Tri-X in Rodinal/R09

[traveler_101]

<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>

[john_stockdale2]

<p>Exposing Tri-X at 200 to develop in such a developer is not overexposing much if at all. Film edge markings can be deceiving, too, sometimes being rather faint. But if your negs are flat my first guess would be that the developer was too old. I'm no expert in Rodinal by the way: but I have read conflicting reports of people's experience with old bottles.</p>

<p>It's true that Rodinal is celebrated for its long life in the bottle, but Agfa Rodinal itself underwent modifications over my lifetime, probably to make manufacturing easier or cheaper, and this was criticized by some. And also at least some of the related R09 formulations historically had different times and dilutions recommended (e.g. 1+20 and 1+40 instead of 1+25 and 1+50). And maybe the reputation for long life has reached its use-by date.<br>

I would try again with fresh developer. If you do so, let us know.</p>

 

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>Box speeds and box developing times are starting points, not optimal in all situations.<br>

Published times for film X will not be valid for film Y even if they look the same when properly processed.<br>

Arista EDU Ultra 400 shows Agfa Rodinal 1:25 for 5 1/2 minutes at 68°F. 1:50 would be 11 minutes. <br>

Assuming Arista Premium is the same as Arista EDU Ultra your 9 minutes developing time is a 19% reduction in processing time. <br>

You will probably find 9 1/2 to 10 1/4 minutes or a 10% to 15% reduction in time, a more correct developing time for your combination.<br>

I do not know if RO9 holds up as well as the original Rodinal or not.</p>

<p>Experimentation is in order, you've got a starting reference to work from.</p>

<p> </p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Yeah, try again with fresh developer. Also. the recommended times may be for the older version of Tri-X (which Kodak made changes to in the early 2000's). Even so the times would be a starting point. Also, when you try another roll you might vary the exposure index (maybe from 100 to 400) taking careful notes, and see which exposures work best for the developing time that you use. </p>

[User_5888660]

<p>According to the Massive Development Chart, the times for Rodinal and Fomadon R09 are different. It specifies 14 minutes for 1+50 at 400. Check out the times here:<br>

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Tri-X+400&Developer=Foma&mdc=Search&TempUnits=C </p>

<table frame="box" rules="all" cellspacing="0">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td > </td>

<td > </td>

<td > </td>

<td > </td>

<td > </td>

<td > </td>

<td > </td>

<td > </td>

<td > </td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p> It looks to me like you use too dilute of developer or too little time. </p>

[traveler_101]

<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>

[thirteenthumbs]

<blockquote>

<p>I was shooting Arista Premium, not Arista Ultra.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Going to Freestyle' web site, clicking on the "Photo Know How" tab then on "Film Development Chart" tab and selecting Arista Premium 400 and Agfa Rodinal 1:50 you get 14 minutes at 68°F; selecting Fomadon RO9, the only RO9 listed, 1:40 you get 11 minutes at 68°F.</p>

<p>Now going to The Massive Dev Chart, selecting Arista Premium as the film and RO9 as the developer you are told to use the times for Rodinal. Selecting Rodinal as the developer you get a long chart listing both 100 and 400 speed Arista Premium at various EI. From the list AP ISO 400 @ EI 200 in Rodinal 1:50 is 9 minutes at 68°F.<br>

AP ISO 400 at EI 400 in Rodinal 1:50 is 13 minutes at 68°F with a note that says the time is from a previous version of the film and the starting time is the same.<br>

Now 9 minutes is 69% of 13 minutes. 80% of 13 minutes is 10.4 minutes, 90% of 13 minutes is 11.7 minutes.<br>

9 minutes is 64% of 14 minutes, the time listed by Freestyle, the supplier. 70% of 14 min. is 9.8 minutes; 80% of 14 min is 11.2 min (11min 12sec).<br>

Without seeing your film it will be hard to say how much of an increase in development time with your current developer is needed. A fresh bottle at the same time/temperature will tell you if your current supply has weakened with age.</p>

<p>I would base my time on Freestyle's times with a 15% to 25% reduction in time for a 1 stop pull.<br>

Many manufacturers if not all do not simply relabel their product for other companies, they alter the product slightly so that it is not the exact same product they sell but is close. I would only use the manufacturers product time if the relabeled product times were not available and then would be aware they would only be close to correct.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>For the record, R09 is not the same as Rodinal even though it is purported to be. I tried it and was very disappointed. It's shelf life is also poor. The original Rodinal would outlast the shelf. I've moved on to Fotospeed FD10, great developer and very cheap.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>On the strength of my own developing regime for a speed of 250, I would have developed for 11 minutes in Rodinal at 1/50. Given that you actually exposed at 200 I would still have expected reasonably good negs.<br>

<br />At what temperature did you develop the film? How accurate is your thermometer?</p>

<p>It could be that your dev is going off. I am a Rodinal user of some thirty-odd years standing and have never known Rodinal to go off when properly stored. I am, however, now down to my last bottle of genuine Rodinal (2005 vintage). I intend not to use this last bottle but to keep it, much has one might cellar a good champagne.</p>

<p>I am now using 'new' Rodinal, but that made by a&o.</p>

<p>Does anyone have any experience of a&o Rodinal re. shelf-life? After the a&o runs out I will then move on to R09 made by KG of Germany. Again, I have no experience of this re. shelf-life.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p>I will then move on to R09 made by KG of Germany. Again, I have no experience of this re. shelf-life.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>R09 had no better shelf life than, say, a stock solution of regular D-76. It is nothing like the original Rodinal unfortunately. </p>

[traveler_101]

<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>

[traveler_101]

<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>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>1. Open the MDC in two tabs in your browser or two browser windows.<br>

In one tab/window select Arista Premium and all developers; in the other tab/window select TriX 400 and all developers. Scroll the Arista down to 400 speed then compare the same developer, dilution, exposed speed, and notes to the same with TriX. If they were the same film then the times would be the same for both films in any developer, <strong>they are not.</strong> Some Exposure Index and developer dilutions are the same but many common developer/EI are 10% or more different. Many may find them similar enough in their application to be the same and that is fine for them and you are welcome to join them, I don't/won't. <br>

2. Dilutions are stated in parts of the chemical to the parts of the dilution medium throughout all industries that use ratios. Divide the volume desired by the sum of the two to find the amount of 1 part of either.<br>

Reversing the parts in your communications will confuse others. Follow the industry standard for best communications.<br>

3. You've started to show some rational interpolation thinking that one must use to determine a starting point or the next test time so that one does not waste a lot of time and materials chasing guesses. <br>

4. Make a next step test time/dilution determination and try it, you may get it right and if not the third one will be closer yet.<br>

Some difficult film developer combinations may take 4 or 5 trys to get correct. Changing 2 or more variables per test results in confusion as one cannot tell which variable is responsible for what change.</p>

 

[chris_waller]

<p>The one-and-only, the original ....</p><div></div>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Mark- Rodinal is not difficult to make from scratch, a possibly to look at if you have trouble obtaining chemistry. There are websites that give recipes for various developers. This way you could ensure your developer is fresh. </p>

[User_502260]

<p>I don't know what the advantage of using Rodinal or a developer similar to Rodinal with Tri-X is. If you like the tonality then using such a combination with medium format will give the tonality you are looking for but without too much grain. Some people liked using Agfa APX 100 with Rodinal. Both APX 100 and APX 400 were far more grainy than other 100 and 400 speed films already on the market. In medium format the APX 100 looked much better. If you are looking for a developer with very good keeping qualities and in liquid form then try HC-110. </p>

[traveler_101]

<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>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>Looking at the B&W film developers on Freestyle's site they have Adox Adonal Agfa Rodinal http://www.freestylephoto.biz/12054-Adox-Adonal-Agfa-Rodinal-Formula-Film-Developer-500ml<br>

which states it is an exact copy of Agfa Rodinal.<br>

Compard RO9, http://www.freestylephoto.biz/9724-Compard-R09-One-Shot-Agfa-Rodinal-Formula-Film-Developer-120ml , claims to be an exact copy of Agfa Rodinal but says its only good for 6 months once opened if the bottle is kept tightly caped.<br>

Foma Fomadon RO9 http://www.freestylephoto.biz/431250-Foma-Fomadon-R09-Film-Developer-250ml-Agfa-Rodinal-Equivalent<br>

says its similar to Agfa Rodinal.</p>

<p>All claim to be fine grain developers but I never liked the grain I got with Agfa Rodinal.</p>

<p>When Agfa Photo, http://agfaphoto.com/appc/index.php , established itself from Agfa Gevaert Lupus Media Products, http://www1.lupus-imaging-media.com/en , were supplying Agfa films which were the remaining master rolls from before the breakup then started carrying the new version of the films being manufactured by licensed companies. APX 400 is the only B&W film currently listed and it is only available in 135-36 rolls. I lost interest in Agfa products when they indicated they were not planning to reintroduce APX 100 and APX 400 in either 120 or 4x5 formats.</p>

<p>Agfa Photo site no longer lists any Agfa films.<br>

I still have a roll of APX 25 in 120 format waiting for that special subject.</p>

[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>

[lenny_eiger]

<p>I've tried to stay out of this... but this Question is continuing to bother me:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>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?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pulling film is normally defined as developing less. It has nothing to do with the exposure. For all practical intents and purposes, exposure and development have nothing to do with each other. (There is some very small effect, but it is too little to be concerned with.)</p>

<p>The amount of exposure controls how much shadow detail one has; the amount of development controls how dense the highlights are and how much contrast there is. Period.</p>

<p>When there is a high range between shadow and highlight, less development is used to keep the highlights from blowing out (becoming unprintable while keeping the full range).</p>

<p>Pushing and pulling, in terms of changing ISO's, doesn't actually exist in real life. It's just a matter of managing the contrast ratio, after the fact, or as part of a zone system calculation.</p>

[jason]

<p>In Canada, there is Blazinol as replacement for Rodinal.<br>

It is not exactly same as Original Agfa Rodinal.<br>

It does get affected by age, gets crystalline deposits and eats way thru plastic bottle!<br>

I suppose all the replacements are similar.<br>

When using a new developer and film do a small film test.<br>

Shoot a few short lengths, say 6 exposures at various ISO.<br>

Develop them at different times!<br>

Get the ISO used in each exposure!<br>

I quit..no more Blazinol.<br>

I use Kodak HC-110.<br>

I love the clarity of the negs.</p>

[reidar_gustafsson]

<p>I have to put my first post somewhere so lets do it here!<br>

I am a long time user of Fomadon R09. And the majority of my use of this developer is with units way past best date. Yesterday I did a stand develop of a Shanghai ISO100 together with a roll of Tri-X 400, both 120 film. The R09 has a date of 1 of August 2012 and the Tri-X was a couple of year past prima age.<br>

There was no problem! And I have never had any problem that I could blame on the developers age, independent of stand development or "normal" development.<br>

So it might be quite some quality issue for different brands? </p>

<p> </p>