traveler_101

<p>The link to Feestyle's listing of Fomadon R09 indicates that is not the developer I have, or at least, it has neither the same bottle, nor the same labelling as what I have. I see also that the formula mentions 1:25 or 1:50 dilution, while I just found a slip of paper that accompanied my bottle saying that it should be diluted 1:20 or 1:40. Ok, I just went to the Foma site and the same bottle and technical specifications are listed there as on the Freestyle site: http://www.foma.cz/produkty-fomadon-r09-detail-158<br> I have to conclude that I must have the old formula Fomadon R09; actually I think that this is similar to the "one-shot" formula of the Compard product you linked. It has a very limited shelf life . . . and I see also that my bottle expired almost exactly one year ago. I am going to dispose of it. Just ordered a new bottle of Fomadon R09. This should be the new formula -- rather than this old stuff.</p>

<p>Thanks, Charles, for looking all this up. It is news to me that AP 400 and Tri-X are NOT the same film. I simply accepted on the internet scuttlebutt that they were identical. I see the point of testing and working things through, but at this point with just 20 rolls of AP 400 left and considering the fact that Freestyle has discontinued it, I will simply avoid using R09 with this film. I bought a brick of Tri-X on my last trip to the States and will start working with it, leaving the AP for other proven developers.</p> <p>Chris, I'd love to get that my hands on that Agfa Rodinal. I really wish these companies stayed in business rather than dropping by the wayside because of a temporary dip in the market (lol).</p> <p>Mike, that would be so cool--make your own! I have a feeling--just a complete guess--that acquisition of chemicals is restricted here. I should check it out.</p> <p>Hi Jeff. Why Rodinal? I think I should explain. Actually my "standard" developer is D-76 and that is owing to the nice tonality with Tri-X and AP. D-76 is cheap and because it is a powder I can bring it back here from the States. However, I am trying to develop a "palette" by matching films and developers in order to get certain looks. (I hope that this doesn't sound too pretentious.) At times, with certain scenes I want to have grain. At other times I want heavy contrast, etc. etc.</p> <p>Jeff, I am interested in other looking at other films; thanks for your recommendation. I googled APX 100 and this is what I found: "Jeg har ikke sett denne filmen til salgs noe sted i Norge, men den lar seg jo enkelt bestille fra Tyskland." To translate--"can't find this film for sale in Norway, but it is easy to order from Germany." Sure, but it is very costly to import anything here. What I did find was Adox Silvermax 100 at around $9 a roll. That's double what I pay for Tri-X or T-Max in the States, but perhaps it is worth it. Any good?</p>

<p>Well, something else just came to my attention. If one assumes for a moment that Arista Premium and Tri-X are identical (as is often stated), then it should be noted MDC has Tri-X 400 at <strong>13.5 minutes</strong> in Fomadon R09. Applying the 15% less rule for pulling we get 11.5 minutes, again this should be at 40:1.<br> If this is right, I needed 2.5 minutes (or nearly 30%) MORE development and at a considerably stronger concentration of the developer. My intuition tells me that this would have done the trick. </p>

<p>"From the list AP ISO 400 @ EI 200 in Rodinal 1:50 is 9 minutes at 68°F." That's right, Charles, and I checked that before developing. I believe my confusion came from equating R09 with Rodinal: they aren't the same. i should have known better. Didn't think to check Freestyle, that was useful. Thanks. It has Arista Premium 400 at 11 minutes in Fomadon R09. If I use the 15% less rule for film pulled one stop that would make it around 9.5 minutes; so I was not that far off. HOWEVER, according to Freestyle, I should have been mixing it at 40:1 instead of 50:1. That seems like a pretty significant difference, but I'm not sure that accounts for the problem. It seems to me there is still a good chance that the developer may be weakening as well. <br> Chris, I developed at 20 C (68 F) and I was very precise with measuring the temp. The thermometer is good.<br> I just ordered a new 250 ml bottle of R09. Very limited choices up here as chemicals must be shipped via ground transportation. Anyone use Adox Adonal? It is very expensive here but if it keeps well I may try it.</p>

<p>Thanks--looks like I was using the wrong time table. Just a couple of clarifications: I was shooting Arista Premium, not Arista Ultra. The Premium is the rebranded Tri-X. The recommended time was from a post on this forum just three years ago so it does refer to modern Tri-X.</p>

<p>I decided to try Tri-X, well actually Arista Premium 400, in Fomadon R09. I followed a formula and procedure I found on an old thread (http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00YD14):<br> "Tri-X 400 (E.I. 250) in Rodinal 1+50 9:00 minutes. First minute continuous then every 30s 1x agitate, slowly." Only difference was that I exposed at 200 instead of 250--meaning even greater overexposure. <br> The result was disappointing. I got under-developed negatives; not awful--just greyish--not enough tonal separation. I know they are under-developed because the film identification marking is slightly faded.<br> Question: is this due to pulling (over-exposing) the film? Perhaps pulling requires even more development--(but I had assumed that overexposure would require less development and thought if anything I was erring on the side of over development); or is it due to the effectiveness of the developer, either improper mixing (perhaps it is supposed to be at 1:40 instead of 1:50), or perhaps a loss of potency? The developer is past date, but it is based on the Rodinal formula (apparently) and is supposed to be effective for a long time.</p>

<p>Reviving this thread . . . I need some advice . . .<br> I decided to try Tri-X, well actually Arista Premium, in Fomadon R09. I followed this formula and procedure: "Tri-X 400 (E.I. 250) in Rodinal 1+50 9:00 minutes. First minute continuous then every 30s 1x agitate, slowly." Only difference was that I exposed at 200 instead of 250--meaning even greater overexposure.<br> The rest was disappointing I got under-developed negatives; not awful--just greyish--not enough tonal separation. I know they are under-developed because the film identification marking is slightly faded.<br> Question: is this due to pulling (over-exposing) the film? Perhaps pulling requires even more development--(but I had assumed that overexposure would require less development and thought if anything I was erring on the side of over development); or is it due to the effectiveness of the developer, either improper mixing (perhaps it is supposed to be at 1:40 instead of 1:50), or perhaps a loss of potency? The developer is past date, but it is based on the Rodinal formula (apparently) and is supposed to be effective for a long time.</p>