New Xtol not the same
Old 11-17-2019   #1
2wenty
Registered User
 
2wenty's Avatar
 
2wenty is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 290
New Xtol not the same

Well, this kinda sucks.

The new repackaged Xtol is not the same. I developed 3 different rolls last night, each were developed separate from each other and all were massively underdeveloped, extremely thin both in stock and 1:1 form.

The A side of the package has a weird consistency now.

I just doubled checked on the new and old packaging to see if the times are different now and they are still the same.

After finding this out, I searched around to see if anyone else has come across this yet and it appears that someone has left a review on B&H saying the exact same thing.

It also appears that all of Kodak stuff is new packaging so Im assuming everything is different now.

Super disappointed.

Now I have to find an old batch to make this project match.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #2
Ted Striker
-
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 899
Kodak has moved production of their chemicals away from Tetenal due to the bankruptcy. Despite what we are told, Tetenal is in serious trouble and so Kodak had to move their chemical production back to the US. Why this has not gone smoothly is hard to understand.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #3
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Age: 79
Posts: 6,263
Yep. Sucks.
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #4
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,101
That sounds horrible and I don't understand how that could pass QC. I also don't understand why you ruined two more rolls after the first one... In any case I'd give Fomadon Excel a chance if you can get your hands on it, it's said to be identical to Xtol, it sure works for me and is available in 1l packs.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #5
IIIg
Registered User
 
IIIg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2wenty View Post
Well, this kinda sucks.

The new repackaged Xtol is not the same. I developed 3 different rolls last night, each were developed separate from each other and all were massively underdeveloped, extremely thin both in stock and 1:1 form.

The A side of the package has a weird consistency now.

I just doubled checked on the new and old packaging to see if the times are different now and they are still the same.

After finding this out, I searched around to see if anyone else has come across this yet and it appears that someone has left a review on B&H saying the exact same thing.

It also appears that all of Kodak stuff is new packaging so Im assuming everything is different now.

Super disappointed.

Now I have to find an old batch to make this project match.

The old Xtol had a reputation for suddenly "going bad" (greatly losing activity) with the symptoms which you describe here. This happened to me.

I stopped buying the packaged Xtol and now make up Mytol as I need it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #6
Ted Striker
-
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 899
I wonder if all Kodak chemicals are now of substandard quality. Everyone has been reformulated for manufacturing in the US.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #7
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 44
Posts: 9,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
I wonder if all Kodak chemicals are now of substandard quality. Everyone has been reformulated for manufacturing in the US.
The sad thing is that for a century Kodak chemicals were made in the US and were good. The reason they were good wasn't that that they were American-Made. They were good because Kodak made them.

Some time ago (ten years?) Kodak decided to stop making chemicals, though they did continue to sell chemicals. Manufacture was outsourced; first to an American company called Champion and later to Tetanal. Each change brought new packaging and who knows what changes to the chemicals themselves. The product was never quite the same in my opinion.

The whole thing is an example of how Kodak's idiot management managed to ruin a once-great business. Kodak was a chemical company above all else. Film manufacturing is basically a basically a business for chemical companies, and so Kodak also made industrial chemicals in addition to photographic chemicals. They've gotten out of that business. Imagine how stupid it would be if General Motors or Toyota suddenly stopped making automobiles and started making cat food instead...then imagine the management was completely oblivious to why they're no longer selling cars! That's Kodak today.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #8
valdas
Registered User
 
valdas is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by IIIg View Post
The old Xtol had a reputation for suddenly "going bad" (greatly losing activity) with the symptoms which you describe here. This happened to me.

I stopped buying the packaged Xtol and now make up Mytol as I need it.

I have heard about it ("sudden death") but never experienced myself - I normally prepare 5L stock which I "consume" in a bit less than a year (maybe 9 months or so) with no issues. I still have maybe 5 packs of old formula XTOL, so I hope I'm "covered" for another 3-4 years...
__________________
My Flickr
________
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #9
Beemermark
Registered User
 
Beemermark's Avatar
 
Beemermark is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 1,827
Back to D-76. Been around forever and every company knows how to make it. Good developer also. Biggest advantage to me of Xtol was it seemed to last forever.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #10
Ted Striker
-
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 899
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemermark View Post
Back to D-76. Been around forever and every company knows how to make it. Good developer also. Biggest advantage to me of Xtol was it seemed to last forever.

HC-110 lasts forever.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #11
Ted Striker
-
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 899
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post

The whole thing is an example of how Kodak's idiot management managed to ruin a once-great business. Kodak was a chemical company above all else. Film manufacturing is basically a basically a business for chemical companies, and so Kodak also made industrial chemicals in addition to photographic chemicals. They've gotten out of that business. Imagine how stupid it would be if General Motors or Toyota suddenly stopped making automobiles and started making cat food instead...then imagine the management was completely oblivious to why they're no longer selling cars! That's Kodak today.
Yes, Kodak is run by an appalling group of bean counters. It's amazing that they are still around after making one epic mistake after another. So many unforced errors by Kodak. Where's the new Super 8mm camera announced YEARS ago? Vaporware. Where are the Kodak Coins announced YEARS ago. Vaporware.

Remember Eastman Chemical? Kodak's large scale chemical company? Kodak sold it off and then went bankrupt. Eastman Chemical continues to this day being nicely profitable. Freed from Kodak's blithering management team, they prospered.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #12
stevierose
Ann Arbor, Michigan
 
stevierose is offline
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 144
Iíve been using the EcoPro version of Xtol and it seems to work fine and results are the same as what I got with Kodak Xtol. BH and Freestyle sell it.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...d_Powder.htmlV
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #13
Noserider
Registered User
 
Noserider is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 335
The "Sudden Death Xtol" was real but very limited. I was among the first to use Xtol and definitely among the very first to report to my area Kodak rep (ah remember those days?) this issue since all of Kodak's chemistry came to Hawaii via boat; it took a (relatively) long time over water and that seemed to increase the potential for moisture to enter into the Part A in the 1 liter size with the packaging that Kodak *first* used. As I was switching my photo business to use what I still think is a really good developer I stuck with Xtol and noted all the packaging and manufacture changes. After the 1 liter was discontinued that particular type of 'sudden death' stopped, unless the user was daft enough to mix from tap water with old rusty pipes; the Fenton reaction with Iron in the water caused another form of failure, which was solved by the common sense practice of mixing with filtered or distilled water.

I am very curious as to the OP mention of the Part A having a 'different texture'. This very well could point to another moisture barrier failure in the packaging. My standard advice with Xtol is to first make sure both parts are actually powder; any obvious change from a powder raises suspicions (as you would with seeing Dektol or Metol based developers look very dark or black before mixing). The other is mixing with distilled water. With those two very simple and obvious precautions Xtol works as intended and any photographer who can't observe those basic photography concepts should not process film and should also stay away from butter knives and scissors.
I am not ruling out a screw up in the packaging from whoever is making the stuff now. But unless those two easy rules are not clearly observed then User Error should be considered as the "failure".
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #14
Prest_400
Multiformat
 
Prest_400's Avatar
 
Prest_400 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sweden/Spain
Posts: 941
XTOL is quite interesting although I have used it only once or twice given the bulk of 5L, when there's a camera club developing pool.
Otherwise I've been using HC110 which is lasting long and proving to be an excellent developer, holding a quite full bottle of Tetenal made HC110. Shall see the reformulation or something else once I run out of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by retinax View Post
In any case I'd give Fomadon Excel a chance if you can get your hands on it, it's said to be identical to Xtol, it sure works for me and is available in 1l packs.
Excel I haven't heard too much about, I've often wondered about it but always forget to order some. Some recollections around the web is that it's an XTOL equivalent and perhaps not as fine grained. 1L is much more manageable for more occasional shooting.
I batch up color film for lab send outs or development that it's nice how convenient concentrate developers are for spontaneous use.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #15
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 44
Posts: 9,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
HC-110 lasts forever.
They changed HC-110 too, so it may not have that legendary shelf life anymore
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #16
Ted Striker
-
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 899
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
They changed HC-110 too, so it may not have that legendary shelf life anymore

Yes, good point. I forgot about that. In fact, I grabbed 2 liters of the old stuff while it was still on the shelf. I have one just recently opened liter of HC-110 and 2 in reserve. Enough to last several lifetimes as I shoot at most 1-2 rolls of film per quarter. Not like the old days when I shot 10-15 per week.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #17
2wenty
Registered User
 
2wenty's Avatar
 
2wenty is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by retinax View Post
That sounds horrible and I don't understand how that could pass QC. I also don't understand why you ruined two more rolls after the first one... In any case I'd give Fomadon Excel a chance if you can get your hands on it, it's said to be identical to Xtol, it sure works for me and is available in 1l packs.
The way I agitate always boarders on underdeveloped, so I couldnt tell if it was me or the rolls were expired or there was something wrong with the cameras. The first roll kinda made it through. Much respect Fomapan, it came out pretty much useable. The delta3200 I shot and developed at 800 was non existent also tmax400 did horrible. The only shots that came out half way were the ones where I used flash.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #18
2wenty
Registered User
 
2wenty's Avatar
 
2wenty is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by IIIg View Post
The old Xtol had a reputation for suddenly "going bad" (greatly losing activity) with the symptoms which you describe here. This happened to me.

I stopped buying the packaged Xtol and now make up Mytol as I need it.
Ive been using it for 3 years. Each batch I have kept and used for a 1 year period (total of 3 batches). It worked every time and I never even extended developing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #19
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2wenty View Post
The only shots that came out half way were the ones where I used flash.
Forgive me, but it seems to me that if something you changed in shooting the film gave better results, that would be generally indicative that the chemicals are not to blame. They can't know which frames you used flash on.

That said, I don't use XTOL due to the sudden death syndrome that I experienced multiple times.

Test, test, test, regardless.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #20
2wenty
Registered User
 
2wenty's Avatar
 
2wenty is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noserider View Post
The "Sudden Death Xtol" was real but very limited. I was among the first to use Xtol and definitely among the very first to report to my area Kodak rep (ah remember those days?) this issue since all of Kodak's chemistry came to Hawaii via boat; it took a (relatively) long time over water and that seemed to increase the potential for moisture to enter into the Part A in the 1 liter size with the packaging that Kodak *first* used. As I was switching my photo business to use what I still think is a really good developer I stuck with Xtol and noted all the packaging and manufacture changes. After the 1 liter was discontinued that particular type of 'sudden death' stopped, unless the user was daft enough to mix from tap water with old rusty pipes; the Fenton reaction with Iron in the water caused another form of failure, which was solved by the common sense practice of mixing with filtered or distilled water.

I am very curious as to the OP mention of the Part A having a 'different texture'. This very well could point to another moisture barrier failure in the packaging. My standard advice with Xtol is to first make sure both parts are actually powder; any obvious change from a powder raises suspicions (as you would with seeing Dektol or Metol based developers look very dark or black before mixing). The other is mixing with distilled water. With those two very simple and obvious precautions Xtol works as intended and any photographer who can't observe those basic photography concepts should not process film and should also stay away from butter knives and scissors.
I am not ruling out a screw up in the packaging from whoever is making the stuff now. But unless those two easy rules are not clearly observed then User Error should be considered as the "failure".

As to the packaging. I went to another store and felt it and its the same chunky cookie dough feeling as mine had. I only ever use distilled for everything except final wash.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #21
2wenty
Registered User
 
2wenty's Avatar
 
2wenty is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
Forgive me, but it seems to me that if something you changed in shooting the film gave better results, that would be generally indicative that the chemicals are not to blame. They can't know which frames you used flash on.

That said, I don't use XTOL due to the sudden death syndrome that I experienced multiple times.

Test, test, test, regardless.
Well flash photos make for a denser negative.

Not sure what the sudden death thing is, I keep reading about it but it just never happens. Like I said my batches sit for a full year in a big 5L container (the container is even dated after every batch and its dead on a year). Ive done this for 3 years in a row, its has never died or even gotten weaker. I was always waiting for the shoe to drop reading all this internet stuff but it just never did.

Im not to worried. I mainly posted this as a warning to others to be careful. If I can't get an old bag to last me a year Ill just change developers. I bought a bunch of the old D76 that was still at the store even though I dont really like it. Maybe Ill used that or go back to DDX. Or ill try the FOMA one like the other guy suggested.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #22
2wenty
Registered User
 
2wenty's Avatar
 
2wenty is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 290
Heres the guy on B&H saying the same thing

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...r.html/reviews

"I have been an Xtol user for a number of years and have always appreciated the results I get with Tmax 400, until now. I came back from a month in Italy with a ton of film to process, bought a few bags of Xtol and noted the new packaging, hmmmm. The first rolls came out extremely thin, and the dMax area at the beginning of the roll was thin as well, obviously exposed but see through thin. What? I shot a roll of a zone system sequence, zone 0 to 9, of exposures on the same Tmax stock , cutting in half and processed one half in xtol 1:1 @68 degrees, the other half in Rodinal 1:50. Again, xtol developed negatives were extremely underdeveloped, the Rodinal negatives looked fine. Not the film, not the Rodinal, has to be the Xtol. Could it be just one 5 liter batch? No, I mixed another batch with the same drastically underdeveloped results. Not purchasing Xtol from B+H again til this is figured out."
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #23
Noserider
Registered User
 
Noserider is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 335
Yeah that mealy cookie dough texture that you can feel thru the packaging is a clear indication that the Part A is bad and it precisely mirrors the feeling of the old 1 liter failed packaging. I would not take the risk of even purchasing any Xtol that felt that way (if you have the ability to inspect in store). Don't even mix it up! I think it is time for users to re-read the fine print on the package that says they will replace it due to packaging failure. Anyone remember the Kodak 120 backing paper issue? Start noting any product or batch codes and it looks like Kodak will be seeing a lot of warranty replacements.

It is such sorry news that Kodak is messing up one of the best developers they ever made due to the repeating of mistakes. I did thousands of feet with Xtol in replenishment and once had a replenished batch last years with proper precautions.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #24
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2wenty View Post
Well flash photos make for a denser negative.
A properly exposed negative is a properly exposed negative, regardless of light source. If you are overexposing your shots with flash that is a difference in exposure, irrespective of development.

As for the texture thing, my "sudden death" issue was AFTER mixing, which as I understand was always the issue. I've never heard of any packaged chemicals going bad before even mixing. So I'll be interested to read what others say about this.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #25
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2wenty View Post
Well, this kinda sucks.

The new repackaged Xtol is not the same. I developed 3 different rolls last night, each were developed separate from each other and all were massively underdeveloped, extremely thin both in stock and 1:1 form.

The A side of the package has a weird consistency now.

I just doubled checked on the new and old packaging to see if the times are different now and they are still the same.

After finding this out, I searched around to see if anyone else has come across this yet and it appears that someone has left a review on B&H saying the exact same thing.

It also appears that all of Kodak stuff is new packaging so Im assuming everything is different now.

Super disappointed.

Now I have to find an old batch to make this project match.
Have you contacted Kodak? I imagine they would be more interested than forum participants here. (Although I do appreciate the heads up as I use Xtol as well.)

It could be a pin prick on the chemistry bag allowing moisture in, a problem with the chemistry itself, user error while mixing chemistry (no offense intended), problems with camera or exposure, problems with developing temperature or technique, etc.

It's human nature to jump to conclusions without using science to determine the cause of the problem because they're our negatives and we're pissed off. Kodak has actual chemists that can look in to the problem for you, but only if they know about it.

Sorry to hear about your negatives!
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #26
IIIg
Registered User
 
IIIg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noserider View Post
The "Sudden Death Xtol" was real but very limited. I was among the first to use Xtol and definitely among the very first to report to my area Kodak rep (ah remember those days?) this issue since all of Kodak's chemistry came to Hawaii via boat; it took a (relatively) long time over water and that seemed to increase the potential for moisture to enter into the Part A in the 1 liter size with the packaging that Kodak *first* used. As I was switching my photo business to use what I still think is a really good developer I stuck with Xtol and noted all the packaging and manufacture changes. After the 1 liter was discontinued that particular type of 'sudden death' stopped, unless the user was daft enough to mix from tap water with old rusty pipes; the Fenton reaction with Iron in the water caused another form of failure, which was solved by the common sense practice of mixing with filtered or distilled water.

I am very curious as to the OP mention of the Part A having a 'different texture'. This very well could point to another moisture barrier failure in the packaging. My standard advice with Xtol is to first make sure both parts are actually powder; any obvious change from a powder raises suspicions (as you would with seeing Dektol or Metol based developers look very dark or black before mixing). The other is mixing with distilled water. With those two very simple and obvious precautions Xtol works as intended and any photographer who can't observe those basic photography concepts should not process film and should also stay away from butter knives and scissors.
I am not ruling out a screw up in the packaging from whoever is making the stuff now. But unless those two easy rules are not clearly observed then User Error should be considered as the "failure".
Your recommendation on use of distilled water with Xtol is a sound one as one would have the major component of the developer, the water, of defined and constant composition.

I went a different route with Mytol. I make up a concentrate of the inorganic components at 4x strength; that is I dilute 1 part concentrate with three parts tap water when making up a "1:1 Xtol" equivalent. So far as I've been able to tell, this concentrate is stable for at least six months at room temperature.

The sodium ascorbate is stored as a dry powder in a refrigerator and weighed out in the appropriate amount when making up a batch of developer (6g/l).

I prepare a stock solution of Phenidone A in propylene glycol at 20mg/ml - 2 grams Phenidone in 100 ml PG, store the solution in a refrigerator, and dispense the appropriate volume of Phenidone stock to produce a 75mg/l Phenidone concentration (Mohr pipette, I am a chemist after all).

It requires less than five minutes to make up a volume of working developer in this way and I invariably process my film in Xtol/Mytol that is no more than thirty minutes old. Permit me my worries, but I am not prepared to make the leap of faith to trust the storage stability of commercial Xtol no matter what the water quality.

I've been doing this for over five years now without a single episode of developer "sudden death". There is a substantial cost savings going this route but that was a secondary consideration relative to having a reliable developer.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #27
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,399
Kodak seems incapable of packaging dry chemistry well. I can’t count how many gallons of Dektol, Selecto-Soft, D76 and Microdol-X I opened to find browned powder instead of white. I never bother with chemistry that is out of date, but “fresh” stuff would be ruined before it got to me. I switched to Ilford for dry chems, and the problem ended immediately.

I too have stocked up on HC-110, and have used Perceptol in place of Microdol-X going on fifteen years now. That’s the last dry chemistry I buy other than the components for making up D96. And somehow, in a plastic jar my components last better than sealed Kodak packs ever did.

I was an early adopter of XTOL and I also had the sudden death syndrome ruin film. Crazy to see it back.

The Kodak rep! And the Agfa rep. Boy those were the days. And back then you could call Kodak with questions and talk to chemists. They even tested some Seagull paper for me that I was getting strange black specs on and found it was tiny bits of iron. Heard a great story of a rusted ventilation hood on one coating line ruining a lot of paper and their crazy hunt to figure out where iron was getting to the paper. Tracked my iron contamination to a screw in a pipe hanger over my stop tray. Never would have figured that out without them.
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #28
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 44
Posts: 9,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
Kodak seems incapable of packaging dry chemistry well. I can’t count how many gallons of Dektol, Selecto-Soft, D76 and Microdol-X I opened to find browned powder instead of white. I never bother with chemistry that is out of date, but “fresh” stuff would be ruined before it got to me. I switched to Ilford for dry chems, and the problem ended immediately.

I too have stocked up on HC-110, and have used Perceptol in place of Microdol-X going on fifteen years now. That’s the last dry chemistry I buy other than the components for making up D96. And somehow, in a plastic jar my components last better than sealed Kodak packs ever did.

I was an early adopter of XTOL and I also had the sudden death syndrome ruin film. Crazy to see it back.

The Kodak rep! And the Agfa rep. Boy those were the days. And back then you could call Kodak with questions and talk to chemists. They even tested some Seagull paper for me that I was getting strange black specs on and found it was tiny bits of iron. Heard a great story of a rusted ventilation hood on one coating line ruining a lot of paper and their crazy hunt to figure out where iron was getting to the paper. Tracked my iron contamination to a screw in a pipe hanger over my stop tray. Never would have figured that out without them.
When I was young, back in the 90s, Kodak dry chemicals came in thick paper pouches lined with foil. Never got a bad one. The later thin plastic bags they package stuff in now are simply not up to the job.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #29
IIIg
Registered User
 
IIIg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
When I was young, back in the 90s, Kodak dry chemicals came in thick paper pouches lined with foil. Never got a bad one. The later thin plastic bags they package stuff in now are simply not up to the job.
When I was young, Kodak developers came in little metal cans. Eighty-five cents for a quart of D76.

You are showing your youth mio amigo.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #30
IIIg
Registered User
 
IIIg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
HC-110 lasts forever.
Rodinal lasts forever.

HC110 has yet to be proven.

Check back in 30 years.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #31
2wenty
Registered User
 
2wenty's Avatar
 
2wenty is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
A properly exposed negative is a properly exposed negative, regardless of light source. If you are overexposing your shots with flash that is a difference in exposure, irrespective of development.

As for the texture thing, my "sudden death" issue was AFTER mixing, which as I understand was always the issue. I've never heard of any packaged chemicals going bad before even mixing. So I'll be interested to read what others say about this.
The flash is from a point and shoot camera. I have no control over what it exposes.

My chemicals were mixed for a year not in a package.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #32
2wenty
Registered User
 
2wenty's Avatar
 
2wenty is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by jawarden View Post
Have you contacted Kodak? I imagine they would be more interested than forum participants here. (Although I do appreciate the heads up as I use Xtol as well.)

It could be a pin prick on the chemistry bag allowing moisture in, a problem with the chemistry itself, user error while mixing chemistry (no offense intended), problems with camera or exposure, problems with developing temperature or technique, etc.

It's human nature to jump to conclusions without using science to determine the cause of the problem because they're our negatives and we're pissed off. Kodak has actual chemists that can look in to the problem for you, but only if they know about it.

Sorry to hear about your negatives!

I tired calling them but they didn't answer. Im going to try back again and send an email.

The XTOL I bought came from freestyle photo which I bought in person. Yesterday I went to Samys camera and all their bags felt the same way on the A side.

Theres a guy that left a review on B&H saying the same thing I am. So I know its just not me. Im not even made. I just wanted to bring this up to others that use XTOL so they can be careful before they run a big batch or something.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #33
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by IIIg View Post
Rodinal lasts forever.

HC110 has yet to be proven.

Check back in 30 years.

Once I will finish Rodinal and HC110 I will switch to Diafine. They say its second name is forever.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2019   #34
traveler_101
American abroad
 
traveler_101 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 1,080
I haven't had failure, but XTOL 1+1 has given me thin negatives more than once. I then started using stock, which gives better results. It's a fussy developer, ok with certain films, but I am phasing it out. I prefer D-76 generally - except for its toxicity, which was the reason for XTOL in the first place.

Just checked my last pack of XTOL - made in Germany, but also expired in August. Will use it now with some rolls of Foma 200. I've often been unable to use all 5 litres, but it is cheaper to buy that big package in the States and drag it over here than to buy a one litre package of Excel (Forma's version) over here.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2019   #35
Ted Striker
-
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 899
I am pretty certain many folks are switching to Ilford developers rather than dealing with yet another Kodak quality issue.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2019   #36
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2wenty View Post
My chemicals were mixed for a year not in a package.
The change in chemicals just happened. If this is true then you were using the original chemicals anyway.

I'm confused overall. Seems more likely to be classic XTOL sudden death which has been known for awhile (and why I ditched XTOL years ago).
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2019   #37
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Silly Valley, California, USA
Posts: 9,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
HC-110 lasts forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
They changed HC-110 too, so it may not have that legendary shelf life anymore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
Yes, good point. I forgot about that. In fact, I grabbed 2 liters of the old stuff while it was still on the shelf. I have one just recently opened liter of HC-110 and 2 in reserve. Enough to last several lifetimes as I shoot at most 1-2 rolls of film per quarter. Not like the old days when I shot 10-15 per week.
I'm a little less than halfway through the pint of HC-110 concentrate I bought in 1999... Still does very well. At this rate, I'll be 90 before I'm out of the stuff at my current rate of consumption.

I think that's enough time to learn another developer...

I had stopped using XTOL, after enjoying it for some time, when the 1L packaging was discontinued. I just don't have storage space for 5L quantities of mixed developer, and haven't for many years.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2019   #38
2wenty
Registered User
 
2wenty's Avatar
 
2wenty is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
The change in chemicals just happened. If this is true then you were using the original chemicals anyway.

I'm confused overall. Seems more likely to be classic XTOL sudden death which has been known for awhile (and why I ditched XTOL years ago).
The XTOL thats bad is the brand new one. Like, just bought it and was just made by the new supplier. Im not the only person saying this. Check pervious post.

The older type one in the foil packaging ive been using for 3 years has never failed me. I use a 5 liter batch over a year period (mixed). At the end of batch which has been mixed for a year the devloper still works as it did when I first mixed it. Any confuison beyond this point is on you guys.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2019   #39
Noserider
Registered User
 
Noserider is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 335
This is totally due to packaging failure of the new Xtol. Once again "Kodak" screws the pooch with a great product. I wonder how many people got burned with the 120 paper backing issue and how much that cost them in warranty replacement. I have a buddy who bought a large amount of the bad backing paper film and got all of it replaced by Kodak, and was a sad moment to have to trash all those unusable rolls of 120. Maybe 20-30 Pro-Packs of 5 hit the garbage. I also wonder how many people will decide not to use Xtol from this point on due to the uncertainty of any Xtol.

The two causes of the original sudden death Xtol were eventually determined and Xtol was stable for me (and others) for years in use my lab running it replenished. I'd mix between 2-3 5L packages per month for several (3-5) years doing thousands of rolls. Any reports or concern about sudden death were due to either the use of Xtol in an older package or not taking the step of at a minimum filtered water or distilled in mixing the stock.

I used to think that it any failure in the past few years was due to the iron in the water but unfortunately we now have to consider the very real possibility that all of the new Xtol product packaging is defective. I will be doing my own test with new and old packaging and believe me, I will be quite vocal to Kodak about my results, and I encourage any reader to do the same.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2019   #40
2wenty
Registered User
 
2wenty's Avatar
 
2wenty is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noserider View Post
This is totally due to packaging failure of the new Xtol. Once again "Kodak" screws the pooch with a great product. I wonder how many people got burned with the 120 paper backing issue and how much that cost them in warranty replacement. I have a buddy who bought a large amount of the bad backing paper film and got all of it replaced by Kodak, and was a sad moment to have to trash all those unusable rolls of 120. Maybe 20-30 Pro-Packs of 5 hit the garbage. I also wonder how many people will decide not to use Xtol from this point on due to the uncertainty of any Xtol.

The two causes of the original sudden death Xtol were eventually determined and Xtol was stable for me (and others) for years in use my lab running it replenished. I'd mix between 2-3 5L packages per month for several (3-5) years doing thousands of rolls. Any reports or concern about sudden death were due to either the use of Xtol in an older package or not taking the step of at a minimum filtered water or distilled in mixing the stock.

I used to think that it any failure in the past few years was due to the iron in the water but unfortunately we now have to consider the very real possibility that all of the new Xtol product packaging is defective. I will be doing my own test with new and old packaging and believe me, I will be quite vocal to Kodak about my results, and I encourage any reader to do the same.
I tired calling a couple times but no one answers.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 21:22.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.