Old R09 and new Rodinal

[edward_zimmermann]

Mark: "<cite>I am sorry you don?t like the names Anchell and Troop,</cite>"

<P>

I never expressed a preference.

<P>

"<cite> but just as a matter of historical accuracy, they are the authors of ?The Film Developing Cookbook,?</cite>"

<P>

I never suggested to the contrary.

<P>

Mark: "<cite>Please show me where I said that the formula published by Anchell and Troop (in ?The Film Developing Cookbook?) was the ?Historical Rodinal.?</cite>"

<P>

In this thread and others you have, time and again, suggested that Calbe R09 is based upon some published formula:

"<cite>The main reason that R09 is different than the current version of Rodinal is that Rodinal was originally patented and the formula was published. </cite>"

If its not the Eder developer (as published in that Cookbook) then which publication did you have in mind? Whatever that is you also say "<cite>the current Agfa formula is not published and therefore is difficult to copy.</cite>". Is this not implying that:

<OL>

<LI>Calbe R09 is based upon a published formula

<LI>Agfa Rodinal is proprietary. Calbe R09 is not.

</OL>

<P>

You also state in passing "<cite>Some people claim that R09 is superior to the current Rodinal, but I very much doubt that.</cite>"

Is this not an implicit-- given that you have not used R09-- suggestion that the Agfa product has some proprietary improvements over that fictive formula that you have explictly suggested that Calbe took?

[hans_beckert]

Herren und Damen:

 

Why all the fuss over a developer that's really not all that good for modern films?

 

Jacobsen and Jacobsen's version:

[m0002a]

No, Edward. I suggested that the Rodinal patent has expired, or never existed, or it can no longer be patented because of the number of years the product has been in use. Obviously, any changes made by Agfa or Calbe are proprietary if they are successful in keeping it a secret, without the benefit of patent law.

 

What I did say is that there have been changes over the years made to Agfa Rodinal (and I presume Calbe R09 and almost every other photographic product), but Anchell and Troop claim that any changes to the Agfa product have not been photographically significant.

 

The implication has been made by some on this forum that the Agfa version has somehow been compromised over the years and the Calbe R09 product is better because it is more faithful to the original formula. That is a claim that has been routinely made by those who have tried to promote Calbe R09 on this forum.

[hans_beckert]

Another version, from 'Photographic Facts and Formulas'.

[hans_beckert]

More from 'Photographic Facts and Formulas', next page:

[edward_zimmermann]

"<cite>Why all the fuss over a developer that's really not all that good for modern films?</cite>"

<P>

I would actually disagree. Its somewhat ironic but that statement could well have been exclaimed 70 years ago. Rodinal made, in fact, its comeback with the development of "modern" thin emulusion films in the 1950s. Rodinal might "highlight" the grain but it does not create it. Grain is intrinic to the emulsion and thin emulsion fine grained films will have finer grain. In today's digital imaging 10+ megapixel-- and rising--- capture crazed world, the kind of effects one gets from Rodinal and other high accutance developers is more in line with the direction that silver based photography is taking: Monochrome and a bit of grain is hip! Rodinal is, even forgeting the Zeitgeist, not obsolete as its quite low contrast and used in high dilutions is suited to things like micro and document films (Copex, Ortho25, TechPan etc.).

<P>

Among the class of ready mixed, commercial, Paramidophenol developers alongside Agfa Rodinal, Calbe R09 and FOMADON R 09 another to mention is SPUR SLD. What is also quite nice about these developers--- beyond what they produce--- is the amazing shelf-life.

<P>

The worse enemy of Rodinal, I think, is Agfa itself, a company that seems to be reacting--- including discontinuing the production of sheet films, cut RA-4 paper and in the very near future <U>all</U> fixed grade monochrome papers and who knows what else--- and not acting.

[hans_beckert]

Edward Zimmermann , dec 07, 2003; 04:46 a.m.

"Why all the fuss over a developer that's really not all that good for modern films?"

 

'I would actually disagree. Its somewhat ironic but that statement could well have been exclaimed 70 years ago. Rodinal made, in fact, its comeback with the development of "modern" thin emulusion films in the 1950s.'

 

Edward:

 

The advances made in devloper composition are quite significant. Rodinal is certainly adequate for the slower films, such as 25-50 ISO group, but developers such as FX-39 for tabular-grain materials, Acutol for conventional ones up to 400 ISO, and Aculux-2 for all of them, eclipse Rodinal on speed, sharpness, and tonality. Rodinal is quite old and the newer films require specilaized devlopers individually tailored to each film group. This Paterson has done. Rodinal is not even close to the Paterson products on any count.

 

Pan-F would be better in Acutol or Aculux-2

 

FP4 would be better in Acutol or Aculux-2

 

HP5 would be better in Acutol or Aculux-2

 

Delta would be better in FX-39 or Aculux-2

 

T-Max would be better in FX-39 or Aculux-2

 

Neopan would be better in FX-39 or Aculux-2

 

 

Hans Beckert

[edward_zimmermann]

"<cite>The advances made in devloper composition are quite significant. </cite>"

<P>

From when are we talking about are these "advances"? From the 1920s? Seriously... modern (thin emulsion) films are nearly 50 years old... even the latest T-crystal emulsions (Kodak TMax, Ilford Delta) are already decades old... and are all the "state of the art" microfilms like Copex, Imagelink and sibling products... old stuff.. In the 1950s it was already quite common in amateur circles to underdevelop films like AgfaOrtho for pictorial applications to get higher resolution... Which takes us to developers.... One of the last great developments was probably Marilyn Levy's Phenidone developer (going on 40 years old)-- the H&W Control patents were really based upon this "<cite>prior art</cite>". And what is that Phenidone developer? Its state-of-the-art.... end of the 1800s! Despite not being widely available until the 1950s, the Ilford research on Phenidone put it firmly on a timeline as hardly newer than Rodinal..

 

<P>

Most of the newer developers (Technidol etc.) or even kits like Gigabyte are based upon these. Granted, some like SPUR Nanospeed have solved some of the problems but the advances are evolutionary and nothing that could not have been done a few decades ago--- and nothing that might not have been done a few decades ago.

<P>

The last time I think one could have talked about "<cite>advances</cite>" for monochrome in a contemporary sense was maybe the 1960s. But already by then the attention was shifted to...

[hans_beckert]

T-Max developers are new since only 15 years

Paterson FX39 and FX50 developers are new since only 10 years or so. Paterson Acutol is from 1961

Xtol is new since 11 years

HC110 is relatively new, from the 1960's

 

All of these developers are far newer than Rodinal, which dates from 1891.

[garrylewis747]

Well you are correct, Hans. Those "formulas" are all "newer" than Rodinal. But Their "ingredients" have been known since the 1930's. An their ancestors, various combinations and substitutes, also can be traced back to these days.

I think we are getting far afield of the original track of the poster question- the difference between 09 and todays Rodinal. A question ultimatly only solveable with a set of head-to-head tests.

[hans_beckert]

Garry D. Lewis , dec 08, 2003; 01:34 p.m.

"Well you are correct, Hans. Those "formulas" are all "newer" than Rodinal. But Their "ingredients" have been known since the 1930's. An their ancestors, various combinations and substitutes, also can be traced back to these days."

 

Of course all current films are **somewhat** similar too. Tri-X is not all that much different from Super-XX. But of course the point is that these newer formulas (Xtol, FX-39, FX-50, etc.) were developed specifically to work well with the latest generations of films, wheras Rodinal has had no such refinement. It is really a fairly primitive developer and I do not see why the tiny changes that may have been made to it should elicit such concern. It's still a paraminophenol developer with caustic accelerator.

[bill_troop1]

Alerted by a kind reader, I write in profoundly pained response to some of the things that Edward Zimmerman (whoever he may be -- could someone please reliably enlighten me?) has written, in this thread, about me and my book, the Film Developing Cookbook.

 

>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 National Enquirer.<

 

Mr. Zimmerman. First of all, the word academic is spelt with two c's, not three. Second. Have you read my book? Had you even glanced at the four pages of acknowledgements, you would see that the manuscript had been read and critiqued by, amonng others, Grant Haist and T.H. James. I defy you to find me two greater figures in the entire literature of photographic science. My friendships with such seminal figures in modern photographic science as Haist, James, H.D. Russell and Dick Henn form the basis of my knowledge, which was distilled for general readers by me and Steve Anchell in this book. (Let me also not fail to mention those comparative youngsters, Silvia Zawadzki and Dick Dickerson, who have been so helpful to me, and who continue to be helpful, and of course Geoffrey Crawley.) Nobody has ever before impugned my writing as you have. Yet it seems you have done so without even having read my book. Yet you do not seem to be the kind of person who would criticize a book without reading it. What, then, could possibly account for this strange lapse? I can only think of one thing. If, by some unfortunate chance, you are unable to afford even a discounted copy from Amazon, please write to me and I will send you a copy.

 

>Neither Anchell nor Troop, given some inquiries, appear to be familiar at all with the German literature and it[']s doubted if they, at all, can read German. <

 

Ah. You've made some inquires, and IT is doubted if "they" can read German. Forgive me if I begin to suspect that you love hyperbole more than you love truth. From whom, Mr. Zimmerman, did you make these inquiries -- could you tell me that? I haven't received any. Nobody I know has received any. And I am one of the most accessible people in the US. My German is now rusty compared to what it was, but I did live in that country for some time, and my accent was, I blush to admit, praised fulsomely by Winifred Wagner when I was twelve and made my first visit to Bayreuth. (My voice was breaking at the time, and I was then able to sing every note from soprano to bass. I will admit that when I sang, unaccompanied and from memory, a substantial part of the third act of Götterdämmerung for a group that included the great soprano Frida Leider, Mme Leider, almost beside herself with mirth at my childish audacity, gave me several pointers.)

 

Mr. Zimmerman -- how good is your German? I like to practice mine whenever I have the opportunity. So when, or if, you apply to me for your copy of the FDC, perhaps you would be so sporting as to do it auf Deutsch?

 

I think it must be recognized by everyone who has read my book that I really did, over a period of many, many years, try to gather and to bring forth the best information that anyone possibly could, that would be helpful to people who wanted to know more about film developing. That I can have done this for any motive other than profound love of the science and the art is inconceivable. FDC is, I am told, Focal's most successful book in this field, but the royalties since it was published a few years ago would not even cover my phone bills from the years when I was researching it.

 

I do not even mention my experience in formulating some interesting and innovative photographic chemical products for Photographers Formulary and others. What are your credentials Mr. Zimmerman?

 

I really think I have the right to demand an apology for these caddish remarks. Were it possible to challenge you to a duel I would gladly do so. Failing that, I am willing to wager a quarter that I can recite more (let us say) 18th century German verse than you can.

 

Finally, since Dr. Elie Shneour's reputation has come into this discussion (as it was he who provided us with the particular representative formula of what we call "traditional Rodinal" in the book) permit me to state that Dr. Schneour is a distinguished biochemist and is (or was) the Director of the Biosystems Research Institute in San Diego. Dr. Schneour did not just pass along a formula to me. He has been obsessed with Rodinal for decades, even going to so far as to commission spectographic analyses. (And by the way, Dr. Shneour also read and critiqued my book.)

 

I have written somewhere -- maybe in my book -- that we all came very close to learning a lot more about Rodinal when Bob Schwalberg got Agfa to agree to publish all formulas for Rodinal except the current one. Unfortunately, his premature death frustrated that long-cherished project. I have made some efforts to revive it, but they have not met with success. Apparently, only Bob, who had known everyone of significance at Agfa, down to Koslowski and Weyde, could have pulled it off. It would be nice to tell Bob's anecdote about Frau Weyde's dress, but this has gone on long enough.

 

-- Bill Troop

[edward_zimmermann]

"<cite>Edward Zimmerman (whoever he may be -- could someone please reliably enlighten me?)</cite>"

<P>

<STRONG>I</STRONG> am Edward Zimmermann, son of David.

<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 National Enquirer.<

 

"<cite>Mr. Zimmerman. First of all, the word academic is spelt with two c's, not three.

Second. Have you read my book?</cite>"

<P>

If you can read it was clearly pointed out that I do not own your book nor have I read it.

<P>

"<cite>Had you even glanced at the four pages of acknowledgements, you would see that the manuscript

had been read and critiqued by, amonng others, Grant Haist and T.H. James. I defy you to find me two

greater figures in the entire literature of photographic science.</cite>"

<P>

I am nearly speechless. Are you quite serious?<BR>

Haist and James were, at best, what I'd call American educators. They, within the literature of

photographic science, are amongst the students and not masters.

You want two figures? I'll give you two of my favorites (among many):

Emannual Goldberg and J.M. Eder. Eder is responsible, among many things, for the development of

"<cite>Gaslight Paper</cite>" (Clorsilver-Gelatine development paper) and just a simple list

Goldberg's accomlishments, publications and patents would fill pages (from sensiometry to

microdots). Both too were also quite significant educators: Eder in Vienna and, following exile,

Goldberg in Israel. I can, of course, list 100s if not 1000s. Among educators (or book authors)

I'd have to say that I can think of many that have had more significant impact--- just perhaps not upon you.

<P>

"<cite>My friendships with such seminal figures in modern photographic science as Haist, James,

H.D. Russell and Dick Henn form the basis of my knowledge,</cite>"

<P>

Osmosis at work? But seriously. However, grand figures Haist, James et al. might be considered

its irrelevant. I had a show at the AFI back in my teens together with Louis Malle-- who

decades before was the wunderkind in Paris. Does that make me a great filmmaker? No. I'm clearly not.

I don't even make films.

<P>

"<cite> Yet you do not seem to be the kind of person who would criticize a book without reading it.</cite>"

<P>

I have not critized your book. I have commented upon recipees that you apparently published

in your book (Rodinal, Beutler). As you know, your book and formulas are widely cited in hobby circles.

<P>

<i>(Edited.)</i>

<P>

Now the questions:

<UL>

<LI><strong>Have you consulted the pre-war German literature?</strong>.

<LI><strong>In talking about Beutler's developers have you consulted his books?</strong>.

<LI><strong>Have you gone into the research stacks to trace some of the original publications or just books that have cited same?</strong>

</UL>

<P>

"<cite>I think it must be recognized by everyone who has read my book that I really did, over a

period of many, many years, try to gather and to bring forth the best information that anyone possibly

could</cite>"

<P>

If you would change "anyone" to "I" as in the best that you could, I would see no reason to

continue to challenge. Its the anyone that smacks of arroagance and easily disputed.

<P>

"<cite>I have written somewhere -- maybe in my book -- that we all came very close to learning a lot more

about Rodinal when Bob Schwalberg got Agfa to agree to publish all formulas for Rodinal except the

current one.</cite>"

<P>

But what you published is not and (probably) never was Rodinal but a developer attributed in the

literature to Eder. While not perhaps your intention, calling it Rodinal has mislead some to

think that its the formula for Rodinal--- and in one case to suggest it was the formula for

what some here considered clones in the likes of Calbe and Foma developers.

[lex_jenkins]

Mr. Troop, thank you kindly for your contribution to this thread.

 

Mr. Zimmerman, kindly stay on topic.

 

--Lex Jenkins, moderator

[bill_troop1]

I have asked Dr. Schneour to read this thread and he has asked me to publish the following:

 

I have read the exchanges about "Rodinal". These consist mainly of flailings about its formula (actually a whole bunch of them) which in the last analysis mean nothing in today's world. There are at least two outstanding issues regarding "Rodinal". One of them is the variations in the actual early formula which were made almost continuously and thus it is today difficult to discern which of these variants was the actual "original" formula. The other issue is that one of the remarkable properties of "Rodinal" was its long life before dilution for use. The caveat to this long life was (and is) that its developing properties change importantly but subtly as a function of time and storage conditions, to say nothing about the quality of the water used in the dilution for use. The formula I have settled on and which is listed in the now classic Anchell & Troop "The Film Deevloping Cookbook" is stored at about 15 degrees Celsius after compounding and is "marinated" for six months before first use. When compared to an old version (about 1936) it is undistinguishable for my uses. The conclusion must be that the arguments about "Rodinal" and its successor(s) will remain controversial because there are so many versions and so many usage and storage variations as to make any emotional discussion about that developer unproductive and a total waste of time. Instead, if you work with monochrome photography, make or buy the stuff, work out your best combination of variables and be productive rather than engage in idle chatter signifying nothing.

 

(Prof.) Elie A. Shneour

Biosystems Research Institute

[edward_zimmermann]

"<cite>I have read the exchanges about "Rodinal". These consist mainly of flailings about its formula (actually a whole bunch of them) which in the last analysis mean nothing in today's world.</cite>"

<P>

While within the big picture of "<cite>today's world</cite>" it is indeed all wack and wank, so is the whole of any of this thing we call photography. So?

<P>

"<cite>There are at least two outstanding issues regarding "Rodinal". One of them is the variations in the actual early formula which

were made almost continuously and thus it is today difficult to discern which of these variants was the

actual "original" formula.</cite>"

<P>

This is not the issue. I have not claimed anything to be the original formula but have questioned that the recipe published as "original" is original, any original. To the best of my knowledge this is NOT the case.

<P>

"<cite>The other issue is that one of the remarkable properties of "Rodinal" was its long life before dilution for use. The caveat to this long life was (and is) that its developing properties change

importantly but subtly as a function of time and storage conditions, to say nothing about the quality of

the water used in the dilution for use. The formula I have settled on</cite>"

<P>

Which I would consider a perhaps reasonable and well-tried Paramidophenol developer. It is none other than the one attributed in the literature to Eder. It is NOT Rodinal and was not during the period of the publications of that brew.

<P>

"<cite>When compared to an old version (about 1936) it is undistinguishable for my uses.</cite>"

<P>

This is, for a trained scientist, not a very scientific statement. I must stress your words "for my uses". You were I imagine, "for your uses" (whatever that may be) comparing the effects-- what effects?-- of a well-over half century old bottle of Rodinal with a brew of Eder's developer? What tests? What film stocks? What concentrations? The literature on Eder's Paramidophenol (again, its been attributed to Eder but within Eder's work I've found no reference to confirm that its correctly been attributed) developer do indeed show that it did (and does) have some problems in high dilutions with dichroic fog.

<P>

"<cite>The conclusion must be that the arguments about "Rodinal"

and its successor(s) will remain controversial because there are so many versions and so many usage</cite>"

<P>

Again I would not find dispute it the brew was called a Paramidophenol developer. I would not mind the reference to Rodinal as a branded name of a Paramidophenol developer. I must stress, however, and the response I see as a reinforcement of my view, that it is entirely misleading to call such a brew Rodinal, original Rodinal or even a Rodinal.

<P>

If you wish I can suspect that Mr. Troop was just mislead. Maybe we should call the brew not "Original Rodinal" but "<cite>A Paramidophenol developer that Elie Shneour and others think is for their uses indiscernable by them from a 1936 bottle of Rodinal</cite>". Remember those "sound alike" music cassettes? Or how about those generic perfums ("Just like Chanel #5").

<P>

Now, Mr. Troop care to address my few direct questions above?

<HR>

<P>

Please NOTE: In my previous statements the (edited) was NOT my editing but a censorship by Lex. It is no longer a correct and complete representation of my intellectual content.

[hans_beckert]

So much fuss over a really unimportant distinction and such an inferior developer defies belief.

 

1. Rodinal was one of several paraminophenol developers marketed long ago under the names Rodinal, Azol, Activol, or Certinal. The published formulas are approximations of at least some of these, to be sure.

 

2. Rodinal has acquired a mystique entirely disproportionate to its quality, so who cares whether there is much difference between the published paraminophenol hydroxide developers and the brand name 'Rodinal'? The formulae for Coke and Pepsi have changed over the years, and no doubt that for 'Rodinal' has evolved a little as well. Manufacturing in 1891 was surely not what it is today, so it is certain that no two batches were the same anyway, so the notion of an 'original' Rodinal is problematic in the extreme.

 

3. Rodinal almost certainly has had NO changes for newer films, but some changes perhaps for manufacturing consistency or pollution standards.

 

Hans Beckert

[bill_troop1]

Zimmerman who, if may lightly rephrase the poet, weißt wohl nicht, wie grob er ist, repeats some pointless questions about the depth of my research. These are adequately answered in my book, and I repeat my offer to send the fellow a copy if he is really too destitute to buy a copy for himself, and I repeat my demand for an apology. I really don't know what I have done to deserve such hate-mail!

[lex_jenkins]

Mr. Zimmerman, you are on the verge of spoiling a largely informative thread that could be of great value to the archives. Please refrain from further comments irrelevant to strictly photographic issues so that I will not be forced to invoke that photo.net policy which could, unfortunately, result in editing some or all of your remarks.

 

I won't debate whether this equals editing, deletion or censorship when the remarks are entirely off topic and you choose to phrase them in an inflammatory manner.

 

I respect your knowledge of photographic issues and urge you to stick to them in the B&W Photography Forums.

 

(FWIW, it is well known that I have urged photo.net administration to create a forum for off topic discussions, which is standard practice on many forums. However lacking such an off-topic forum I am obligated to enforce this website's policy regarding keeping the photo-related forums ON topic. Please understand that my personal opinions and my duties as a volunteer moderator may differ. So be it.)

[edward_zimmermann]

Bill Troup sniped "<cite>Zimmerman who, if may lightly rephrase the poet, weißt wohl nicht,

wie grob er ist,</cite>"

<P>

To parapharse the response from Baccalaureus: Only liars are polite!

<P>

<BR>

<P>

"<cite>These are adequately answered in my book, and I

repeat my offer to send the fellow a copy if he is really too destitute to buy a copy for himself,</cite>"

<P>

I don't need a copy of your book. My library includes copies of, for my needs, rather

extensive collections of formulas and recipes including historical and scientific

treatises on photochemistry and photographic technology--- and deep in my bowels amongst

my serendipity of education I suspect I was at one time a qualified chemist (over 20

years ago I seem oddly to have been recogized as a chemistry teacher when I lived

in London).

<P>

Felix Klein was rumoured to have once been asked how is it that he is such a good mathematician to which he quiped "I learned from the masters and not their students".

<P>

As I commented in <A HREF="http://www.phototec.de/phorum_neu/read.php?f=3&i=31517&t=31393">

Re: Gesucht: Historische Entwicklerformeln (Phototec Forum)</A> about Dominik's search for books to translate for you with some idea of a translation of your Cookbook into German:

<cite>Sowas ist wie Amerianische Budweiser Bier nach Budvar zu importiern!</cite>"

 

<P>

I had not elected to review your book--- I tend not to review books--- nor have I the call

to editorial review. Or is this a request, camouflaged by ego, that I review and edit your book?

[russell_brooks]

Hey, Lex, Actually it's kind of fun listening to these two guys go at it. I'd leave their full posts up unless they get too personal. Maybe something will come out of the discussion. And as far as Rodinal goes I think the main misunderstanding is that the often repeated longevity of Rodinal might be true, however I think the casual reader/hobby photograph might not realize that even though it keeps that it changes character over time. So maybe your development times will drift over time. I for one tried Rodinal and didnt like it since I use mostly higher speed films.

[hans_beckert]

Mr Zimmerman:

 

Who cares? I do not use this inferior developer, and why should anyone care at all if the formula has been tweaked? Modifed junk is still junk.

[garry1]

GEE BOB, if he don't want a copy, can I have it? It will save me from buying one more Xmas present for myself. }:^)

[matt miller cambridge, ia]

"I do not use this inferior developer"

 

Thank Goodness! More for me! F09 is great stuff.

 

Marek - Aside from dilution strength to acheive the same results, I notice no difference between Rodinal & F09. The reason I use F09 is because I buy it from the same place I buy my film (J&C).

[bill_troop1]

The choleric Zimmerman gains points for managing to research a passable answer to my little test of German culture, but for little else. He asks metaphorically if he may sweep my chimney when he says he wants to review and edit my book. God in Heaven forbid it! I don't allow such people in my house! I don't need his help and would not dream of soliciting it. I want him to have my book because I know he will enjoy it and learn from it. I suspect he wants to write such a book himself and can't. The reason is pretty obvious. The information required to write a meaningful book about practical photochemistry is not now and never has been contained in other books. It requires experience in the field and the active help of collaborators active in the field. Zimmerman's personality problems as evidenced here clearly preclude his being able to work with anyone.

 

Russell Brooks enjoys the spectator sport aspects of this slugfest. I don't, and I don't think it is in the least productive. Someone who wants a slugfest should go to a football game, and stop trying to encourage a poisonous discussion thread. That said, I must admit that in all the years I have been on discussion forums, I have encountered very few where good information was exchanged. The threads always seem to degenerate into armchair violence. This particular thread, since Zimmerman's presence, seems to me to resemble more a particularly unpleasant group therapy session, rather than a civilized place for the exchange of reasonable ideas.

 

I suggest that Zimmerman (1) either buy my book or accept my offer to give it to him, (2) do some useful research about Rodinal himself instead of yapping like a dog getting a flea bath and (3) see some kind of experienced professional who can help him with his uncontrollable frustrations and give him the attention he seems to need. Zimmerman's odd but ultimately uninteresting pathology is clearly revealed by his wish to discuss my book without having read it.

 

Nobody can expect me to continue to participate in this discussion unless the parameters are changed. The very obvious thing for Zimmerman to do is to go out and find the people who can tell him more about Rodinal. The challenge for him will be to get himself into a state such that people will be willing to talk to him. I think that's a challenge worth undertaking, and it would be a shameful waste of his intellect if he didn't do it.

 

I would really like to say that if Zimmerman really does wish to find out more about Rodinal and doesn't know how to reach the surviving circle of old scientists associated with Agfa, I would gladly supply him with some contact information. But on the personality evidence before us, I wouldn't dare.

 

In the meantime, if he has a shred of ethics left, he knows that he must stop discussing my book without having read it. He must also realize that his credibility as a commentator will be zero until he has done so.

 

I am still waiting for his apology.