You are missing an "n" in that URL. It is www.championphotochemistry.comThe file resides on www.champiophotochemistry.com, and the PDF gives a location in Kuala Lumpur.
So not the same as Eastman Chemical the Tennessee plant that old George started to make cellulose acetate. They are still alive and well, selling billions of pounds of polyester resins that are deemed to be BPA free.You are missing an "n" in that URL. It is www.championphotochemistry.com
This is the site for Champion. That company started in Canada and, for a while, made much of Kodak's photo chemistry, after Kodak divested itself of much of its chemical manufacturing capacity. That capacity, and the employees involved, became Eastman Chemicals.
Champion has a fair bit of Kodak in its DNA: http://www.championphotochemistry.com/milestones-asia.php
Their website is five years out of date, and only lists high quantity packaging for C41 and RA-4 substitutes - all in quantities that would be too large for all but the busiest mini-lab.So it looks like Champion is still in Ontario, do they still have photo chemicals? I suppose it's like everything else in graphic arts something I won't understand.
Self-replenishing developers are worth it for me. I use XTOL replenished because I like the look is seasoned developers. XTOL will tend drift weaker over time. XTOL is fine to replenish over the recommended rate because the developer is the replenisher. At some point, you’ll have to dump the working solution due to excessive bromide buildup.We all know about Xtol being its own replenisher (at least, if we've been paying attention). T-Max RS has this quality as well, but T-Max RS is no longer available in smaller packages than "makes 25 L" size -- impractically large for an amateur who might process anywhere from zero to four or five rolls a week, with an average of two or three, and need a few ml of replenishment for each roll. Xtol, in the "makes 5L" size, works very well for this, but there have been a number of quality issues recently, and others over a longer term.
I just Googled for "self replenishing developer" and near the bottom of the first page of hits, I found this link, to a PDF spec sheet for a universal (film and paper) developer listed as self-replenishing, neutral tone (on fiber and RC papers), and a PQ formula (which implies "full film speed"). The file resides on www.champiophotochemistry.com, and the PDF gives a location in Kuala Lumpur.
is there a US source for this developer, or are there other self-replenishing developers around that could replace Xtol in the "easy and economical" class of self-replenishing developers suitable for amateur use? Just in case?
What about the xtol substitutes - mytol or Gainer’s PC-Tea? Are they self replenishing?
Paul,I just tossed out my batch of MCM 100, this last tank I've had going past 3 to 4 years, I have a kit to make another liter, if I mix it I will use it as one shot then toss as I'm moving on to other developers, reason is cost. At $48.00 a gallon just has gotten too expensive. Thinking about ANSCO 17, or standard D 76, I also have R09, and R09 special, so maybe Iflord version of HC110 so I can mix and dump.
I wonder if Ilfosol-3 could be used replenished? JohnW
Self-replenishing developers are worth it for me. I use XTOL replenished because I like the look is seasoned developers. XTOL will tend drift weaker over time. XTOL is fine to replenish over the recommended rate because the developer is the replenisher. At some point, you’ll have to dump the working solution due to excessive bromide buildup.
What about the xtol substitutes - mytol or Gainer’s PC-Tea? Are they self replenishing?
What about the Eco Pro stuff?
Hey Donald why not a one shot like PC-Glycol, HC-110, PC-TEA, etc? I even use XTOL one shot. Then it always works the same each time. With XTOL I use it up in a few months. My PC-glycol batch is from 2017 and works great.
I’ve never used a replenished developer so maybe I’m missing that there is something more awesome about it?
I’ve never used a replenished developer so maybe I’m missing that there is something more awesome about it?
Using replenishment you can consider always XTOL solution as (seasoned) fresh according to Kodak. No time compensation needed and excellent shelf life compared to unreplenished solution, so you can expect higher consistency.
Do you mean stock solution loses it's power by time and therefore consistency is worse?
Using replenishment you can consider always XTOL solution as (seasoned) fresh according to Kodak. No time compensation needed and excellent shelf life compared to unreplenished solution, so you can expect higher consistency.
Right but using it one shot I get that same consistency. Replenished costs less but is there any photographic reason to do it?
anyway maybe I’ll try it on the next batch
But this Currentthread is about finding something to replace XTOL so was trying to understand why replacing it required the new developer to also be replenished.This has been asked quite many times, here is some discussion: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...-development-times.178358/page-2#post-2326056
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?