Old R09 and new Rodinal

[hans_beckert]

Matt:

 

Have you tried Paterson Acutol or FX-39? They smoke Rodinal, in every way and on any criterion.

[matt miller cambridge, ia]

I've not tried them, but thank you for the suggestion. I just read <a href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html" >this</a>, so I probably won't be trying them any time soon.

[hans_beckert]

This is irrelevant. The differences between the primitive Rodinal and state-of-the-art developers is significant, especially for small format users.

[edward_zimmermann]

"<cite>This is irrelevant. The differences between the primitive Rodinal and state-of-the-art developers is significant, especially for small format users.</cite>"

<P>

Rodinal is, interestingly a favorite in sub and ultraminiature circles (for instance 16mm, Minox etc.). Its typically used with either a heaping of sodium sulfite or in ultra high dilutions (1:100 and even 1:200).

[hans_beckert]

Edward:

 

I am aware it is popular, but the Paterson products are clearly superior in every way. This says more about Paterson's lousy marketing than Rodinal itself.

[matt miller cambridge, ia]

How are the keeping properties of the Paterson developers? The shelf life of opened bottles of F09/Rodinal are phenomenal. Some developers can get expensive if you have to dump them because they've been sitting around for too long?

[hans_beckert]

Keeping? they come in 500ml and 1000ml bottles, dilution is 1+9 or 1+14, so if you develop much you won't have to worry. I keep mine in the refridgerator and that keeps it fresh. They carry expiry dates of about 3 years. Similar to other concentrates. Cost is VERY reasonable too.

[edward_zimmermann]

"<cite>The reason I use F09 is because I buy it from the same place I buy my film (J&C).</cite>"

<P>

In your next order give the SPUR SLD a test.. See <A HREF="http://www.excellent-photography.de/download/EdlesGran.pdf">http://www.excellent-photography.de/download/EdlesGran.pdf</A> for a few pictures.

<P>

Although somewhat biased I think Schain's developers are really quite good--- I did not care for T-Max untill I tried it with SPUR HRX.

[edward_zimmermann]

Bill grumbled "<cite>a passable answer to my little test of German culture,</cite>"

<P>

More travesty in the style of a Franz Liebkind from "The Producers"?

Was not one of your previous companies called Addict.. A slapstick

reference to Eva Sonnemann's husband?

Your texts do indeed smack (pun intended) of a self-effacing style of radical humour down to the extreme megalomania. Another gay romp with Winnie, Eva and Leni in Bayreuth... Bill and Sigfried on a messianic fight to save the photographic world... A crockbook of such purity that only true genius could pen? If your book is as shrill it may be more valuable-- its photographic related content, inconsequential--- then I had imagined.

<P>

The carefull reader will have quite noticed that I've never critized your book. My critique has been of a few of the formulas that have crossed by path--- such as Rodinal or Beutler's developers (the <strong>s</strong> is, as I've pointed out elsewhere, significant in understanding his model)--- and the need for a translation into the German language.

<P>

The question is, of course, what is practical or pragmatic.. what are the goals? If its just "practical work", the standard in the German language is clearly the "<cite>Das große Agfa Labor-Handbuch</cite>".. a handbook intended for drugstores in the 1930,40s and 50s to help them equip, manage and operate their smallscale print businesses... back in the days before mini-labs and large scale processing streets with 4 cent prints a lot of work was done by local drugstores.. and enlargers like the highly regarded Focomats were actually designed to help improve productivity... Most of our darkrooms, with only a few minor, mostly evolutionary changes (objectives, some electronics and processors), are quite similiar those half-a-century ago.. more has remained the same than changed.. And in the days of digital a lot of people have even taken a large step back.. the so-called "Alt Process" scene.. and what better sources of information on these than historical books from the days when it was more "state of the art" than retro.. And lets face it.. popular books like Spörl's "<cite>Rezeptbuch</cite>", Croys or Windisch's series of books were intended for a large general readership, are highly pragmatic and tailored to amateurs of the era--- granted also their aesthetic tastes (see, for instance, Croy's Colour Portrait book from the early 1940s for not just a painfull reminder, p14 and p.15, but also for some insight into the basis for much of the post-war aesthetics in the rest of the book). Eder's reference is, of course, a bit more comphensive but still.. it was part and parcel of education of decades and today still an excellent source for today's hobby enthusiast..

[lex_jenkins]

You guys are really making me tired. If I start snoring someone poke me in the ribs...I don't mind sleeping through the bickering but I don't wanna miss any actual useful information.

[bill_troop1]

All this Kindersprache is frightfully dull, Lex, I agree. So may I make a suggestion? Ed, write your next post in mediaeval German, in strictly rhymed couplets, and I will try to respond in kind. I only insist on one rule: no rewriting of Gottfried!

[hans_beckert]

Could we discuss something else, such as the original topic, or drop it? Lieber Gott in Himmel!

[bill_troop1]

Well Hans, I've heard you're quite a mediaevalist. Couldn't you get us started off in Nibelungen strophes?

[bill_troop1]

This is what we know about Agfa Rodinal today:

 

1. it contains exactly 3% potassium hydroxide

2. it contains otherwise

 

water 55-60%

potassium sulfite 30-40%

potassium bromide 1-5%

p-aminophenol 1-5%

the pH is approx. 14 (http://intranet.risd.edu/envirohealth_msds/RISDStore/AgfaRodinal.pdf, for what it is worth)

 

It is therefore manifestly clear that other ingredients below 1%, which do not have to be listed on the MSDS, are present, because otherwise the formula would not be sufficiently active to support dilutions of 1:100 or higher. Most likely, given the huge amount of research resulting in dozens of papers by Agfa-Gevaert scientists (particularly Willems and Van Veelen) during the 1950s and 60s into p-aminophenol derivatives and superadditivity, Agfa now uses a proprietary developing chemical which is strongly superadditive with p-aminophenol, permitting substantial economy in manufacture over the traditional formula. Supporting this suspicion is the fact that the level of restrainer and developing agent in the MSDS are both given as 1-5%! This is a strong clue that a powerful unlisted developing agent is included in the formula. Needless to say, p-aminophenol produces low fog; a developer containing just that agent would not need an antifoggant, which would serve to decrease speed. The greatest probability is that Agfa Rodinal now contanins a strongly superadditive secondary agent.

 

Haist writes (v. 1 p. 521) "The classic concentrated developer is Rodinal, a sodium hydroxide solution of p-aminophenol which is usually diluted with 20 to 100 times its volume of water. ... The preparation of the Rodinal-type developer was known for many years before 1920 when W.F.A. Ermen gave this preparation for the concentrated developer ...." and that formula is substantially the same as what I published in FDC except that it is weaker. Nearly all of the formulas for what we designated in the book as traditional Rodinal have 1 part p-aminophenol to 3 parts potassium sulfite; what differs is the amount of water. I have always favored the formula that gives 100 g p-a-p and 300 g potassium sulfite to 1/L water because it is the strongest. Schneour recommends a maturation period of 6 months; Crawley has pointed out (BJ 60/61) that fresh Rodinal, by which he means "traditional Rodinal" used within a few weeks of making up) has somewhat higher activity.

 

It would be nice to resolve the lingering mystery, but the fact is that anyone who wants to achieve an authentic Rodinal experience has only to make up the formula we give. I have yet to encounter a photographic chemist who does not believe that the various "traditional Rodinal" formulas approximate closely enough the commercial product as it was known until relatively recent decades. To that end, I will try once more, a little harder, over the next few months, to find someone at Agfa who will part with reliable information, or someone at a reliable competitor who will part with a reliable analysis. It may be too late. If I learn anything I am allowed to publish, I will naturally share the information.

[marek sramek]

Thanks to all of you gentlemen for constuctive contributions, especially Mr. Troop. I did not know that the whole issue with Rodinal formula is such an enigma. Interesting reading, thanks.

[garrylewis747]

>If I learn anything I am allowed to publish, I will naturally share >the information.

 

An ,given their recent track record, right after you tell us- they will discontinue it. }:^)>

[bill_troop1]

> I did not know that the whole issue with Rodinal formula is such an enigma.

 

Therein lies its allure. Official confirmation would cause us to lose interest straightaway. As regards Rodinal, I think we know enough for all practical purposes. We do not need to economize by adding a secondary agent, and most photographers seem to prefer the older versions. However, as regards Kodak High Definition Developer, I would like to know more. Crawley published his strongly educated guess at a substitute formula in his 60/61 papers, and I included this in FDC. However, Crawley's guesses at Microdol and Microdol-X were, though ingenious, so widely off the mark that I cannot take his formula for HDD as definitive. (With Microdol, he deduced that the additional weight of the formula must be due to sodium sulfite; instead, it is due to sodium chloride. However, Henn's patents for antistain agents were not published until 1964, and van Veelen and Peelaers did not publish their study of sodium chloride-containing developers until 1967. Personally, I would never have made the connexion between Microdol, the Henn patents, and the Agfa research, had I not been given a strong push in the right direction by Haist. None of this is obvious. On the other hand, anyone who could afford a competent analysis would know what was in the products, as Ilford illustrated with Perceptol, which is a truly based on the Microdol technology.)

 

The two unexplored technologies I find of most interest today are both due to Haist. (1) his monobath-incorporated papers, which are developed and archivally fixed, without thiosulfate, after a minute in sodium carbonate and a few minutes of washing; and (2) his ideas for using colour coupling technology to develop films to low contrast both from the macro contrast point of view and, much more significantly, from the micro contrast point of view. This would be of particular value with tabular grain films, and Haist did this work in response to these films. Whenever I try to get more information from him, Haist just says, "Well, Bill, you ought to be able to figure it out." But I haven't. One of these days . . . .

[patrick_gainer]

I was going to chastise (facetiously, of course) Mr. Zimmerman for using the word "vain" instead of "vein" in one place until I found the unforgiveable error of using 2 c's where one would have been correct. This comment may seem to be completely off topic, but no more than most of what I have read. Now that I look back, I think perhaps "vain" was the correct word after all.

[garrylewis747]

GREAT GOBS OF GOOGLEY GOO!

[hans_beckert]

The possibilty exists that too much attention is being paid to this issue. AGFA barely registers on most photographers' consciousness these days. Their color films are certainly adequate, but no-one recommends them for nature work in the forums. If Rodinal were discontinued, no tragedy.

[bill_troop1]

Hans, Hans, where's your German sentimentality? Your German pride? If Bayer (still Agfa's corporate parent?) could spend $1 billion (or was it 2B?) to get the Bayer name back (and then unsuccessfully sue for overpaying), do you really think the manufacturer of the "world's oldest continuously manufactured developer" is going ever to discontinue it? Besides, lots of us like the Rodinal look. I certainly think there's a place for it. I'm sure even Geoffrey Crawley would be distressed if Acutol (which is, by the way, FX-14) and FX-39 were the only two b/w developers available in the entire world. And have you tried Ultrafin on T-grain films?

[hans_beckert]

Bill Troop

"Hans, Hans, where's your German sentimentality?..." <i>(Excessive quotation excised.)</i><p>

 

Not since years have I used Ultrafin, and that was on films of the previous generation. The Ultrafin was good enough, but the Paterson proved itself better. Rodinal has its place, but on slower langsammer materials.<p>

[jorge_oliveira2]

Bill

 

Is there an FX-14 formula or is it just another name for Acutol?

 

Thanks,

[bill_troop1]

FX-14 is the internal designation for Acutol (see Crawley 60/61) but the formula has never been published. FX-15, now published, was marketed as Acutol-S. I was convinced for years that FX-14 was an MQ formula, but in fact it contains phenidone or some derivative, as Crawley informed me. Bob Schwalberg called it historically the first sharp PQ developer which I think is probably true. It is amazing on the films it was intended for: slow and medium speed conventional films. It should be used as fresh as possible.

[hans_beckert]

Acutol does contain metol, according to their literature. It may also contain phenidone.