bach to the norm. We never were able to track the source of this accident.
I think that either some tap water left in the piping or some cleaning chemistry.

The 2/3 case was due to tech quality sulfite. As soon as we switched to pure we got a boost in activity and had to retest and increase all film times.
Case 3/3 was at the very beginning when we decided to "season" tank solution with NaCl and KBr. Was long looking for NaCl without Iodine.
But as our seasoning leveled activity to the floor I think they lied on the salt. It was iodinated. Maybe by law, they are not obliged to write about that on the package.

If you're able to economically source high purity reagent grade chemicals, you might not have this problem, but most home users (like me) aren't willing to pay five or ten times as much for sodium sulfite (doing so removes most of the economy of replenishment) -- if we can even buy that grade in less than barrel quantities requiring a second mortgage.

I see the idea. Not everybody needs sulfite in 40kg or 25kg bags. But the price for first (let's say 97% quality) was 20usd and pure bag is about 40usd.
Also living on the empire debris gives the possibility to buy old soviet photo-chemistry for nothing at the second-hand market.

I had been thinking that there ought to be a PQ developer otherwise equivalent to Xtol, and without ascorbate, it would be immune to iron and copper in the water or source and is self-replenishing, but it might be that hydroquinone oxidation products would build up and lead to increasing contrast over time. The alternative would be to find an economically sensible and easily available iron and copper sequestrant to add to Mytol.

We just finished the next testing (right now draining the tank) for another possible inexpensive all-around developer. This time Ilfotec HC at 1+15 and 1+31 to use in a machine.
If I am right that is PQ type => In 2-3 weeks some chemicals reactions start in the tank and you can't keep more than 15 min close to the machine (and that is with 20C chemistry).

UPDATE: Sorry, smell was not HC but from tanks from PhotoFlo.

I forgot to add to the bad side of MyTol -> seasoned you have a loss in speed at least half stop and more. Not everybody would agree to leave with that.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Right, I missed the bit about getting high purity sulfite. High replenishment won't help if your feedstock chemicals have iron or copper contamination; your stock/replenisher will die in storage before it gets used. Still, if I can get high purity iron- and copper-free photo grade sulfite for only twice the price of technical, it's worth it. Having to buy 25 kg or more is the other side -- currently, I have a 4.5 kg bag (intended for use making D-72 and Parodinal, both of which work fine with tech grade) that cost me $35 plus shipping.

Ilfotec HC won't do what I'm aiming at -- which is self-replenish. If I want a separate, differently formulated replenisher and don't mind having to start fresh tank solution every time my replenishment volume matches that of the tank solution, I'll mix my own D-76 and D-76R, or look up a phenidone based version of those.

I haven't seen any speed loss with Xtol replenished so far (but I've only used a bit more than a liter of replenisher in 2L of tank solution). Then again, I might not notice a half stop; I don't do sensitometry or run control strips. I'm just happy to get good, printable/scannable negatives with minimum hassle and cost.

 

[Helge]

No replies from Kodak yet. Three emails sent.

My xtol seller refunded the chemicals after explaining the situation! So for my part this is done. I'm not going to use Kodak Xtol anymore.

Why?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

No replies from Kodak yet. Three emails sent.

My xtol seller refunded the chemicals after explaining the situation! So for my part this is done. I'm not going to use Kodak Xtol anymore.

What did your seller say about the situation?

 

[radiant]

What did your seller say about the situation?

They understood situation really well and told that they cannot replace the chemicals until March. I informed that I don't want replacement and would prefer refund and they agreed to that.

 

[wyofilm]

I'm going to be pilloried for this, but here it goes ...

For the life of me I cannot figure out why Sino Promise will continue with B&W chemicals. For them it is a sliver of a sliver of the Kodak B&W film ecosystem. EK makes the film, sells it to KA, who hopefully makes a pound or two for their troubles. Then in some bizarre arrangement Sino Promise will make (and market) maybe a dozen B&W products related to B&W film development. Couple this with the fact that the three headed psuedo Kodak arrangement doesn't even go beyond film the way Ilford, Adox, and Foma, do. There is no B&W paper and chemicals business.

What Sino Promise wants to (if I understand it correctly), is to grow their dominance in the silver based color printing industry. So ... color RA-4 paper and chemicals will be readily available. As a hint: look to the fact that KA/Sino Promise hasn't cut rolls into sheets for quite some time.

What about C-41? Here again, I can't see Sino Promise getting too excited about supporting a sliver of a sliver of the color film consumer market. There are some commercial labs who need to buy C-41 chemistry, but is it enough to for Sino Promise to remain engaged in this market?

In short, I personally won't be hitching my wagon to Sino Promise for long term support of B&W chemistry (and perhaps C-41 chemistry). It just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. Your outlook might be vastly different.

 

[pentaxuser]

wyofilm, can I ask you for the reasons why you think Sinopromise bothered to get involved then?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm going to be pilloried for this, but here it goes ...

For the life of me I cannot figure out why Sino Promise will continue with B&W chemicals. For them it is a sliver of a sliver of the Kodak B&W film ecosystem. EK makes the film, sells it to KA, who hopefully makes a pound or two for their troubles. Then in some bizarre arrangement Sino Promise will make (and market) maybe a dozen B&W products related to B&W film development. Couple this with the fact that the three headed psuedo Kodak arrangement doesn't even go beyond film the way Ilford, Adox, and Foma, do. There is no B&W paper and chemicals business.

What Sino Promise wants to (if I understand it correctly), is to grow their dominance in the silver based color printing industry. So ... color RA-4 paper and chemicals will be readily available. As a hint: look to the fact that KA/Sino Promise hasn't cut rolls into sheets for quite some time.

What about C-41? Here again, I can't see Sino Promise getting too excited about supporting a sliver of a sliver of the color film consumer market. There are some commercial labs who need to buy C-41 chemistry, but is it enough to for Sino Promise to remain engaged in this market?

In short, I personally won't be hitching my wagon to Sino Promise for long term support of B&W chemistry (and perhaps C-41 chemistry). It just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. Your outlook might be vastly different.

Why would a company invest in a product just to bring it down and destroy it? It does not make sense.

 

[wyofilm]

wyofilm, can I ask you for the reasons why you think Sinopromise bothered to get involved then?

Thanks

pentaxuser

It was a package deal of the chem division of KA and the color paper of KA. Sino was already making the paper, I believe. Now they have control over RA-4 chem and the paper to go with it. It appears they also market the machines, too. There is a big market for c-print. A much smaller market for B&W chems. Also, what do they do to market B&W film chemistry? Here buy these chems to support the film sold by a different company. Just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[wyofilm]

Why would a company invest in a product just to bring it down and destroy it? It does not make sense.

Makes sense if you take on two things in negotiation, but only want to keep one thing down the road.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I'm going to be pilloried for this, but here it goes ...

For the life of me I cannot figure out why Sino Promise will continue with B&W chemicals. For them it is a sliver of a sliver of the Kodak B&W film ecosystem. EK makes the film, sells it to KA, who hopefully makes a pound or two for their troubles. Then in some bizarre arrangement Sino Promise will make (and market) maybe a dozen B&W products related to B&W film development. Couple this with the fact that the three headed psuedo Kodak arrangement doesn't even go beyond film the way Ilford, Adox, and Foma, do. There is no B&W paper and chemicals business.

What Sino Promise wants to (if I understand it correctly), is to grow their dominance in the silver based color printing industry. So ... color RA-4 paper and chemicals will be readily available. As a hint: look to the fact that KA/Sino Promise hasn't cut rolls into sheets for quite some time.

What about C-41? Here again, I can't see Sino Promise getting too excited about supporting a sliver of a sliver of the color film consumer market. There are some commercial labs who need to buy C-41 chemistry, but is it enough to for Sino Promise to remain engaged in this market?

In short, I personally won't be hitching my wagon to Sino Promise for long term support of B&W chemistry (and perhaps C-41 chemistry). It just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. Your outlook might be vastly different.

I doubt that they would leave C-41 chemistry to just Fuji, especially given that it's Kodak's invention. Besides, they know about how much chemistry they have to produce based on how much c-41 film is made, as that needs to be processed after all. I doubt that they'll leave the market as that would force all the flexicolor labs to migrate to other where? That'd effectively kill C-41.

My biggest concern is that Flexicolor does not experience the same quality problems as the BW chemistry has been having.

 

[cpubrp]

I'm going to be pilloried for this, but here it goes ...

For the life of me I cannot figure out why Sino Promise will continue with B&W chemicals. For them it is a sliver of a sliver of the Kodak B&W film ecosystem. EK makes the film, sells it to KA, who hopefully makes a pound or two for their troubles. Then in some bizarre arrangement Sino Promise will make (and market) maybe a dozen B&W products related to B&W film development. Couple this with the fact that the three headed psuedo Kodak arrangement doesn't even go beyond film the way Ilford, Adox, and Foma, do. There is no B&W paper and chemicals business.

What Sino Promise wants to (if I understand it correctly), is to grow their dominance in the silver based color printing industry. So ... color RA-4 paper and chemicals will be readily available. As a hint: look to the fact that KA/Sino Promise hasn't cut rolls into sheets for quite some time.

What about C-41? Here again, I can't see Sino Promise getting too excited about supporting a sliver of a sliver of the color film consumer market. There are some commercial labs who need to buy C-41 chemistry, but is it enough to for Sino Promise to remain engaged in this market?

In short, I personally won't be hitching my wagon to Sino Promise for long term support of B&W chemistry (and perhaps C-41 chemistry). It just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. Your outlook might be vastly different.

Very frustrating I know. That's why I'm thinking of switching all my B/W film and chemisty between Ilford and FOMA. Kodak has done crazy things like this for years. It never made sense to me (business or otherwise) why they discontinued B/W paper manufacturing but continued to produce the chemistry. I remember years ago (1980s) they invented the EKTAFLEX color printing system. I purchased the system shortly after it was introduced. The prints were more expensive to produce than traditional "C" prints, but you made it up in the time saved to produce a commercially accepted print. It only required a single solution. It was a transfer system similiar to way you would peel a professional 4x5 Polaroid, only larger (8x10). I think that lasted about 2 years before Kodak decided not to support the system anymore. They stopped producing the chemical, film and paper used as the transfer medium. I was left with a worthless large plastic processor with rollers. I guess I could have used the roller part to wring out wet T-shirts!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Very frustrating I know. That's why I'm thinking of switching all my B/W film and chemisty between Ilford and FOMA. Kodak has done crazy things like this for years. It never made sense to me (business or otherwise) why they discontinued B/W paper manufacturing but continued to produce the chemistry.

Kodak discontinued black & white papers because they were loosing money. It was a business decision. It was not aimed at anyone in particular, despite the anti-Kodak crowds claims, it was not personal.

 

[mshchem]

I will see what Sino Promise can deliver. I think the market for black and white chemistry in China, is enough to justify continuing to make Kodak branded products.

 

[wyofilm]

Kodak discontinued black & white papers because they were loosing money. It was a business decision. It was not aimed at anyone in particular, despite the anti-Kodak crowds claims, it was not personal.

To strip away sectors of a compete commercial ecosystem makes it harder in the future to market your remaining products. For example, when eliminating paper, Kodak basically says,"Yes, use our films, but use Ilford (or whatever brand you like) paper. BUT, when you are looking at their catalog of products please, please, pretty please don't try one of their films." In the great upheaval, everyone was loosing money, I believe.

KA, is presently in a far worse position with regard to film. Ultimately, EK and Sino call all the shots on what KA can market. For example, I heard Andy Church say KA wants two new film products on the market ... maybe ... possibly. Great. I believe that EK has the ability to make any reasonable film for a price. Let's pick something like 800 ISO C41 film as something new for KA. KA tells EK that we have a great idea for this new product, what do you think? Great says EK, it will cost you this much and given our manufacturing schedule we can make this much and delivery it on this date. Hmmmm, says KA, can you come down a price just a bit? When EK says no, what KA doesn't understand is that Lomography is also negotiating with EK for making 800 iso C41 film.

Now comes the rub: Lomography could market sand to Bedouins, while (from observation) KA couldn't market free bags of money. The ONLY thing that KA has going for them regarding film is that they have the most wonderful lineup of films to sell. In reality, it is outfits like Lomography that market Kodak products for KA (and other film manufacturers benefit from Lomo-marketing.) In fact, every CEO of film manufacturer - and KA - should every morning at the start of the day send a thank you note to Lomography with as much cash as possible shoved into the envelope.

 

[wyofilm]

I doubt that they would leave C-41 chemistry to just Fuji, especially given that it's Kodak's invention. Besides, they know about how much chemistry they have to produce based on how much c-41 film is made, as that needs to be processed after all.

I hedged my argument on C41. However, the part that either I am missing or that you are is that there is no Kodak. Kodak is EK, KA, and Sino (?). What does Sino care about EK, when they have the entire/most of c-print market, and NONE of the film market.