Vote: Xtol or Eco Pro LegacyPro Film Developer

[reddesert]

The Eco Pro developer is an ascorbic acid developer that appears to have been designed to work like Xtol and people who have used it (including me, but I haven't done any formal tests) have been generally satisfied with using it like Xtol.

Nobody can tell you whether Eco Pro is the "same stuff" as Xtol, so there is no point in repeatedly asking the question. It almost certainly isn't made from exactly the same chemical stocks from the same supply houses and packaged in the same place with the same paper bags.

FWIW, I mixed a 5 L batch of Eco Pro developer in May of 2020 and put it in 1L soda bottles, squeezing virtually all the air out. I used distilled water as my tap water is very hard. I also store the bottles in a brown paper bag to avoid light, for the heck of it. I bought Eco Pro not because I have a strong preference, but because it was in stock and Xtol wasn't. After leaving the last couple bottles untouched for about 9 months, I'm now using them up and the developer is still active. I use it 1:1 and dilute it with distilled or tap water depending on mood and room/tap temperature. I clip-tested it first because I thought it might be dead after long storage, but it seems fine.

Your mileage may vary, and this is just one bag, but I don't see any reason to avoid Eco Pro because Xtol is having problems.

 

[removed account4]

What bad results did you get? Also what developer do you use currently.

well .. I apologize for the long post ..
... no matter the film no matter the 4 different water supplies ( including distilled IIRC ) a handful of different film stocks ( all fresh not expired ) panF, Ilford Deltas ( all 3 ), Hp, tmx/y/z, plus x tri x, sheet films and 35mm ... dilutions from straight stock to 1:2, over exposure up to 3-5 FULL stops, over processing and over agitation sometimes triple the time or more in the booklet (data guide)...negatives were pathetically thin was not able to build density at all.
I used xtol straight shot and replenished, hangers + tanks, hand tanks, shuffle processed.. you name it.. I used it for about 5 years off and on.. I figured it was good stuff and I wanted to use it if I could ... I had been doing portrait work for newspapers/publications, character work/personal work, and documentary sheet film and 35mm images for federal and state archives so I wanted to be sure of the developer before I used it for a job and I didn't want a trouble ...
anyhow since about IDK 2000 I have used ansco 130 /formulary130 as my main film developer for most of the time, can't complain! 1:6/8 mins when I run out of $$ I use dektol / D72 same dilution/time... also since about 2006 I have been mostly using caffenolC with a shake of ansco or dektol in it ( 15-20cc/L ) to boost the contrast
as you might imagine .the caffenol folks are kind of not happy with me because I eyeball all my quantities and you know they claim that 15cc of print developer ( basically 1:100 ) is processing my film ( and from my experience with using dektol/d72 +ansco130 for about 20 years with film at that dilution won't process film in 8 mins). these days when I process, I split process 1:10 dektol / a130 for about 5-6 minutes agitation is normal 1 + 10s/min or continuous shuffle of sheets) then after 5 mins I get rid of the print developer and put in caffenol c ( made with Sumatra coffee I roast myself ) and a shake of the print developer I mentioned before ) and agitate continuously for 5 minutes...
YMMV

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

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!

Oh then I leaked it myself

 

[Ernst-Jan]

Oh then I leaked it myself

 

[Donald Qualls]

Oh then I leaked it myself

I hate when that happens!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Oh then I leaked it myself

Should you be wearing Depends?

 

[tom williams]

As a novice, I took advice to choose a film and developer and stick with them until I've mastered them - that's a ways off yet for Xtol and FP4+. When XTol became unavailable, I chose Legacy Pro - touted as identical to Xtol - as a stop-gap, for that reason. Part of the reason I chose Xtol originally was its relatively benign composition, which Legacy Pro duplicated. Kodak's response to Xtol's failure has been poor, in my opinion, and I'm looking to switch. Legacy Pro is at the top of my list. Provided ADOX's XT-III's improvements don't involve significantly increased toxicity, and if the improvements seem worthwhile, I'm planning on evaluating it as well.

I don't think toxicity is at the top of most folks' list when it comes to choosing a developer. As a resident of a rural area, with no sewage disposal and with no resources for hazardous chemical disposal within 100 miles, toxicity is an issue. Currently I place all my used chemicals into mesh-covered 7-gallon galvanized pails, in full sun, and let the water evaporate before scraping out the residue (while wearing a vapor mask) and storing it in a sealed 1-gallon pail. The altitude here (5000ft), and the reliable sunshine (Arizona) make the evaporation strategy workable. But given this somewhat wobbly disposal method, I want to keep toxicity at a minimum, and Legacy Pro fits this bill. I haven't noted any difference in my negatives since I switched to it from Xtol.

 

[m00dawg]

As a novice, I took advice to choose a film and developer and stick with them until I've mastered them - that's a ways off yet for Xtol and FP4+. When XTol became unavailable, I chose Legacy Pro - touted as identical to Xtol - as a stop-gap, for that reason. Part of the reason I chose Xtol originally was its relatively benign composition, which Legacy Pro duplicated. Kodak's response to Xtol's failure has been poor, in my opinion, and I'm looking to switch. Legacy Pro is at the top of my list. Provided ADOX's XT-III's improvements don't involve significantly increased toxicity, and if the improvements seem worthwhile, I'm planning on evaluating it as well.

Xtol seems to be an interesting choice for a novice given the mixing volumes required but it is otherwise a wonderful developer. Of note, XT-3, as I understood it anyone, will have less toxicity than Xtol as they are removing another possible carcinogenic chemicals (Sodium tetraborate, pentahydrate). You can find more info about that on the XT-3 specific thread here.

All told, there are several options and Legacy Pro seems to be a good pick among them so I think you'll be in good shape there! I just wanted to be a bit more specific about XT-3's toxicity.

EDIT: Oh forgot to mention it also has their dust capture technology so it's supposedly much less dusty when mixing, which is another good thing for making it generally safer to use.

 

[tom williams]

Xtol seems to be an interesting choice for a novice given the mixing volumes required but it is otherwise a wonderful developer. Of note, XT-3, as I understood it anyone, will have less toxicity than Xtol as they are removing another possible carcinogenic chemicals (Sodium tetraborate, pentahydrate). You can find more info about that on the XT-3 specific thread here.

All told, there are several options and Legacy Pro seems to be a good pick among them so I think you'll be in good shape there! I just wanted to be a bit more specific about XT-3's toxicity.

EDIT: Oh forgot to mention it also has their dust capture technology so it's supposedly much less dusty when mixing, which is another good thing for making it generally safer to use.

Thanks for the link - point in favor of XT-III. I initially chose Xtol on the basis of reported performance, not knowing about the 5-liter package. I'm 50-50 on mixing a 1 liter batch every time I need a developer and storing 5 1-liter bottles. So far, storing stock xtol or Legacy Pro in amber glass bottles with plastic seal caps and a saran wrap barrier has worked okay.

 

[m00dawg]

Thanks for the link - point in favor of XT-III. I initially chose Xtol on the basis of reported performance, not knowing about the 5-liter package. I'm 50-50 on mixing a 1 liter batch every time I need a developer and storing 5 1-liter bottles. So far, storing stock xtol or Legacy Pro in amber glass bottles with plastic seal caps and a saran wrap barrier has worked okay.

There will undoubtedly be opinions here but I will share mine and you can evaluate what others will say and form your own opinion here. I personally would _not_ do that. Kodak used to sell Xtol in 1L amounts but this sometimes caused trouble to the point that was one of the reasons they likely pulled their 1L packages off the market. The main issue with Xtol (and perhaps another reason I wouldn't consider it a good option for those new to developing BW film) is sudden die off. If you part out your 5L powders, you might not get the distribution quite right (the powders have several chemicals within them and you need them all mixed up correctly if you're only using part of the powder) and you increase the risk of die off prematurely and may end up getting different results as well. Similarly, you expose the powders to air and they will start to age which is more problematic for Xtol than other developers.

So I would mix the entire batch at once as a result. I use 5L water bladders from the evil rain forest to store the stock solution. They have worked amazingly well for both Xtol and Kodak Flexicolor C-41 chemicals (both which are mixed in 5L batches) as you can pretty easily extract most of the air out of them. Plus they are cheap. You can also decant the mixed solutions in separate 1L bottles (I recommend glass bottles for that over the accordion bottles so you're spot on with considering the amber bottles here) - doing that is fine, but I again I would not save and try to divvy up the powders. Made a single 5L batch of stock solution, which you can then store into multiple bottles if need be.

Of note, Adox sells XT-3 in 1L packages. I bought 5L since that made me a little nervous given the issues Kodak had with those amounts as mentioned up above, but time will tell there. If you can get LegacyPro in 1L, it could be worth it over trying to do partial mixing with the powders.

Ultimately if you need smaller amounts, ID-11, D-76, and HC-110 are all great well known developers and are "novice friendly" though Xtol itself isn't that much more difficult once you solve the problem of where to keep 5L worth of chemicals. And as noted, there's a few options available for that.

EDIT: Grammar, slight clarification

 

[tom williams]

My last post was unclear. As you note, and I agree, divvying up a 5-liter packet seems like a bad idea. I wonder if Kodak's 1-liter packet failure was related to component distribution anomalies on sub-5-liter scales?

Looking ahead a bit to the likely availability of XT-III in packets that yield 1 liter of developer, I'm tempted, though mixing developer at every darkroom session is unappealing. I wonder if ADOX has studied on Kodak's failure with the 1-liter packages and come up with a workable solution? As far as I know, Legacy Pro is available only in 5-liter packets.

I do like having a few bottles of developer in waiting - provided the wait is not too long, which in my case it sometimes is. I haven't had a problem with Xtol or Legacy Pro going off earlier than expected, though.

 

[Danner]

You can't mix a fraction of the granules of XTOl to make smaller batches because the dry chemicals are not evenly dispersed through the package. You might get slightly lucky, but it is not a good strategy. XTOL stock solution keeps for 6 months in tight/airless containers. I bought HDPE 12 oz. bottles off Amazon (and recently got 8 oz. brown glass bottles). Mix up 5 liters with distilled water (rested and don't overly aerate it), and top-up as many bottle as it takes. Store them in a cupboard or closet (i.e. dark place), and they will last. If your consumption is less than 5 liters in 6 months, cost isn't an issue anyway.

Cheers!

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, you can mix a 5 litre package of X-Tol into 4 litres of slightly more concentrated X-Tol, and then dilute that into normal strength immediately before use.
That is handy if you buy distilled water in 4 litre bottles.

 

[reddesert]

As I noted just above in post #103, I mixed a 5 L batch of Legacy Pro with distilled water to make stock solution some 10 months ago and divided it into clean seltzer/soda bottles of 1-1.25 L capacity. Actually I think I mixed the Legacy Pro in a 4 L container because it was the largest I had, then divided it into the smaller bottles and diluted each to stock strength. I then squeezed nearly all the air out of each bottle and stored them in the dark (in a brown paper bag). As I use it, I open one of the liter bottles, dilute it 1:1 for use, and if I use up about half the 1 L bottle, I put the remainder into an 0.5 L bottle so I can keep squeezing the air out.

Obviously when doing this you have to mark and store the bottles so somebody doesn't drink them, but that isn't a problem in my house.

Generally, I don't think that evaporating the water from a solution to leave a solid (especially a powdery solid) and then scraping out the powder is a good strategy for dealing with chemicals, because the solid disperses easily. I think Legacy Pro or Xtol is sufficiently non-toxic that you're okay either way, but there are other cases where it might be a problem. For fixer, I'm willing to use steel wool to separate the silver from the liquid, but then I'm going to dispose of both the solid and the plastic container, not try to scrape the solid out and save the container.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

That is handy if you buy distilled water in 4 litre bottles.

I have never seen those, it's either 1L of 5L

 

[focus_on_infinity]

I guess it depends on how long it takes Kodak to ship the replacement for my suspect batches. They responded after only a couple of days, so I'm optimistic.

That said, my first Xtol, also from a suspect batch, actually worked rather well. But maybe because of inexperience I didn't really know better, and it could have worked even better. But we'll see.

 

[Auer]

I have never seen those, it's either 1L of 5L

One U.S. gallon = 3.78541 liters.
One Imperial Gallon = 4.54609 liters.

The water I buy comes in 3.78541 liter bottles.

 

[MattKing]

And the distilled water here comes in the same jugs they use for milk - 4 liters.

 

[focus_on_infinity]

And the distilled water here comes in the same jugs they use for milk - 4 liters.

i.e. a metric gallon

 

[tom williams]

I guess it depends on how long it takes Kodak to ship the replacement for my suspect batches. They responded after only a couple of days, so I'm optimistic.

That said, my first Xtol, also from a suspect batch, actually worked rather well. But maybe because of inexperience I didn't really know better, and it could have worked even better. But we'll see.

Can you mention when you alerted Kodak about the problem, and when they replied? I've sent in 2 emails (to propaperchem@kodakalaris.com) and never received a reply (4 months and counting).

 

[focus_on_infinity]

Can you mention when you alerted Kodak about the problem, and when they replied? I've sent in 2 emails (to propaperchem@kodakalaris.com) and never received a reply (4 months and counting).

I first emailed them about a week and a half ago. They replied in less than 5 days. Their new email address is kodakpaperchem@pro.sinopromise.com: https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/photographers/resources/bw-chem-tech-info

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've sent in 2 emails (to propaperchem@kodakalaris.com) and never received a reply (4 months and counting).

Be sure to check your spam folder. I got a prompt reply on my first attempt, but didn't find it until I got the reply on the second (a month later) -- and found them together (due to my mail sorting settings).

Still haven't gotten replacement product, though...

 

[tom williams]

Thank you F_O_I, I sent an email off just now. Donald, no evidence of a reply from Sinopromise in my spam folder.... maybe my original email was misdirected, but I think I took the email I used from the original "there is an issue ..." posting that I saw in an LFP forum. I'll be glad to get a packet of Xtol back, but my attention has shifted to XT-III - maybe ADOX will publish a safety and spec sheet soon.

PS I note I sent an email 2 1/2 months ago, not 4 months ago as I mentioned earlier.

 

[tom williams]

I guess it depends on how long it takes Kodak to ship the replacement for my suspect batches. They responded after only a couple of days, so I'm optimistic.

That said, my first Xtol, also from a suspect batch, actually worked rather well. But maybe because of inexperience I didn't really know better, and it could have worked even better. But we'll see.

Using the email address you gave, I sent a message to Kodak yesterday and received a reply today, stating that I was now in the queue. No shipping date available.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

As a novice, I took advice to choose a film and developer and stick with them until I've mastered them - that's a ways off yet for Xtol and FP4+. When XTol became unavailable, I chose Legacy Pro - touted as identical to Xtol - as a stop-gap, for that reason. Part of the reason I chose Xtol originally was its relatively benign composition, which Legacy Pro duplicated. Kodak's response to Xtol's failure has been poor, in my opinion, and I'm looking to switch. Legacy Pro is at the top of my list. Provided ADOX's XT-III's improvements don't involve significantly increased toxicity, and if the improvements seem worthwhile, I'm planning on evaluating it as well.

I don't think toxicity is at the top of most folks' list when it comes to choosing a developer. As a resident of a rural area, with no sewage disposal and with no resources for hazardous chemical disposal within 100 miles, toxicity is an issue. Currently I place all my used chemicals into mesh-covered 7-gallon galvanized pails, in full sun, and let the water evaporate before scraping out the residue (while wearing a vapor mask) and storing it in a sealed 1-gallon pail. The altitude here (5000ft), and the reliable sunshine (Arizona) make the evaporation strategy workable. But given this somewhat wobbly disposal method, I want to keep toxicity at a minimum, and Legacy Pro fits this bill. I haven't noted any difference in my negatives since I switched to it from Xtol.

As I have said over in the other threads but not here yet: Our aim was to REDUCE toxidity and not increase it . XT-I was a 1:1 clone of Xtol. XT-II was a mix where we reduced the borates but still kept some in (fear-reserve). After thourough testing and hundreds of curves we felt confident enough to come straight with XT-III which has eliminated all borates completely. They are on the CORAP list here in the EU, mostly banned already and the last remaining one (which is in Xtol) is subject to a current investigation. We have to expect this substance to be banned in the very near future. The only downsize of our new buffer is its price. But other than this you can drink it. Captura technology increases safety in handling and helps in dissolving it. Keeping properties are at least the same with a high chance to be better. So in a nutshell XT-3 is the "greenest" version out there of all Xtol based developers.