Kodak XTOL trade concern announcment

[Donald Qualls]

Thanks, @Michael Teresko , that's a much more useful answer than the last one I got. So it seems like you made no special effort to obtain high purity chemicals? I guess that means I have to mix up a liter or two of Mytol and store it for a few months, then test it against my ongoing Xtol replenished stock.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

I can’t comment on the marketing by Freestyle or others. To be perfectly honest I doubt there is much rhyme or reason to it.

The chemistry of why an XTOL-like developer self-replenishes, however, is relatively straight forward.

The precise/exact proportions in the commercial XTOL formula are not known (and have changed a little over time in any case). In fact at various times the alkali/buffer has been swapped between metaborate and borax, for example. I was worried enough at the time to seek out Dick Dickerson for discussion.

But we don’t necessarily need the precise formula. We know what’s in it, proportions to a pretty close approximation, and how it works. I can’t comment on all the clones out there but the Freestyle product appears to be basically the same, although I don’t know what metal sequestering compound they are using. That’s another issue.

A high sulfite, weakly alkaline, buffered, properly balanced Phenidone-ascorbate developer should self replenish.

I’m not forcing anyone to do this, obviously.

Edit: typo

I tend to agree with the above quote 'A high sulfite, weakly alkaline, buffered, properly balanced Phenidone-ascorbate developer should self replenish'.

As far as our ADOX XT-3 is concerned we completely removed the borates and replaced them by a custom synthesis buffer which is 100% eco (non toxic, biodegradable, non cancerougenous like borates). Our new buffer is superior to the old borates so fingers crossed the self replenishement will be possible but we lack long term tests at this moment as we did not have this on our radar of tasks. The price for this buffer along with the price increases for photo grade Isoascorbat are the reason why we had to increase prices slightly. The historic changes in the buffer were most likely manouvers to react to REACH and CORAP here in the EU. The boric acid was banned in about 2012 iirr and then metaborate was cut to a very low percentage. My guess is that competitors went from boric acid to metaborate and then down in metaborate to comply.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

At least in the UK boric acid appears to be easily available: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/PURE-BOR...495309?hash=item1f14b6918d:g:NWwAAOSwkf1fM8qB

 

[Tom Kershaw]

That’s interesting information - I wonder why isoascorbate has increased in price. An unfortunate extra complication for you to have to deal with.

For my own attempts I've simply used food grade vitamin C powder which seems to work well.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

At least in the UK boric acid appears to be easily available: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/PURE-BOR...495309?hash=item1f14b6918d:g:NWwAAOSwkf1fM8qB

Availability is not the problem. We can easily buy any borates but we may not mix them into a product for resale to consumers anymore.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I tend to agree with the above quote 'A high sulfite, weakly alkaline, buffered, properly balanced Phenidone-ascorbate developer should self replenish'.

As far as our ADOX XT-3 is concerned we completely removed the borates and replaced them by a custom synthesis buffer which is 100% eco (non toxic, biodegradable, non cancerougenous like borates). Our new buffer is superior to the old borates so fingers crossed the self replenishement will be possible but we lack long term tests at this moment as we did not have this on our radar of tasks. The price for this buffer along with the price increases for photo grade Isoascorbat are the reason why we had to increase prices slightly. The historic changes in the buffer were most likely manouvers to react to REACH and CORAP here in the EU. The boric acid was banned in about 2012 iirr and then metaborate was cut to a very low percentage. My guess is that competitors went from boric acid to metaborate and then down in metaborate to comply.

Where in Canada is ADOX XT-3 available?

 

[pentaxuser]

Availability is not the problem. We can easily buy any borates but we may not mix them into a product for resale to consumers anymore.

Is that in case they drink it? On a more serious note do you know why you cannot do this. Is Borate harmless on its own but not when combined to make a product?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Availability is not the problem. We can easily buy any borates but we may not mix them into a product for resale to consumers anymore.

Understood. It is interesting to find out what challenges you face bringing products to market as a small manufacturer.

 

[radiant]

Understood. It is interesting to find out what challenges you face bringing products to market as a small manufacturer.

I believe same chemical restrictions apply to all companies, small or big.

 

[Henning Serger]

As the introduction of the new ADOX XT-III developer is "on the way" I want to share my test results with this new developer.
ADOX had asked me to do very detailed tests to find possible weaknesses. They wanted a kind of very critical "double-check" before market introduction. My benchmark was original XTOL before the here discussed problems occured.
So here are my test results:

1. Sharpness, resolution, fineness of grain and sensitivity / speed are on the same (very good) level of original XTOL. No visible differences here.
2. I could generate fine characteristic curves the same way as with original XTOL. Again no visible differences here.
3. The dissolubility of the XT-III powder is much, much better compared to XTOL. That is a very nice surprise, as you can dissolve the XT-III powder very fast in 20°C water.
4. The ADOX powder packaging is very good, and you can get all powder out easily without having any significant rests left in it.
5. As I already know from former tests of other ADOX developers and fixers with CAPTURA dust binding technology, this innovative technology works really very well. So dust isn't a problem anymore at all.

So my final test result:
ADOX XT-III offers in most parameters the same very high quality for which XTOL has is excellent reputation for.
But in some parameters XT-III even surpasses XTOL significantly. Especially the handling is much better and more user friendly.
And if you consider that XT-III is even more eco-friendly because of the new buffer system, and that it is also available in both 1L and 5L packagings, we have now an overall significantly better product.
I am very satisfied.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Auer]

Thanks @Henning Serger for sharing, sounds great

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

we have now an overall significantly better product. I am very satisfied.

Great news! Is the Adox formulation functionally equivalent to the original XTol at the usual dilutions? And can it be used replenished?

 

[warden]

As the introduction of the new ADOX XT-III developer is "on the way" I want to share my test results with this new developer.
ADOX had asked me to do very detailed tests to find possible weaknesses. They wanted a kind of very critical "double-check" before market introduction. My benchmark was original XTOL before the here discussed problems occured.
So here are my test results:

1. Sharpness, resolution, fineness of grain and sensitivity / speed are on the same (very good) level of original XTOL. No visible differences here.
2. I could generate fine characteristic curves the same way as with original XTOL. Again no visible differences here.
3. The dissolubility of the XT-III powder is much, much better compared to XTOL. That is a very nice surprise, as you can dissolve the XT-III powder very fast in 20°C water.
4. The ADOX powder packaging is very good, and you can get all powder out easily without having any significant rests left in it.
5. As I already know from former tests of other ADOX developers and fixers with CAPTURA dust binding technology, this innovative technology works really very well. So dust isn't a problem anymore at all.

So my final test result:
ADOX XT-III offers in most parameters the same very high quality for which XTOL has is excellent reputation for.
But in some parameters XT-III even surpasses XTOL significantly. Especially the handling is much better and more user friendly.
And if you consider that XT-III is even more eco-friendly because of the new buffer system, and that it is also available in both 1L and 5L packagings, we have now an overall significantly better product.
I am very satisfied.

Best regards,
Henning

Excellent. As a long time Xtol user I'm happy to read this.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hopefully the price will be comparable to XTOL.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

Is that in case they drink it? On a more serious note do you know why you cannot do this. Is Borate harmless on its own but not when combined to make a product?

Thanks

pentaxuser

No, in a mixture their potential hazards do not increase, they decrease (in most cases).
As a professional chemical manufacturer you can buy all kinds of things that the end consumer cannot. But this is unimportant for us because we want to make first of all a safe and stable product and then we need it to comply with all rules and regulations otherwise the challenges in distribution will be prohibitive.
Borates are subject to an ongoing CORAP investigation by the EU. This does not mean that the current threshold of 5% for tetraborate will fall but we found out that it actually does not buffer well in this concentration anymore so we started an investigation for a substitute in 2015 already.
We will replace borates in all ADOX powder products in the coming months mainly because our new buffer is superior and less because we think they are really as dangerous as they are discussed to potentially be. In any event it is not up to us to alter this regulation and being in comply is always good.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

Hopefully the price will be comparable to XTOL.

The product is already on offer @ Fotoimpex. We expect a new XTOL not to be available at the old price anymore so we expect our product to be competitive.

 

[radiant]

@ADOX Fotoimpex do you happen to know the reason for recall of Xtol? Thin negatives? White particles?

 

[toyoboyo]

Has anyone reached out to kodakpaperchem@pro.sinopromise.com ? I got this email from FreestylePhoto when asking about the XTol issues

 

[urnem57]

Has anyone reached out to kodakpaperchem@pro.sinopromise.com ? I got this email from FreestylePhoto when asking about the XTol issues

Quite a few of us on here did back in January. We were promised replacement product mid-February. Since then there has only been silence. I have written them off, but not completely. Yet.

Moving on, any idea when Freestyle will have the new Adox Developer in stock?

 

[pentaxuser]

No, in a mixture their potential hazards do not increase, they decrease (in most cases).
As a professional chemical manufacturer you can buy all kinds of things that the end consumer cannot. But this is unimportant for us because we want to make first of all a safe and stable product and then we need it to comply with all rules and regulations otherwise the challenges in distribution will be prohibitive.
.

Thanks for the comprehensive reply. I probably belong to that generation where we were expected to use what was called common sense with chemicals and it does concern me that often new regulations are imposed by faceless committees that are never required to explain or justify their decisions None of this is ADOX's fault of course and it certainly sounds as it what you have made is a real rival to Xtol for which you have a ready-made market of people who are getting tired of the Xtol problem and KA /Sinopromise's handling of it

pentaxuser

 

[radiant]

Quite a few of us on here did back in January. We were promised replacement product mid-February. Since then there has only been silence. I have written them off, but not completely. Yet.

I believe everyone was sending email to ProPaperChem@kodakalaris.com instead of kodakpaperchem@pro.sinopromise.com ?

Some got response from the first email, but many didn't get a single response. I emailed three times.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

@ADOX Fotoimpex do you happen to know the reason for recall of Xtol? Thin negatives? White particles?

It is not upon us to speculate but if negatives are to thin @ correct devtime, agitation and temperature you either have a pH issue or general reduction potential problem, which in most cases is an oxidisation problem or a collapsed superadditive reduction system. We improved certain things in XT-III Developer over some competitors products out there. They were costly but we think it´s worth it. The price per film for a developer is to low to be frugal here.

 

[Henning Serger]

Great news! Is the Adox formulation functionally equivalent to the original XTol at the usual dilutions?

Yes it is. It can be used the same way as original XTOL both as stock solution and the usual dilutions.

And can it be used replenished?

I have not tested that, because:
1) My test work has been so extensive with several different film types, with stock and diluted, evaluation of all the characteristic curves, and all the very extensive detail rendition tests, including the comparison to XTOL and other developers.That has been really a hell lot of work! Most of you here are completely underestimating the amount of work that is needed for such test projects.
2) Personally I've never been a fan of using stock solution, as most powder developers - including XTOL - have their "sweet spot" concerning overall quality when used diluted.

But from my current knowledge I don't see a reason why replenishing should not work.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

The product is already on offer @ Fotoimpex. We expect a new XTOL not to be available at the old price anymore so we expect our product to be competitive.

Thanks but want to buy from Canadian vendor.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Yes it is. It can be used the same way as original XTOL both as stock solution and the usual dilutions.

But from my current knowledge I don't see a reason why replenishing should not work.

Thanks Henning! Always appreciative of the expert knowledge that you provide us here time and again.