From   Wed, 16 Apr 2003 17:14:03 -0700 remote
from fanciful.org
Received: by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.6.450.61)
          for photo{at}fanciful.org; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 17:14:03 -0700
Received: from saf.tzo.com ([140.239.225.181]) HELO=saf.tzo.com
          by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP v5.6.450.61) with SMTP
          id 31071109; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 17:14:01 -0700
Received: from 67.95.238.9 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003041620171059335 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Thu, 17 Apr 2003 00:17:10 GMT
Received: from webupdate [67.95.238.194] by mail.netway.net
  (SMTPD32-7.13) id A1C05032C; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 18:13:52 -0600
Message-ID: 
From: "Richard Prentiss" 
To: "photoecho" 
Subject: Strange Xtol
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 18:13:38 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----=_NextPart_000_03EA_01C30443.E72E5880"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_03EA_01C30443.E72E5880
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I'm copying this e-mail traffic to the echo for the
information and interest of those who may be
interested or informed (you know who you are).
The original message was to Photo Techniques.
Rich

Hello everyone,=20

Kodak Xtol Developer in the 1-liter size (only) was discontinued in =
August 2001 due to manufacturing concerns for improper sealing of the =
packets.  This would allow moisture to enter and oxidize the powder =
prior to mixing (clumping the powder).  Other sizes of Xtol still remain =
available and have not had this issue.  I would agree with the =
assessment below in discarding this solution since its properties have =
been compromised.

Thom Bell
Kodak Information Center, USA
Team Leader

http://www.kodak.com/go/professional
1.800.242.2424, extension 19
Monday-Friday 9:00am-7:00pm EST



     QUERYBW2{at}aol.com=20
      04/16/2003 12:01 PM=20

            =20
              To:        prentiss{at}netway.net=20
              cc:        jwhite{at}prestonpub.com, thombell{at}kodak.com, =
Querybw1{at}aol.com=20
              Subject:        Photochemistry/Xtol=20



Thom - we are copying you here on the chance you have a solution or =
explanation for Richard's problems...

Richard,

We suggest you discard this developer. At the very least the risk of =
particulate matter adhering to your film during development is not worth =
taking. We have no idea what the problem is. Assuming there was no =
contamination from the bottles or other sources this is not a problem to =
be expected nor is it one we have come across before.

We are six years removed from Kodak and not current on any possible =
problems at their end, but we have seen many reports on the Net about =
problems with one liter Xtol mixes that track back to inadequate bag =
seals at the factory. These, however do not sound like your problem. =
They generally relate to (1) material that feels crunchy rather than =
powdery in the original package and (2) result in a sudden and very =
premature loss of activity. Your problem sounds different and we can =
offer no explanation. For what it's worth, those problems seem rare to =
nonexistent with the five liter mixes. In any event we urge you not to =
risk important film to the mixes you describe.

Dick & Silvia

*************************************************************************=
*******
> ----------
> From:     Richard Prentiss
> Sent:     Tuesday, April 15, 2003 8:37 PM
> To:     jwhite{at}phototechmag.com
> Subject:     Photochemistry/Xtol
>=20
> Dear Mr. White,
> =20
>         I have a question most nearly related to photochemistry,
> for the attention of Mr. Chapman.
> =20
> I have had two seperate batches of Xtol apparently go bad.
> Mixed from 1 liter packages using distilled water and
> stored in brown glass bottles, after about 2 months and
> 2 rolls of Tri-X, the solutions were found to be a semi-opaque
> sort of olive-drab with black floating particles.=20
> This did not seem at all normal, and Kodak did not
> have much of a response. A test strip seemed to develop
> normally but I am reluctant to proceed with this product
> unless some resolution turns up.
> =20
> Thank you,
> =20
> Richard Prentiss

------=_NextPart_000_03EA_01C30443.E72E5880
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








I'm copying this e-mail traffic to the =
echo for=20
the
information and interest of those who =
may=20
be
interested or informed (you know who =
you=20
are).
The original message was to Photo=20
Techniques.
Rich
 
Hello everyone,
Kodak Xtol Developer in the 1-liter size =
(only) was=20
discontinued in August 2001 due to manufacturing concerns for improper =
sealing=20
of the packets.  This would allow moisture to enter and oxidize the =
powder=20
prior to mixing (clumping the powder).  Other sizes of Xtol still =
remain=20
available and have not had this issue.  I would agree with the =
assessment=20
below in discarding this solution since its properties have been=20
compromised.Thom BellKodak Information
Center, USATeam=20
Leader1.800.242.2424" target="new">http://www.kodak.com/go/professional1.800.242.2424,
=
extension=20
19Monday-Friday 9:00am-7:00pm
EST

  
  
    
    QUERYBW2{at}aol.com=20
      04/16/2003 12:01
PM =

       
    =
     
  To:   =
 =20
         prentiss{at}netway.net         cc:
     =20
       jwhite{at}prestonpub.com, thombell{at}kodak.com, =
Querybw1{at}aol.com=20
       
      =
Subject:=20
           =20
 Photochemistry/XtolThom - we are copying you here on the chance you =
have a=20
solution or explanation for Richard's =
problems...Richard,We=20
suggest you discard this developer. At the very least the risk of =
particulate=20
matter adhering to your film during development is not worth taking. We =
have no=20
idea what the problem is. Assuming there was no contamination from the =
bottles=20
or other sources this is not a problem to be expected nor is it one we =
have come=20
across before.We are six years removed from Kodak and not =
current on any=20
possible problems at their end, but we have seen many reports on the Net =
about=20
problems with one liter Xtol mixes that track back to inadequate bag =
seals at=20
the factory. These, however do not sound like your problem. They =
generally=20
relate to (1) material that feels crunchy rather than powdery in the =
original=20
package and (2) result in a sudden and very premature loss of activity. =
Your=20
problem sounds different and we can offer no explanation. For what it's =
worth,=20
those problems seem rare to nonexistent with the five liter mixes. In =
any event=20
we urge you not to risk important film to the mixes you =
describe.Dick=20
&=20
Silvia***********************************************************=
*********************>=20
----------> From:     Richard
Prentiss> Sent: =
 =20
  Tuesday, April 15, 2003 8:37 PM> To:  
 =20
jwhite{at}phototechmag.com> Subject:    =20
Photochemistry/Xtol> > Dear Mr.
White,> =20
>         I
have a question most nearly =
related=20
to photochemistry,> for the attention of Mr. =
Chapman.> =20
> I have had two seperate batches of Xtol apparently go =
bad.>=20
Mixed from 1 liter packages using distilled water and> stored in =
brown=20
glass bottles, after about 2 months and> 2 rolls of Tri-X, the =
solutions=20
were found to be a semi-opaque> sort of olive-drab with black =
floating=20
particles. > This did not seem at all normal, and Kodak did =
not>=20
have much of a response. A test strip seemed to develop> normally =
but I=20
am reluctant to proceed with this product> unless some resolution =
turns=20
up.>  > Thank
you,>  > Richard=20
Prentiss

------=_NextPart_000_03EA_01C30443.E72E5880--


--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5