Vote: Xtol or Eco Pro LegacyPro Film Developer

[urnem57]

Very cool. After reading that, I like Freestyle even more. They have been in the same location over 50 years (retail store) but they are moving down the street.

 

[Radost]

So eco-pro chemicals do not come from the same manufacturing as Xtol? Where is Eco-pro made?
If Eco-pro is the same as Xtol why are people so insistent to wait for Xtol? The name kodak?

I got a bag online and it does not have a date. Only a batch number. Where can I find more info on when my batch was manufactured?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Some of us are insistent because we want the product we've already paid for.

Some of us are near the end of our patience in that respect.

 

[Danner]

I'm still using XTOL, and have a package of Eco-Pro in reserve. I'll keep buying XTOL too. Everything else in my darkroom is Ilford.

 

[m00dawg]

To each their own for sure! Xtol, when there isn't a recall heh, is a fantastic developer so I can understand why you'd wanna stick with it! I've just been screwed several times now between two recalls, basically in a row. I certainly want Sino Promise to succeed here. They've made Kodak Flexicolor C-41 chems for a while now I think? I use Flexicolor chems, they're great!

But I mean, replacement Xtol has taken so long to that replenished solution is likely not in a good state now. Which I could deal with but the lack of communication while hanging out not developing any film was just unacceptable. And then sending new bags to suppliers over folks involved in the recall was a pretty rude slap in the face. I have no idea at this point when I'll get my replacement bags (I'm going to guess never).

So yeah, Xtol is great when available but I also am not going to reward poor behavior when alternatives exist. Especially with companies like Adox who are trying to innovate rather than just offer the same stuff. Ttheir Captura tech looks really interesting for instance, and they're already working on XT-4 (a successor to their newly introduced Xtol like developer, XT-3).

Since I have to start from scratch with a new replenishment batch anyway, I'm going to give Adox's XT-3 a go but I think EcoPro and Excel are worthy alternatives as well. As is home-brew Mytol it seems. It isn't certain if XT-3 will be replenishable but it seems quite likely that it will be. If not, I know folks do replenishment with EcoPro so there's options (easy replenishment is my favorite feature of Xtol).

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'll stick with Xtol-R.

 

[Donald Qualls]

they're already working on XT-4 (a successor to their newly introduced Xtol like developer, XT-3)

And in some ways, this is exactly the problem, the reason Ansel Adams recommended in The Negative to mix your own chemicals if you can -- because the manufacturer can't change those on a whim and force you to reestablish all your normals. What we need is the same developer, made the same way for decades. D-76 does that, but there's no longer a commercially made replenisher (and if I'm going to mix my own replenisher, why not just mix my own D-76 to begin with?).

Xtol is a (very slightly) better developer than D-76 -- better speed, better grain, better acutance -- and when replenished is much cheaper to use. We just need it to be the dependably the same over time.

 

[removed account4]

I'm sticking to telling people NOT to use xtol or its cousin unless they have some print developer to add in, anything you might have on hand
it is like caffenol C add about 15-20cc of whatever stock print developer you have lying around
it will make it so your film isn't too thin to use with a condenser enlarger and if you tweak your exposure and
development dense enough to make contact prints on azo

YMMV

 

[Wallendo]

I am using a batch of Eco Pro because XTOL is back ordered. I haven't noticed any difference. Going forward, I will probably just use whatever is available. I will wait to see how the newest XTOL works for most users before using that brand again.
To me, Kodak(tm) is just a trademark when used for anything other that Rochester-produced film, so I have no great brand loyalty.
Similarly for HC-110. I have a liter and a half of older HC-110 to use up and may well stick to HC-110 after that (but since I primarily use XTOL now, that will be a long time), but when setting up a mini-darkroom at my vacation home I went with Legacy L-110 which, in my experience, works just as well and advantageously comes in a smaller more convenient 500ml size.

I always try to keep a small bottle of HC-110/L-110 and another of Rodinal for special purposes, and emergency use when I don't have time to mix up XTOL or a clone.

 

[m00dawg]

And in some ways, this is exactly the problem, the reason Ansel Adams recommended in The Negative to mix your own chemicals if you can -- because the manufacturer can't change those on a whim and force you to reestablish all your normals. What we need is the same developer, made the same way for decades. D-76 does that, but there's no longer a commercially made replenisher (and if I'm going to mix my own replenisher, why not just mix my own D-76 to begin with?).

Xtol is a (very slightly) better developer than D-76 -- better speed, better grain, better acutance -- and when replenished is much cheaper to use. We just need it to be the dependably the same over time.

I see both sides of that. I'm not sure what changes they will be making to XT-4 and agree there is something to be said for consistency for sure! But I don't like the idea of _never_ progressing because of consistency. We'd all still be using dry plates if that were the case (though they are very fun!). It will be interesting to see if Adox would continue to carry XT-3. For me, after two recalls, consistency has definitely gone out the window already so I'm just embracing it in hopes we end up with ultimately a BETTER developer than Xtol and not merely a replacement.

To your point though, we have plenty of consistent devs, many which can be easily home mixed so for folks wanting consistency, there's options for sure (albeit ones without ez-mode replenishment). In fact I finally bought a precision scale for this reason and will probably play around with perhaps D-76 or Mytol in between messing about with XT-3 (and XT-4 when it drops).

 

[Donald Qualls]

Changing materials is different from changing developers. If I'm using, say, Tri-X 320 and Kodak brings out an upgraded Tri-X 320, it's a fairly easy job to test what if any changes to that single film need what compensation -- but if I'm using HC-110 for all my film, and suddenly HC-110 is a watery liquid instead of syrup, I have to retest with each film to see what changed. And then I have to wonder if the longevity will be the same.

Yes, home mixing is one answer, but not every home darkroom is a good place to mix one's own chemicals -- and then there are the hundreds of choices.

 

[m00dawg]

Changing materials is different from changing developers. If I'm using, say, Tri-X 320 and Kodak brings out an upgraded Tri-X 320, it's a fairly easy job to test what if any changes to that single film need what compensation -- but if I'm using HC-110 for all my film, and suddenly HC-110 is a watery liquid instead of syrup, I have to retest with each film to see what changed. And then I have to wonder if the longevity will be the same.

Yes, home mixing is one answer, but not every home darkroom is a good place to mix one's own chemicals -- and then there are the hundreds of choices.

Agreed, and in fact I'm having this problem right now since I'm having to use other developers apart from Xtol for my films - and it has made an impact for sure (and not always good). And in fact, I would agree a replenishment solution should be even MORE consistent in regards to changing parameters. Still, I find this a bit of a dangerous slope. It's eschewing progress for convenience still. Had Kodak not recalled Xtol twice, but instead made it better (from the standpoint of me, the consumer), while that would have annoyed me from consistency, if the new developer had marked improvements (say, I dunno, faster film speed or some such), I could accept it.

Ideally, changes would be done in tandem - so say offering Xtol and Xtol-II. But our fledging film hobby is likely too small to make that cost effective. Given there are solutions which are stable (albeit without replenishment), I'm ok throwing Adox a bone with XT-4, at least as long as those improvements (whatever they are) are ones that either do not change the results or change them in some positive way from the consumer's standpoint.

Of course, that's me. I do understand the headache of having a developer that might change from underneath you and, on that note, Kodak has done this with HC-110, D76, and Xtol and all those changes do NOT seem to be a positive improvement from the standpoint of the consumer. Introducing water into HC-110 in particular seems crazy. The syrup and amazing keeping properties of HC-110 is arguably one of it's biggest benefits.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The development characteristics of Xtol and D-76 (and Dektol, to pick another old one) haven't changed noticeably in decades. Changes have been made to improve the user experience, but without changing the way the stuff works. And notably these didn't require Kodak to change the name of the product.

Now, perhaps (likely) Adox has a different approach to product naming and XT-IV will be just like XT-III only with confirmed replenishment and longer bottle life (or something of the sort). But we won't know until it's on the shelves, which judging by the progress of XT-III might be a good while...

 

[m00dawg]

Indeed. I guess my point is, occasionally changing the way stuff works isn't always a bad thing. Granted, part of the nice thing about film photography (over say digital) is some things are tried and true and decades (and, in the case, of Rodinal, over a century) old. That's a good thing! But doesn't, in my view, preclude the need to continue to offer improvements, including those which might break compatibility, given we have several choices which may never change.

Xtol, as I recall, was the last major commercial developer and it dates back to the 90's? That's a long time not to have any improvements ever. So if Adox can move the ball forward here, now is a great time. While I'll eventually want a stable XT from Adox, I expect the reason we're seeing XT-3 is because Adox saw the current Xtol situation and wanted to offer a solution to fill the gap. XT-4, again just guessing here, might be what Adox wanted to be more a final solution? Rampant speculation on my part. I do think Adox is probably too small of a company to offer both so I think adopting XT-3 now may be under the expectation that XT-4 might change some characteristics (hopefully for the better). Like if XT-4 gives us better film speed but requires adjusting for times, I think I'm ok with that given the current situation.

Xtol was already pretty inconsistent for me when you include recalls, so it's not like I'm any worse for wear here. Though my current opinion might be due to the whole debacle. I'm not sure though. If there hadn't been a recall and Adox simply introduced XT-3/XT-4 normally, I'd probably be less likely to make an immediate change until I saw more results. The dream died in February heh.

 

[radiant]

Am I the only one on this forum who doesn't replenish his Xtol ... Foma Excel ... Adox XT-III ?

 

[m00dawg]

Am I the only one on this forum who doesn't replenish his Xtol ... Foma Excel ... Adox XT-III ?

I'm sure you aren't. Xtol is a great developer one-shot too! It's just often used replenished because it's currently the only one (including clones here) which can be replenished with the stock solution. No need for a special replenished recipe. You can replenish other developers, like D-76, but it requires a modified recipe to do so (at least from what I've read anyway, I haven't tried it).

In fact, if you don't plan on replenishing, the Xtol-clones and Xtol-like developers are even more interesting since you don't have to worry about how whether or not they can be replenished.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'll stick with Xtol-R.

Me too.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Am I the only one on this forum who doesn't replenish his Xtol ... Foma Excel ... Adox XT-III ?

I think most users use Xtol at 1+1 dilution. Just as most D-76 users use it 1+1, and a lot of D-23 users do the same. For myself, I was hooked to try it when I heard "indefinite replenishment life" and "seventeen cents a roll -- in the first bag, better in the second and later". Once I tried it, I liked it.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

....Especially with companies like Adox who are trying to innovate rather than just offer the same stuff. Ttheir Captura tech looks really interesting for instance, and they're already working on XT-4 (a successor to their newly introduced Xtol like developer, XT-3).......

I am not sure who leaked here something about XT-4 but just to clarify: This would be an upgrade which -if it is ever made- would work exactly like XT-3. Else there is no point for us in changing something. We do not usually change or take away products unless we are forced to. In XT-3 for example we deliberately eliminated substances, before market introduction, which we expect to be banned in the near future so we will not be forced to a change shortly after the start. XT-4 -if it is ever released- will produce the same curves as XT-3 (and thus like the product called XTOL which was packaed in aluminum compound bags until 2019) but it might have up to two further improvements which we do not comunicate at this point.

 

[Danner]

Am I the only one on this forum who doesn't replenish his Xtol ... Foma Excel ... Adox XT-III ?

You are not alone. I use XTOL as a one-shot, whether stock (lately) or diluted. OTOH, I process about 1 roll per week, so expiration pressures are greater than financial pressures.

For example, I have a half-dozen 12oz. bottles of stock XTOL that were mixed on 12/5/2020. Lately, I have gotten cavalier about using it stock as a one-shot. And, I like the results better than at 1:1, especially the grain on HP5, its noticeably finer. I think its worth it.

 

[Auer]

You are not alone. I use XTOL as a one-sho, whether stock (lately) or diluted. OTOH, I process about 1 roll per week, so expiration pressures are greater than financial pressures.

For example, I have a half-dozen 12oz. bottles of stock XTOL that were mixed on 12/5/2020. Lately, I have gotten cavalier about using it stock as a one-shot. And, I like the results better than at 1:1, especially the grain on HP5, its noticeably finer. I think its worth it.

And it's still cheap too, even one shot

 

[m00dawg]

I am not sure who leaked here something about XT-4 but just to clarify: This would be an upgrade which -if it is ever made- would work exactly like XT-3. Else there is no point for us in changing something. We do not usually change or take away products unless we are forced to. In XT-3 for example we deliberately eliminated substances, before market introduction, which we expect to be banned in the near future so we will not be forced to a change shortly after the start. XT-4 -if it is ever released- will produce the same curves as XT-3 (and thus like the product called XTOL which was packaed in aluminum compound bags until 2019) but it might have up to two further improvements which we do not comunicate at this point.

Ya'll did It's over here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/hows-adoxtol-coming-along-team-adox.182228/page-2

"Apart from this we added CAPTURA for a dust free mixing. We are working on further improvements but we decided to come with Version III now while there is a lack in the market. Version IV will be presented in the summer."

Thank said, thanks for clarifying - that clears up a lot of what was recently discussed here I think. Looking forward to my bags of XT-3 to arrive. I check nearly everyday to see where they are!

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, T-Max RS is still available as a self replenishing developer, if you are willing to invest in two packages that each make 25 litres of replenisher or working solution.
Kodak Alaris was considering making available again some smaller quantity, before the sale of the black and white photo-chemical business.

 

[removed account4]

Am I the only one on this forum who doesn't replenish his Xtol ... Foma Excel ... Adox XT-III ?

nope,
I have never heard of those foma adox developers before this thread and I haven't used xtol since IDK 2003, and I never replenished it? I used it for about 1/2 a decade ( to learn it ) and got very bad results .. and will never use it again.. I'll leave it to its hard core users that get great results..

 

[Radost]

nope,
I have never heard of those foma adox developers before this thread and I haven't used xtol since IDK 2003, and I never replenished it? I used it for about 1/2 a decade ( to learn it ) and got very bad results .. and will never use it again.. I'll leave it to its hard core users that get great results..

What bad results did you get? Also what developer do you use currently.
My main reason for using Xtol "or Eco-Pro" is so I dont have to properly dispose it. Makes development a lot easier.