Fresh XTOL from PSI and thin Negatives

[MattKing]

Matt, is this true that Eastman Kodak is using Estar base for Portra and Ektar color film???

I don't know.
But if they have managed to switch it over to Estar, that will be a good thing, because EK makes the Estar base, but has to buy the acetate base from overseas, and that acetate base manufacture is highly dependent on availability of petroleum based components sourced, historically, from places like Russia and the Middle East.

 

[mshchem]

Making cellulose acetate plastic film involves/involved a lot of solvent to dissolve and then cast the film base. It could be environmental regulation that's driving adoption of polyester.

Heck, I will be the first to admit I don't know what's going on.

I'm going to have to do some digging. Everything on the web is very outdated.

I'm going to need to get a densitometer too

 

[MattKing]

As someone who spends more time on this forum than I would care to admit I am acutely aware of the situation unfortunately. However until the labeling of the package ditches the Kodak logo I do still believe it is their (Kodak TM/C with a circle around it/R or whatever) problem. As a consumer (I'm not a lab, I'm not a photofinisher, I have no Kodak Alaris account or whatever, I just buy their junk at Freestyle) I look at the big yellow Kodak logo and I buy their product and I use it as they advertise/advise it and it does not work as expected and I could be upset. And most people probably end their journey there. But as a photographer who cares about how my pictures come out I understand that I should test any materials that I use in my process.

All of this to say, I think Kodak is doing a disservice to customers by not holding up certain standards to their suppliers and distributors. But I think this delves further into a topic that isn't covered on this particular post. For this post, I think anyone that is doing any sort of work that they consider valuable they should test their materials and make sure it lives up to their expectations and either find a way to make it work or move to a product that works the way it's intended to without all of the fuss. That's an individual choice and commitment that each user has to make, but the fact that they need to waste $15 for developer and a tank full of film to come to that conclusion is a shame, and all of the business of Kodak selling rights to whoever and blah blah blah that led us here is a damned shame. I just want to use the stuff and move on, but instead I'm here on a forum...

Back off topic really quick though (did I ever really get on topic?)!!! I've found my way through this mess because I care about the process more than most people who casually engage with photography, but I fear Kodak is doing more harm by allowing a product to be sold with their logo on it than they would be by canning the entire operation until they find a way to make it simple. accurate, dependable, and according to their own data sheets which should be the end all be all of questioning. Whether it's x y or z that's selling the stuff.

I understand the frustration.
But the very existence of Kodak film is due to the fact that the bankrupt EK was able to divest themselves of all these associated businesses and products and employees, while continuing, in the case of Photo Systems, to receive a new source of licensing revenue.
They get what they can for use of the name on chemicals, cameras, apparel, miscellaneous other goods, and that helps justify the continuing existence of the photographic production line to the investors who demand return on investment.
Photo Systems has decades of involvement in the photo chemical industry. It is to their advantage - much more than EK's - to produce and sell products that meet the needs of customers. From EK's point of view, they are a much better repository of the brand than Sino Promise was, but EK had no say in the sale of what was Kodak Alaris' to sell. EK is merely fortunate enough to be able to benefit from Sino Promise' demise, because Kodak Alaris was unable or unwilling (or both) to take the business back.

 

[mshchem]

I'm re-watching the 1st part of Smarter Every Day, where they're walking through the production of Estar PET films. I have a bit of a background in extrusion, ABS and HIPS sheet for thermoforming refrigerator interior liners. Nothing nearly as complicated as this operation!

What Eastman Kodak is doing in producing this PET base is truly magic. Keeping the process flowing continuously, never shutting down is important.

I would bet that Kodak films (photographic) doesn't use 15% of the PET films that are produced (SWAG). This stuff is amazing.

This has peaked my interest.

Now back to XTOL, I need to sort through my retained bags of XTOL, see how many versions I have.

 

[Steven Lee]

All of this to say, I think Kodak is doing a disservice to customers by not holding up certain standards to their suppliers and distributors.

Actually, Kodak certified PSI manufacturing process and facilities as meeting their quality standards. It's on their website. Unfortunately, sometimes subjective factors are at play. Maybe they hired a European exchange student as an intern and he confused pounds with kilos

 

[mshchem]

Actually, Kodak certified PSI manufacturing process and facilities as meeting their quality standards. It's on their website. Unfortunately, sometimes subjective factors are at play. Maybe they hired a European exchange student as an intern and he confused pounds with kilos

The famous Inches and centimeters screw up was a NASA Mars mission that impacted rather than landed.

 

[mshchem]

Thanks for contacting Kodak Alaris



Yes, that is true. We are now coating our Professional Color Negative Films (Portra / EKTAR) on 0.10 mm (3.94 mil) KODAK ESTAR.



There are a number of benefits to ESTAR:

It is manufactured by Eastman Kodak

Kodak ESTAR features very high clarity / optical quality / transparency

Kodak ESTAR is dimensionally stable and is more durable and resistant to degradation or decay



Hope this helps,


Email response I received today from Thomas Mooney @ Kodak Moments.

looks like everything is heading to Estar, actually is better. I've found old tins with decaying acetate, horrible smell. Estar will last for centuries. Mike

 

[xtol121]

Sounds great on paper! In practice I find it a little more difficult to work with in the darkroom but I’m sure I’ll manage. Curious if there’s any reason why they don’t make it the same thickness as the previous base? Or maybe it is, but the Estar base is just more pliable? I’m not sure if this topic has been discussed elsewhere…

And @mshchem thanks for emailing and posting!

 

[mshchem]

Back on XTOL, I just processed a roll of TMY-2 35mm in stock XTOL, pushed it two stops. From a family gathering today. I was shooting my 1932 Leica II, Summar 5cm, 30th @f 2.2. The negatives look fine to me. I developed it for 9 minutes, room temperature 68-70°F, using the new Jobo gizmo Silverbase.

I will try to make a scan or print tomorrow.

I guess for me I will keep an eye out for weird results.

 

[MattKing]

We are now coating our Professional Color Negative Films (Portra / EKTAR) on 0.10 mm (3.94 mil) KODAK ESTAR.

So the black and white films are probably still on acetate.
Most likely the relatively tiny sales volumes don't justify spending the time and money to switch them to Estar. So we should expect to continue to see price volatility on the black and white Kodak roll films.

 

[mshchem]

More from Thomas Mooney

"All sheet films are on 7 mil ESTAR.



All the color negative roll films will be on ESTAR



All the B&W films are on acetate.



E100 35mm is on acetate and 120 format is on ESTAR.



Hope this helps clarify."

 

[MattKing]

@mshchem ,
You may want to copy these posts respecting the official news about the shift to Estar base to the Industry News thread about the Eastman Kodak scheduled temporary shut down - because I'm sure there are connections.

 

[brbo]

@mshchem ,
You may want to copy these posts respecting the official news about the shift to Estar base to the Industry News thread about the Eastman Kodak scheduled temporary shut down - because I'm sure there are connections.

Why do you think it's related to the shutdown? They've shifted all 35mm colour negative film to Estar prior to the shutdown.

 

[MattKing]

Why do you think it's related to the shutdown? They've shifted all 35mm colour negative film to Estar prior to the shutdown.

Any such change will inevitably also have required other consequential changes.
For example, with respect to perforators and slitters, plus any equipment that had been optimized for the thickness and weight and "cuttability" of acetate

 

[brbo]

They've been perforating and cutting Estar-based film on "unoptimised" equipment for years now. I really hope the shutdown and upgrade was about something else than transitioning the last couple of remaining emulsions to Estar.

 

[MattKing]

They've been perforating and cutting Estar-based film on "unoptimised" equipment for years now. I really hope the shutdown and upgrade was about something else than transitioning the last couple of remaining emulsions to Estar.

Yes - but some of the highest volume still film machines - the ones used for 35mm Portra and Ektar - were mostly used for acetate films. They probably had to switch out parts and make specific adjustments each time than ran a run of anything on Estar.
There would have been multiple reasons for the shutdown and upgrade. A fairly momentous switch in base material for some of the higher volume production items would be an important one.
By the way, this switch - to Estar base for a large amount of still film - will likely mean some fairly important changes in what remains of the high volume commercial processing world.
Any roller transport machines rely on the relative "tearability" of any customer film with un-disclosed damage. Estar based film is incredibly strong, and can damage film transports if it goes astray. In comparison, damaged acetate based film will usually tear, and leave the transport unharmed.

 

[Tina Kino]

I believe if they cared about it they would have done some testing and released updated information.

I was baffled there's no data sheet at all on the XTOL product page - but instead they just link to the massive dev chart


Sent a mail to both PSI and Kodak, and asked what's up with that / asked whether they could send over a proper data sheet.


PSI replied:

There has been no formula change and the former published Kodak data sheets are still valid.


Kodak (that is: CineStill) replied:

XXXX from CineStill here. We are charged with offering support for Kodak Chemistry.
You can find Normal and push/pull processing times available at The Massive Development Chart by Digital Truth.
Think of published developing times like a recipe, the time and temperatures are a great starting point, but you may have to tweak and adjust until you achieve your desired results.
I hope this helps.


I asked them whether they're thinking that this is the way to go to win the trust of customers back after the shit show with Sino. Haven't heard back yet

 

[Tina Kino]

For what it's worth, I did develop a handfull of films in the most recent version of XTOL (CAT 105 8338) in the last two weeks,
using the times given by the old Kodak data sheet (or, if there were discrepancies, like with Delta 400 - the Ilford page calls for 11,5 mins @20°C, 1:1 for EI 400 - XTOL sheet only calls for 10,5 mins - then I opted for the longer time).

Negatives of all films are definitely quite thin.

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

For what it's worth, I did develop a handfull of films in the most recent version of XTOL (CAT 105 8338) in the last two weeks,
using the times given by the old Kodak data sheet (or, if there were discrepancies, like with Delta 400 - the Ilford page calls for 11,5 mins @20°C, 1:1 for EI 400 - XTOL sheet only calls for 10,5 mins - then I opted for the longer time).

Negatives of all films are definitely quite thin.

This is concerning.
What's going on?

 

[radialMelt]

Just processed two rolls of fresh TMAX400 in 120. 1:1 dilution, 20C, 9:05, agitation as per Kodak J-109, with some XTOL I mixed up a couple months ago. Negatives came out looking great. Scanned even better.

 

[pentaxuser]

Negatives of all films are definitely quite thin.

Can I ask if you mean thinner than negatives that you developed in previous or other versions of Xtol pre PSI or is this the first time you have used any Xtol at all and you have concluded that at the correct Kodak times for Xtol the negatives were thin compared to other developers you have used?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Tina Kino]

What's going on?

..not sure!

with some XTOL I mixed up a couple months ago

Is the XTOL you're using from the recent (PSI) production?

Can I ask if you mean thinner than negatives that you developed in previous or other versions of Xtol pre PSI or is this the first time you have used any Xtol at all and you have concluded that at the correct Kodak times for Xtol the negatives were thin compared to other developers you have used?

First time using XTOL at all.
I have used the times from the Kodak Alaris data sheet for the first rolls (one T-Max, Tri-X, HP5 and Delta 400 each), second round I was actually using the longer times published by Ilford (7,5min vs. 7min in stock, 11,5min vs. 10,5 in 1:1 @20°C) for the Delta 400, still too thin.

 

[radialMelt]

Is the XTOL you're using from the recent (PSI) production?

Sorry, I actually have no idea. It was purchased new in November, but how long it had been sitting on the shelf at the shop prior to that I cannot say.

 

[pentaxuser]

..not sure!



Is the XTOL you're using from the recent (PSI) production?



First time using XTOL at all.
I have used the times from the Kodak Alaris data sheet for the first rolls (one T-Max, Tri-X, HP5 and Delta 400 each), second round I was actually using the longer times published by Ilford (7,5min vs. 7min in stock, 11,5min vs. 10,5 in 1:1 @20°C) for the Delta 400, still too thin.

Thanks, can I assume that with other developers you can use the film manufacturers' times which do not give thin negs and secondly what problems when printing those thin negatives do the thinner negs give you and finally, are you able to adjust print exposure and /or contrast to produce perfectly satisfactory prints?

Thanks again

pentaxuser

 

[Tina Kino]

Thanks, can I assume that with other developers you can use the film manufacturers' times

Yes, for the most part.

what problems when printing those thin negatives do the thinner negs give you and finally, are you able to adjust print exposure and /or contrast to produce perfectly satisfactory prints?

Afraid to say I don't wet-print at the moment as I don't have the space, so just scan the negatives.


Good luck, and let us know how things are working out for you!