New Dektol looks like root beer

Tom Kershaw said:

I've used lots of paper developers but never Bromophen for some reason. Dektol in D-72 guise was one of the most neutral to cold developers in tests I made several years ago, I had understood Bromophen tended slightly warmer?

Click to expand...

I don't use it for the same reason. I strive toward colder tones. I think I tried Bromophen once and found that the more prints I developed, the warmer the tones became, but that was at least 20 years ago and I could be confusing it with a liquid paper developer that I tried around the same time. In any case, I've never used anything except Dektol since then. In fact, I haven't even considered a PQ substitute for Dektol, but that's based more a gut feeling than a scientific conclusion.

Dave Krueger said:

I never thought to check on ebay, but they have a ton of various canned Kodak chemicals. Nonetheless, I plan to stick with mixing my own for now. I'm intrigued by some of the formula variations I've seen, so I may experiment with those a bit, too.

Click to expand...

At one time it was convenient for me to do the same thing, I made D-23 for film and the Dr. Beers 2 bath paper developer before PF started selling it. Now a days, besides Dektol, I find the 5 Liter Ilford Multigrade liquid developer works well with the Ilford MG papers and in concentrate, lasts a long time.

Tom Kershaw said:

I've used lots of paper developers but never Bromophen for some reason. Dektol in D-72 guise was one of the most neutral to cold developers in tests I made several years ago, I had understood Bromophen tended slightly warmer?

Click to expand...

I suspect that's true. I used nothing but Dektol for years, it works great. I really like the prints I get with Bromophen. Lasts well, I make up 5 liters, then split into full Nalgene 250mL bottles. I dilute 1:3 use one session and toss. If I'm using larger quantities I save the working solution it keeps well.
With a real warm tone paper like Fomatone Bromophen really works great. I get neutral tones working with Ilford MG Classic.

Alan Ross shared an update he got from Alaris. The brown color is due to an impurity that is not photo-reactive, there is no impact on performance. So you can use the brown Dektol.

ID-62 is supposed to be similar to Bromophen. The formula has both potassium bromide and benzotriazole, the BTZ being there to cool the image tone to neutral. I like the image tone with the standard formula, but one can change the ration of bromide to BTZ to adjust image tone if desired. Adding BTZ to Bromophen will cool it a bit, adding bromide warms it up. The changes are very, very slight since modern neutral-tone papers don't react that much to developer changes.

Extra carbonate in your D-72 will just make it a bit more active, so no worries. I'll often spike up my developer with a bit of carbonate when using graded papers to eke out a bit more contrast.

Best,

Doremus

Bill Burk said:

Alan Ross shared an update he got from Alaris. The brown color is due to an impurity that is not photo-reactive, there is no impact on performance. So you can use the brown Dektol.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Bill. Matt King posted a link to that in post #7 in this thread. Personally, I thought it was just too ugly to use, so I threw it out and mixed up some D-72.

Doremus Scudder said:

ID-62 is supposed to be similar to Bromophen. The formula has both potassium bromide and benzotriazole, the BTZ being there to cool the image tone to neutral. I like the image tone with the standard formula, but one can change the ration of bromide to BTZ to adjust image tone if desired. Adding BTZ to Bromophen will cool it a bit, adding bromide warms it up. The changes are very, very slight since modern neutral-tone papers don't react that much to developer changes.

Extra carbonate in your D-72 will just make it a bit more active, so no worries. I'll often spike up my developer with a bit of carbonate when using graded papers to eke out a bit more contrast.

Best,

Doremus

Click to expand...

Thanks, Doremus. That's good to know and it explains why I didn't see any apparent ill effects from the extra carbonate.

I've been thinking of experimenting with BTZ especially in MQ formulas, but I have the ID-62 formula in my notes, so I may try that as well. I've found other threads on cold tone developers, but the general consensus seems to be that developers have limited power to generate cold tones in modern chlorobromide papers. As it stands now, I selenium tone (1:20) every print I make nowadays just to get that improvement in Dmax and slight tonal change (eliminating the vague greenish hue which is apparently a characteristic of MQ developers).

Also, I'm intrigued by formulas such as E-72 that substitute ascorbic acid for hydroquinone. I may try that just to see if it delivers the same Dmax, tonal characteristics, and whether it has the same capacity and shelf life after it's mixed up.

Obviously, being retired I have way too much time on my hands...

It looks like Adorama now has Dektol in stock. Has anyone tried it to see if the contamination problem has been solved and whether they have reverted back to the foil packaging?

Dave, how difficult did the dark colour make it to see how the print was developing in a tray?

Thanks

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Dave, how difficult did the dark colour make it to see how the print was developing in a tray?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

It looked so bad, I just threw away both packages of Dektol without using it. I've been mixing up D72 instead which has been working fine. I put my prints in the developer face down for a fixed development period, so the dark color wouldn't have interfered with my process. I wasn't about to dip my prints in that ugly stuff no matter what assurances I was given. Not to save $20.

Thanks Dave. I had never given the colour of paper developer much thought in the past as I develop in a Nova slot where you see nothing anyway but I had just assumed that most of not all developers were clear or nearly so because tray users ( in the old days that was all there was) like to see their prints developing

pentaxuser

I've got Dektol stock solution (that was mixed with half the called out amount of water, in 2005) that's still more like strong tea than Coca-Cola. Dilute to tray strength (1+1 to make standard stock, then 1+2 or 1+3) and it's barely visible under safelight as not clear. Works fine (in fact, I developed some film in it, at 1+1+9, a few weeks ago). The negatives weren't perfect, but as far as I can see that was due to being left in the plate holders for thirteen-plus years and the slow pour I was able to give at the time, not a problem with the developer. I need to test again with known good film, just to see...

Donald,

Thanks for the reply.

This particular issue relates to a production problem with recent (since August 2019) batches of Dektol turning very dark brown immediately when aded to water. Kodak Alaris acknowledged the issue, promising to resolve the problem Soon thereafter, Dektol became backordered on B&H and Adorama and has only now become available again on Adorama. Presumably, newly distributed product will have had the problem corrected. I'm just curious if that really is the case.

On a related note, the formulas for HC-110 and TMax film developers have also recently changed, not to mention that Kodak Alaris posted a notice on their Twitter account that there have been reports of problems with Xtol. This is probably a good time to use caution when using recently purchased Kodak consumer photo chemicals on anything important.

Fortunately, the Xtol I just mixed a couple weeks ago was expired 2002, and I'll likely switch to Mytol when I use it up (especially if early testing shows Mytol replenishes itself like Xtol does).

My point, however, was that Dektol (and many other developers) can work fine even when quite dark with oxidation products. One famous example is old Agfa Rodinal. Sure, many may not trust the stuff when it doesn't behave the way they're used to, and that's reasonable.

Donald Qualls said:

...
My point, however, was that Dektol (and many other developers) can work fine even when quite dark with oxidation products. One famous example is old Agfa Rodinal. Sure, many may not trust the stuff when it doesn't behave the way they're used to, and that's reasonable.

Click to expand...

I don't dispute that the bad Dektol might work. I just prefer not to work with products that are characterized by terms such as "might work" or "might not work". The fact that Kodak Alaris actually allowed multiple batches of a product so obviously defective to ship under its name doesn't inspire trust.

I am no chemist, so I have no clue if the dark color is due to oxidation products, but heavy oxidation is not something I consider acceptable in freshly mixed photo chemicals. Even if I were buying Rodinal or HC-110, I would not consider it acceptable if it were already coffee colored the day it arrived. I also don't accept the notion that I should have to test new chemicals to find out if they're defective prior to using them, which is why I won't be using recently purchased packages of Dektol or Xtol, nor will I be buying any TMax or HC-110 any time soon.

The day I have more faith in chemicals I mix myself than pre-mixed chemicals is the day I stop buying premixed chemicals. Fortunately, there are other photo chemical suppliers that have a proven track record similar to what Kodak enjoyed prior to these recent issues with Kodak Alaris. Unfortunately, none of them make Dektol.

The day I have more faith in home mixed than commercial passed years ago. I use commercially packaged chemistry because it's convenient, if it doesn't cost too much.

B&H has had Kodak (2019 version) fixer and Dektol on back order for about 2 months and yesterday I was notified that fixer is now available. But given the Dektol problem, I will switch to Legacy Pro powder chemicals available at Freestyle. I used their version of D76 and fixer once in the past and they were fine, and a little less expensive as well. If Kodak can no longer make basic chemicals that they've made for a long time, it's obvious they are not really making them and don't care about making good products. All part of the decline.

Donald Qualls said:

The day I have more faith in home mixed than commercial passed years ago. I use commercially packaged chemistry because it's convenient, if it doesn't cost too much.

Click to expand...

I've been a Kodak customer since the mid 1960s (Panatomix-X, Microdol, Tri-X...) Mixing developers sure isn't convenient, but these days I prefer it to taking risks with Kodak. It will also be a while before I venture to get more Kodak 120 roll film, given the backing paper debacle, and the fact that in this part of the world, stock can often be a bit old on the shelf.
I still use Kodak Flexicolor Fixer though.

I use Xtol but it is the one remaining Kodak product that I do use as I have some "old" stock. Given the potential quality problems of chemicals and the very substantial increase in price of Kodak films in the U.K. I am frankly surprised that more people are not turning their attention to Ilford in terms of both film and chemicals or perhaps they are. When problem seems to follow problem and simultaneously prices go up the danger is that even Kodak loyalists might desert the Kodak ship and what is worse for Kodak is that few if any of the new film users belong to that group on whom Kodak can rely simply because of a residual loyalty in "things American"

pentaxuser

The products I've always trusted are labeled, "Kodak". The products that seem to be plagued with problems lately are labelled "Kodak Alaris". Assuming Kodak has passed it's consumer analog photo business off to an independent company, then the product quality we're used to could be history. I have been under the impression for years that Kodak would eventually shed the remainder of it's consumer analog photography business. I would be much more worried if Ilford started faltering.

Kodak Alaris is the company formed by the Kodak UK pension plan when Eastman Kodak went bankrupt in 2012. That pension plan had one of if not the largest secured claims against the assets of Eastman Kodak at the time of bankruptcy. As a part of the bankruptcy settlement, the Kodak UK pension plan received the colour paper manufacturing business and assets from Eastman Kodak, along with a number of other assets, including the exclusive worldwide marketing rights for Kodak still film, Kodak photochemistry and a number of other photo and non-photo business assets.
By 2012, Eastman Kodak was no longer manufacturing their own photo chemistry - much of it had been contracted out to Tetenal in Germany.
Eastman Kodak continues to manufacture all Kodak film. They market the motion picture films, while Kodak Alaris markets the still film that they order from their manufacturer, Eastman Kodak.
Most of the Kodak Alaris employees are former Eastman Kodak employees - primarily the employees who had been involved in distribution and marketing. Kodak Alaris sold their vastly over-sized colour paper manufacturing plant at Harrow a couple of years after the bankruptcy and now contract with a couple of other sources for that manufacturing - primarily the Carestream plant in Colorado (which itself was initially a result of an Eastman Kodak divestiture to an employee group).
Last year, Tetenal (Kodak Alaris' major supplier of photo chemistry) went into a version of receivership, and stopped production. While it looked for a time like Tetenal would disappear, Tetenal has gone through some major changes, and is now manufacturing some products again. Kodak Alaris continues to have Tetenal manufacture some things for them, in some cases with revised packaging. Other photo chemicals are manufactured for them in the US and in China (colour chemistry).
What you are seeing is the results of massive reductions in scale throughout the industry, which forced Eastman Kodak to divest all of their chemical manufacturing capacity, plus one bankruptcy and one receivership.
As a result of all the changes they've been exposed to, Kodak Alaris has had to make some changes in product and, not surprisingly, they've run into some unexpected problems with things like packaging and supplier inconsistencies. In addition, in these last several months, Covid 19 has resulted in massive supply disruptions. They've been responsive to problems, but they aren't big enough to bring about solutions immediately.
Kodak chemicals still exist. So many more no longer do so.
Even Ilford chemicals nearly disappeared - they appear to all be manufactured by Tetenal.
It is a tiny market now. With the hugely diminished size and resources of those suppliers who remain, I don't think we can expect to see the benefits of what used to be huge parties with massive resources.

And most recently, the headlines are saying that a portion of the Kodak Alaris manufacturing business has been sold to a Chinese holding company. Not really confirmed yet, hopefully good news as at least one article spins it...

A number of years ago I bought a bunch of old foil packed Dektol from a high school darkroom that was closing. It did the root beer thing but was otherwise fine, I still have some left. The main thing I did not like about that was that the whole “watching the image appear in the tray is like magic” aspect was gone.

Fast forward to today. I have a bunch of pre-re packaging Dektol and while I am set for awhile, I always like to stock up and don’t want to get more root beer. Ilford’s Multigrade looks economical enough so I might start moving to that but I want to get opinions on it and what other options there are out there which I am sure there are plenty.

Back when I used Ilford Multigrade, it was fine. It had a long shelf life, and even though it does eventually go brown, it keeps working well past that stage.

However, these days I don't print all that often, so I recently started making my own E72. It's non-toxic and cheap, and it's easy to make enough for just one printing session, so there's very little waste. It produces neutral tone prints with good blacks, and I like it a lot.