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.
well .. I apologize for the long post ..What bad results did you get? Also what developer do you use currently.
Oh then I leaked it myselfYa'll didIt'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
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.
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.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.
I have never seen those, it's either 1L of 5LThat is handy if you buy distilled water in 4 litre bottles.
One U.S. gallon = 3.78541 liters.I have never seen those, it's either 1L of 5L
And the distilled water here comes in the same jugs they use for milk - 4 liters.
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).
I've sent in 2 emails (to propaperchem@kodakalaris.com) and never received a reply (4 months and counting).
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.
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.
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?