Make sense to STOCKPILE Rodinal?

[bmattock]

"But I wish you'd not state that Rodinal developers are not the same as Rodinal - you have not one single shred of evidence that this is so, and quite a few companies and users of their chemistry who disagree with you."

without going into a probably useless argument I reverse the question .... show us your evidence that there are 1:1 rodinal clones ....

It's very easy. Agfa's formula was published. By Agfa. In a book. You could buy it. It was patented at the time, so there was no reason not to, and it was quite popular to do so. They would even sell you the chemicals to make it up yourself if you didn't want to buy it already mixed.

The patents are now expired. Companies that claim to be making developer that is identical to Rodinal (without calling it that and infringing on trademark) could not do so without fear of legal action if they were mistaken or lying.

Again, if Agfa had changed Rodinal, and chosen NOT to tell anyone, they'd have been breaking US law with regard to their MSDS (safety) sheets. I doubt they were doing that, and I have no evidence that they were. So it is the same stuff now that it was then. If anything has changed, it would be percentages, not different chemicals.

I have been collecting, as I said in another post, old books that list chemical formulae for photography. It is fascinating stuff, and most of the old commercial formulae are listed - including some interesting-looking ones that are no longer made.

This is not rocket science. Rodinal was a recipe for a developer made of about 6 or 7 ingredients mixed in a certain proportion, order of precedence, and temperature.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[XAos]

The patents are now expired. Companies that claim to be making developer that is identical to Rodinal (without calling it that and infringing on trademark) could not do so without fear of legal action if they were mistaken or lying.
Bill Mattocks

Almost, but not QUITE true - they could possibly be sued for false advertising if it were not indeed the same as the published formula they claimed to use. :angel:

 

[bmattock]

Almost, but not QUITE true - they could possibly be sued for false advertising if it were not indeed the same as the published formula they claimed to use. :angel:

Fair enough - I stand corrected!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[derevaun]

There's a lot of variation even in the recipes for "Rodinal clones." Potassium vs sodium, sulfite vs metabisulfite, etc. The R09 developers have slightly different composition and dilution from the Agfa version. While the difference might be not so substantial that you couldn't learn to reproduce your Rodinal results, it's probably true that only Rodinal works exactly like Rodinal. And there's speculation by Wm. Troop that Agfa's Rodinal contains ingredients under 1% (thus not on the MSDS) that are superadditive and account for its activity at high dilutions.

I didn't stock up, and now I'm almost out with none available around here. I figure I'll make some out of acetaminophen and drain cleaner, and maybe try FX-1 in the future. My whole point is, if I'm so set in my ways that I can't do without Rodinal, I've got bigger problems in store.

 

[BrianPhotog]

I've noticed that Rodinal is back on the shelves here in Canada. Agfa was made up of a number of parts and it seems the chemical and film side is still going.

Peter

Nope. These are existing supplies that were stuck at various distribution points and in warehouses when Afga went under. Maco purchased them and has taken over distribution of these existing supplies, but (as far as they've said) will not be producing any more.

Once it's gone, it's gone. BTW, last month's Black & White Photography (UK) had Rodinals formula in it.

 

[bmattock]

And there's speculation by Wm. Troop that Agfa's Rodinal contains ingredients under 1% (thus not on the MSDS) that are superadditive and account for its activity at high dilutions.

Yes, that's true. But you have to add that Troop also stated that the superadditivity a) is speculation on his part, as he admits and b) would have the net effect of lowering chemical cost to Agfa, not changing the effect of the developer on film in any noticeable way.

Much has been made of various published formulae of Rodinal over the years, that's true. And while many have pounced upon this to pronounce Rodinal clones a hopeless mess that can never actually be the same as Rodinal, the clone go on about their business, and I don't read a lot of comments by people who have actually used both products who think that's true. In fact, what I read is just the opposite - where people seem to have complaints about Rodinal clones is in their convenience - for example, where they come in powdered form instead of as a syrup. The loudest complaints that I can find on the net seem to have been lodged by people who refuse to use the clones, based on their belief that they are somehow different from Rodinal...

There is a lot of misunderstanding about developers. The thing that gives Rodinal the properties that it has is p-Aminophenol Hydrochloride. That's the star of the show. That has never changed.

I think a lot of the sturm und drang surrounding Rodinal has been from historians and purists who object to calling something a "Rodinal clone" when there are differing recipes out there - regardless of how much they work like and produce results identical to Rodinal. To them, that is not the point - historical accuracy is. Fair enough! To them, I would heartily agree that there is no way to know which of the competing Rodinal clone recipes is the 'correct' historical recipe, unless and until Agfa's books are someday opened again. Correct or incorrect - the results seem acceptable as "Rodinal" to those who have been using the various clones.

So, do we argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or do we look to see if the so-called Rodinal clones are in workable essence, just that?

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks