marek sramek Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 <html> <head> <title></title> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> </head> <body> <u><i><b>Moderator's note:</b></i></u><i><b> This thread has been locked from futher participation because some people seem incapable of confining their commentary to strictly photographic subject matter. In order to protect what valid information there is contained within the thread I've locked it and edited out, insofar as is possible, any potentially offensive comments that are not inextricably intertwined with photographic topics.<br> <br> If anyone has any truly new questions to ask or information to share related to this topic please feel free to start another thread, observing the usual photo.net guidelines for participation. That means leave out any remarks related to nationalism or those of a personal nature.<br> Lex Jenkins<br> B&W Photography forums moderator, 10/2/04</i></u></b><br><br> <u><i>The original initiating post for this thread follows:</u></i><br> I wonder what is the difference between chemical formula of the old<br> pre-war Rodinal (Calbe F09, Fomadon R09) and its comtemporary version<br> made by Agfa. Does anybody have any idea? Why did Agfa change the<br> formula? Is it because of there new modern emulsion films? Thanks. </body> </html> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_stockdale2 Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 Rodinal has changed at least twice in my time, and I'm not particularly old(!) The formula was probably changed to make it cheaper to make, as was the Agfa Viradon toner which recently had its most expensive ingredient removed (selenium) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustys pics Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 That's curious...I recently picked up a new bottle of Rodinal, and my AGFAPAN 100 came out terrible! I did not do anything different that I haven't done for 15 years. At first I thought it was the "new" APX 100 but perhaps it was the Neo Rodinal. I'm going to buying some RO9 from J and C to find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db1 Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 Of late, I have been using APX 100 (@ iso 100) with Rodinal 1+50 for 13 minutes at 68 degrees. Film comes out rather nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carey_russ Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 I've used both recently. With the slow Efke films, there is not a lot of difference, in fact I like R09 better. With Tri X, modern Rodinal seems to produce negatives with more contrast. Those developed in R09 look muddier. Rodinal works well for dilute stand development; R09 does *not*, not at all. Does anyone know how long R09 lasts in a partially-used bottle? Rodinal seems to last almost forever, or at least a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m0002a Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 The term "new Rodinal" is a relative term, since the developer is over 100 years old (introduced in 1891). Although a few minor changes have been made to the formula over the years, I was not aware that any changes were made recently. In "The Film Developing Cookbook," (Anchell and Troop, 1998) the authors state that the changes made over the years �are not photographically significant.� The main reason that R09 is different than the current version of Rodinal is that Rodinal was originally patented and the formula was published. Once the patent expired, others are free to copy to the original published formula. No one knows exactly what the new Rodinal formula is, so it is difficult to exactly copy. Some people claim that R09 is superior to the current Rodinal, but I very much doubt that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_waller Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 I've used Rodinal now for twenty years and can't say I've noticed any changes other than the bottle. I have recently used it with Agfa APX 100 and, while the grain was quite visible, it was crisp and the tonality was good. I may try APX100/Rodinal in medium format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_zimmermann Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 "<cite> Once the patent expired, others are free to copy to the original published formula. No one knows exactly what the new Rodinal formula is, so it is difficult to exactly copy. </cite>" <P> Calbe is the current name for the chemical unit in Calbe that supplied VEB (People's Own Company) OWRO --- <B>OR</B>iginal <B>WO</B>lfen)--- which is the original Filmfabrik AGFA Wolfen--- In a 1964 settlement the company agreed to remove Agfa from their name. All the original formulas and intellectual property developed by Agfa before the war were in the Wolfen plant and continued to be held there following nationalization by the German Democratic Republic--- it should be recalled that Agfa was part of the I.G. Farben conglomerate that provided not just Kylon-B for the gas chambers, heavily active in exploting concentration camp slave labour but also the Bush family fortune. <P> The West German Agfa ("Agfa AG fur Photofabrikation" in Leverkusen) was founded in 1952 (via the Bayer I.G. Farben connection) and created what they could but many of the Agfa surviving scientists--- one needs to recall that Agfa before the war had many Jewish researchers and was as <B>A</B>ktien <B>G</B>esellschaft <B>F</B>ur <B>A</B>nilin Fabrikation founded by Paul Mendelssohn-Bartholdy who although converted and assimilated was (as was Felix) considered Jewish by the Nazis--- did not defect. <P> If one is looking for the "original" Rodinal with a clear and direct heritage to the Rodinal of 1891 then it would need to be the Calbe and NOT the Agfa Leverkusen production--- which is the one that started off as a development from the published formulas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m0002a Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 Edward, I don�t believe that what I said contradicts you. I agreed that R09 is the original formula. I said that Agfa has made some minor changes to the formula over the years since 1891 that are not "photographically significant" according to Anchell and Troop. I also said that the current Agfa formula is not published and therefore is difficult to copy. There is no evidence that I have seen to suggest that the original Rodinal (or R09) is better than the current Agfa Rodinal. There is no evidence that I have seen that Agfa Rodinal has changed any time recently. If someone has solid information on that, I would like to see it. Unfortunately, I fear that this discussion is deteriorating into some kind of political debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_zimmermann Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 "<cite>Edward, I don?t believe that what I said contradicts you. </cite>" <P> The innuendo, however, was that Calbe was some East European company that copied Rodinal from the published formulas from before the war. The is completely WRONG and an absurd revision to the history of Agfa and its Filmfabrik in Wolfen. <P> "<cite>I agreed that R09 is the original formula. I said that Agfa has made some minor changes to the formula over the years since 1891 that are not "photographically significant" according to Anchell and Troop. I also said that the current Agfa formula is not published and therefore is difficult to copy.</cite>" <P> Again... Calbe IS Agfa! Agfa is a West German company founded in 1952 which won a case in 1964 against Filmfabrik Agfa Wolfen over the use of the Agfa name. The intellectual property that Agfa Leverkusen got from I.G. Farben was the name. The intellectual and physical property (factory, machines etc.) remained in Wolfen. <P> "<cite>There is no evidence that I have seen to suggest that the original Rodinal (or R09) is better than the current Agfa Rodinal.</cite>" <P> Again you are assuming that Calbe's R09 is identical with the published Rodinal formulas. It probably is not as your Troop reference suggests. <P> "<cite>Unfortunately, I fear that this discussion is deteriorating into some kind of political debate.</cite>" <P> There is no way to discuss Agfa without a clear understanding of its history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrylewis747 Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Historical I'm confused. According to an ad in "Wilsons Photographic Magazine,1898" - Actien=Geselischaft fur Anilin=Fabrikation (A.G.F.A.) Photographic Department Berlin, S.O. was the birthplace of Rodinal. How does ORWO and Calbe fit in the timeline? and where is the original formula publish at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_zimmermann Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Agfa was founded in 1873 by Paul Mendelsohn Bartholdy--- son of the composor Felix and grandson of the philosopher Moses--- in Berlin. Their site on the Spree river soon was too small and the company needed to find more suitable location. In 1909 through the initiate Franz Oppenheim (1853 - 1929), Generaldirektor of Agfa, they started building the Filmfabrik in Wolfen--- 15 years earlier they already built the Farbenfabrik there. By 1920 the complex in Wolfen already ranked, behind Kodak, as the 2nd largest maker of photographic materials in the world. By the end of the 1920s even the Berlin research departments ("<cite>Wissenschaftliches Foto-Laboratorium</cite>" founded in 1919) moved to Wolfen and the <cite>Technisch-Wissenschaftliche Laboratorien</cite> were founded in 1929. It was here that the Agfa-color was developed. This, other bits of intellectural property as well as over 40 engineers and scientists were among the war booties siezed by US forced in 1945. <P> With Wolfen now in the Soviet sector which became the German Democratic Republic. The finanical interests of I.G. Farben, due especially to its role in National Socialism, war and slave labour and extermination in camps, were--- as one might imagine-- not high on the list. The factories were nationalized. Bayer which was in Leverkusen-- another part of the I.G. Farben empire-- which was in the American sector (near Cologne) was a natural location to try to continue in the tradename. Both Bayer and the Agfa Filmfabrik in Wolfen claimed rights to the Agfa tradename and following a series of international suits the company in Wolfen agreed in 1964 to drop its claim and change its name. The trademark ORWO means original Wolfen, a name placing a strong claim that its the rightfull Agfa Filmfabrik. ORWO was a largescale company that went beyond just Wolfen into Bitterfeld and the region. The chemical plant (making developers etc.) was located in the town Calbe. <P> Following the collpase of the German Democratic Republic and "unification" the ORWO industrial entity was dismantled. Few of the 15000 (that's 15 thousand) jobs survived. The few companies that emerged from the rubble were Calbe (the chemicals), ORWO/PixelNet (processing services), FilmTec (film),...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 <i>Moderator's note: I've already deleted a somewhat similar thread that deteriorated into politics that are irrelevant to photography, as well as to some bickering. Let's leave this thread as-is unless we can leave out the politics, partisanship and ill-will. Otherwise this thread will also be deleted, which would be a shame due to some of the informative content.</i> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrylewis747 Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Thank you, Edward, for the history information! now does anyone have the original formula and/or patent # so I can do a search? yours in the library hunting mood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m0002a Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 You can get the formula in "The Film Developing Cookbook," by Anchell and Troop, Focal Press 1998, page 117. However, I hope your are not planning to mix some yourself, because even if you have the chemicals, it is relatively difficult for an amateur to make and some of the raw chemicals are a bit toxic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_zimmermann Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 "<cite>now does anyone have the original formula and/or patent # so I can do a search? </cite>"<P>The formulas for Rodinal, resp. R09 (1964 to present), have never been published. The patent is for Paramidophenol developers and there are many recipes making the rounds since the late 1800s. One of the most famous is attributed to Eder. From my copy of Spörl and Neumann, "<cite>Fotografisches Rezeptbuch</cite>" 1943 edition, p.50):<P>N16:<UL><LI>Paramidophenol 50g<LI>Kaliummetabisulfit [Potasium Metabisulfite] 150g<LI>Wasser 625ccm (ml)</UL>Then a solution of<UL><LI>Ätznatron [sodium Hydroxide] 215g<LI>Water 500ccm (ml)</UL>is slowly added untill the cloudyness breaks. According to the book it says this is typically around 350ml.<P>Then the solution is diluted with water to make 1 liter.<P>I need to check my copy of Eder (a quarter of a century older than the above book) to see what formulas he publishes.<P>Current Rodinal uses Potassium hydroxide instead of Sodium hydroxide as an accelerator.<P>As a curiousity.. my "<cite>ORWO Rezepte</cite>" of 1964 lists a Paramidophenol developer as <cite>ORWO 10</cite> (p.21) as a normal portrait developer using alongside Paramidophenol a solution of Sodium Sulfit and Potassium Carbonate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_zimmermann Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 I just pulled out my copy of Eder ("<cite>Rezepte und Tabellen</cite>"... of 1921) and he lists as a Paramidophenol developer basically the ORWO 10 as developer K. Developer L is Rodinal which he says is "<cite>Paramidophenol, Ätznatron, Sulfit</cite>" but does not give a recipe. He mentions that its powder form is Unal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_zimmermann Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 "<cite>You can get the formula in "The Film Developing Cookbook," by Anchell and Troop, Focal Press 1998, page 117</cite>" <P> This is NOT and never was the recipe for Rodinal. From what I've heard he merely publishes a version of the developer attributed to Eder. Rodinal has used various accelerators over its 100 year history and while currently using Potassium Hydroxide (and not Sodium as in the Eder brew) previously, according to my recollection, used Lithium Hydroxide. Rodinal also contains a few other chemicals including Potassium Bromide, Benzotriazole and probably some sodium hexametaphosphate (calgon). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Rodinal formulaation is proprietrary so far as I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m0002a Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Edward, I am not sure I understand what you are saying. In "The Film Developing Cookbook, " they give a formula and detailed mixing instructions (provided by Dr. Elie Shneour) for what they call �Traditional Rodinal.� Anchell and Troop acknowledge that the there have been many different versions of the Rodinal formula that have been published over the years. They make no attempt to give a formula for �Agfa Rodinal.� The formula and instructions are not provided as a historical document applicable to any particular period in the past, rather it is meant to be used by photographers who want to make their own Rodinal today. The ingredients that they list for Traditional Rodinal seems to be identical to the ones you listed (assuming that p-Aminophenol hydrochloride is the same as Paramidophenol), but there is a difference in the amount of sodium hydroxide used. Also, the concentration of the final solution appears to be slightly different. My understanding is the Agfa Rodinal is proprietary only because it is not a published formula. I don�t believe that the formula is currently patented (presumably because of its age). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_zimmermann Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 "<cite>for what they call ?Traditional Rodinal.? </cite>" <P> They can call it Coca Cola--- another trademarked product--- but it still would neither be Rodinal nor Coke. <P> Since Ansco and Rodinal fell under Alien Property Custodian Act and a lot of intellectual property was siezed following the war, pre-war Rodinal is perhaps "proprietary" but not top-secret. <P> "<cite>Anchell and Troop acknowledge that the there have been many different versions of the Rodinal formula that have been published over the years. </cite>" <P> Again. There have been several publications of Paramidophenol developers and there have been several recipes making the rounds that claim (most as Anschell and Troop incorrectly) to produce Rodinal but there have never been to my knowledge a publication by Agfa of the formula for Rodinal. <P> "<cite>The ingredients that they list for Traditional Rodinal seems to be identical to the ones you listed</cite>" <P> Close. Its, as a wrote, a well known Paramidophenol developer attributed to Josef Maria Eder. Since it is not in his books (I did not find it in the 1921 edition of his most relevant handbook, the "<cite>Rezepte und</cite>..." whose first edition appeared in 1892) I could imagine that he either mentioned the recipe to his students in Vienna or its a formula devised following or paying homage to his comments on Paramidophenol developers and is not really attributable to him. The developing mechanism (photochemistry) is indeed quite similar to Rodinal but its NOT Rodinal and probably never was. <P> They do NOT match either of Calbe R09 or Agfa Rodinal. <P> This discussion highlights the kind of Internet disinformation or poor research that makes the rounds. Neither Anchell nor Troop, given some inquiries, appear to be familiar at all with the German literature and its doubted if they, at all, can read German. This makes for a rather poor foundation given the overwhelming significance of the German pre-war literature. I see time and again, incorrect attributions, wrong formulas etc. making the rounds like lice in a kindergarten. I do not have a copy of their cookbook but from the formulas I've seen attributed to have been copied from that book I suspect they did not do their research well. The Beutler High Acutance Film Developer too comes to mind. Not only do I think, based upon multiple citations to the Cookbook, they considered "their" formula to be for Neofin Blue (which it is NOT) but they did not even correctly present the recipe as published by Beutler in his book. I don't think I've yet seen on these American web sites a correct presentation of Beutler's recipe but, time and again, the same reductio. <P> Such a book as the "Cookbook" does have its place but the "research" I strongly suspect was Usenet, Web and hand-me-downs with the accademic rigeur of the <cite>National Enquirer</cite>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrylewis747 Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 Well if you like, I can give you Steve Anchell's email address and you can correct things. He is at present into a revision of his cookbooks, and would probable welcome the contributions. I know I appreciated you information on Agfa History and your previous translation on Beautler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m0002a Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 I have seldom heard such ranting and raving in my entire life (except when we discuss dry-mounting). Anchell and Troop, and the vast majority of the people who read �The Film Developing Cookbook,� are interested in making photographs today, and not concerned about the historical accuracy of what exact Rodinal formula may have been used in the past. The formula they printed (which is very close to the one posted by Edward) is for those people who want to mix up Rodinal themselves to develop negatives, not necessarily using the exact Agfa Rodinal formula, nor the exact Cable formula, but a version of Rodinal that produces good results that is reasonably close to one the packaged varieties. Despite what was claimed in a previous post, they did included detailed mixing instructions with their formula (not nearly as simple as mixing up some D-76). The �Traditional Rodinal� formula printed in �The Film Developing Cookbook� has been used and tested by many people as a reasonable alternative to the packaged Rodinal formulas, and is not just a piece of academic research from the Internet or a tabloid. Being a long time Rodinal user myself (since the mid 1970�s), I am perfectly happy with the Agfa version, and I have not �noticed� any changes since I first started using it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_zimmermann Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 "<cite>Anchell and Troop, and the vast majority of the people who read ?The Film Developing Cookbook,?</cite>" <P> Sounds like a lead-in defense for boulevard pulp (once called "<cite>yellow</cite>" press).... or worse... some populist political figure grinning away.. <P> "<cite>are interested in making photographs today, and not concerned about the historical accuracy of what exact Rodinal formula may have been used in the past</cite>" <P> That's right.. Lets not worry about accuracy. You have claimed in these forums that the formula published in the Cookbook is for "<cite>historical Rodinal</cite>" and even went one step further and alleged that it was the basis for Calbe R09. What's that popular American one liner "<cite>Don't confuse me with the facts, boy</cite>"? <P> I think, on the contrary, many of the readers of that Cookbook expect it to be correct and just don't know better. It sort-of like watching the evening news on television. While some realize its propaganda many expect it to be "<cite>unbiased journalism</cite>" (a contradition in terms). <P> The developer claimed here to be Rodinal was probably (I could say never) the Rodinal sold in shops by Agfa. Nowhere in the historical literature I have is Eder's Paraminophenol developer called Rodinal. The developer published by Troop is misleadingly called Rodinal. Its stretching things to even call it "<cite>Rodinal like</cite>". It does not act the same as Rodinal and is not as flexible. The Eder formula has, as some here might have discovered "the hard way", a few problems with dichroic fog. Rodinal contains a restrainer (potassium bromide) in concert with a more potent accelerator and also probably a very small amount of Benzotriazole. The Eder Paraminophenol developer--- and again, I'm calling it Eder since it has been in the literature attributed to Eder but since its not in Eder's book its neither confirmed nor refuted--- is quite usefull, as are many developers, but its not a replacement for Rodinal. In this vain it is interesting to note that some 80 plus years ago Agfa recomended for their photographic plates either Rodinal 1:20 or, alternatively, a Metol Hydrochinon or Pyro Soda--- but not for the Chromo Iso-rapid plates--- developer and included recipees. <P> If one considers that, on the whole, the current state of the art in monochrome is decades old then history fails to be "bunk". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m0002a Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 Edward, I am sorry you don�t like the names Anchell and Troop, but just as a matter of historical accuracy, they <b>are</b> the authors of �The Film Developing Cookbook,� and it is not appropriate to criticize them for what their names sound like.</p> Please show me where I said that the formula published by Anchell and Troop (in �The Film Developing Cookbook�) was the �Historical Rodinal.� They used the words �Traditional Rodinal� in their book. Anchell and Troop never claimed that the Traditional Rodinal formula they published was the same as Agfa Rodinal. Whether it is the original formula or the current Agfa formula is irrelevant. They acknowledged that there have been over a hundred different Rodinal formulas published, and that they did not claim theirs was more accurate than the others. They also pointed out that the Agfa formula has changed over the years, although they did not think the changes were �photographically significant.�</p> The Rodinal formula they publish is widely in use for those who want to mix up their own developer. If you have a better formula then please let us know. Or you can contact the authors so they can include in the next revision of their book. If you do have a better formula, I hope it has been tested with chemicals widely available today, and is not merely �historically accurate.� </p> I never said that history is bunk. I said that the authors were trying to help people (right now) who want mix their developers from scratch, regardless of whether the formulas they publish are historically accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now