Rodinal

I really like 1:50, and it is dead reliable. But then again I have never been a fan of fast developers. Times in the lower teens suit me fine. I seem to get more consistent results.
 
I have made a test between the old style Rodinal/R09 one shot from Calbe, at that time also from Foma, Fomadon R09 and the original Agfa Rodinal / A&O from Agfa Photo. 1+20 versus 1+25 and 1+40 versus 1+50 on APX 100 / Rollei Retro 100.
There were some differences but neglectible and only a few could be measured out via my TRD-Z densitometer.

Recentelijk CCP&S stopped their Rodinal production so that's why Compard went to Tetenal for their Rodinal supply. No idea what Adox/Impex did for their Rodinal supply. But their APH09 version is old style Calbe R09 production.
What will be in their Adonal recently, no idea, you can expect anything from this company. I only know somehow they registered the brand name Rodinal which was done in the past by their former USA distributor.
 
For anyone thinking of trying Rodinal, please read the safety data sheet. Undiluted Rodinal is very dangerous. A drop on your skin will cause real damage, and a splash into your eye will likely cause permanent vision damage. Gloves and glasses, use all the safety precautions! Lock it up so the kids don't find it. It gives great results.
 
Photo_Smith said:
Jan has this changed recently? I have a two year old bottle (well several) that states this:
151123851.jpg


That it is the same Rodinal produced in the same factory–has this changed?
Click to expand...

Hi Mark,

yes it has changed about two years ago:
Connect Chemicals (the former Agfa photo chemical plant in Vaihingen, Germany) has stopped production of Rodinal.
Adox then has bought the original Rodinal formula (the latest formula used by Agfa / Connect Chemicals) and have it produced now by their partners for chemical production (there are several first level photo chemistry manufacturers in Germany).
Bottling is done at the Adox factory in Bad Saarow.
This stuff is sold as Adox Adonal and is identical to the latest Agfa Rodinal.

Compard (distributor of R09 One Shot) on the other side made an agreement with Tetenal. Tetenal is now producing for them a Rodinal clone. Very close to original Rodinal, but not exactly the same.
This stuff is currently in the R09 One Shot bottles.

As on your bottle Connect is still listed as manufacturer, there could be two reasosns for this:
1. Your bottle is still from the last batches from Connect.
2. Compard is still using the old lables, but bottling the new Tetenal made clone (that would not surprise me; the owner Mr Schroeder jr. has not the best reputation for transparency 😉).

Cheers, Jan
 
Fotohuis said:
No idea what Adox/Impex did for their Rodinal supply. But their APH09 version is old style Calbe R09 production.
What will be in their Adonal recently, no idea, you can expect anything from this company. I only know somehow they registered the brand name Rodinal which was done in the past by their former USA distributor.
Click to expand...

this sounds kind of negative - do you have any reason not to trust adox and the information they publish on their products?
 
One more point: R09 was the GDR variant of Rodinal - after the war, Agfa split into West and East German halves, the latter eventually renamed into Orwo, and after the German re-unification their chemistry branch was bought out renamed into Calbe Chemie (after the town the plant was located).

While Agfa made some updates to Rodinal, Orwo left everything as-is, and R09 is (or was) generally supposed to be close to original Rodinal.

There are two competing Churches of St. Rodinal - one of them considers nothing sacred that was not personally blessed by the brand of Agfa, the other demands a unbroken descent from the original 1891 vat (where R09 is a bit ahead in pedigree). If you are among the infidels, you could care less - spiritual matters aside both liquids behave the same, the real life differences in required processing times or visible results seem to be much smaller than the individual variations by user and by water supply...
 
sevo said:
...

There are two competing Churches of St. Rodinal - one of them considers nothing sacred that was not personally blessed by the brand of Agfa, the other demands a unbroken descent from the original 1891 vat (where R09 is a bit ahead in pedigree). If you are among the infidels, you could care less - spiritual matters aside both liquids behave the same, the real life differences in required processing times or visible results seem to be much smaller than the individual variations by user and by water supply...
Click to expand...

Best summary I've read so far - thanks! 🙂
 
Ezzie said:
My R09 is the same as the one pictured here. It's less than 6 months old. And I have only ever used it as I would Rodinal. Not experienced any differences. It has gone a bit darker since I got it. But I wouldn't have characterised it as tea when fresh, more like coffee.
Click to expand...

It was old stock. Fresh is quite transparent and will darken with age and/or exposure to air. The darkness will not change activity until the bottle gets low and there is quite a lot of air inside. For this reason I decant into smaller glass bottles.

AS an aside, I reserved one of the glass bottles from Agfa toner, dark glass and a very tight cap, in an effort to check the renowned life. I tested a film annually from a standardized studio test set up from 1998 to 2010. There was no change until 2010 when the activity went to 90/95%.
It darkened the last 5 years and was never less than half full and precipitate was forming on the bottom. Developer was removed with a transfer pipette to not pick up the participate.

I quit after 12 years as I figured that was long enough for me.
 
GarageBoy said:
Okay, so for intents and purposes, the Adox stuff is the stuff I want if I'm using the times from the last known Agfa datasheet
http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/Rodinal.pdf

Also, why are the times different from this?

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Developers/Times_Rodinal/Rodinal.pdf
Click to expand...

Probably the two charts were prepared at different labs and at different times. Some films have changed a fair bit over the years too - I notice the times for HP5 are consistent but the Delta 100 has changed a lot. I think the larger table offers a lot more precision and information - the contrast measure for the 1+100 times, recommended exposure index, and the different times for small tank (intermittent agitation) versus drum (continuous agitation). Lots of variables to deal with.

But in general, why should they be identical? I'll bet the water from my tap is chemically different from yours, and the way I agitate my tanks won't be exactly the same either. I have a preference for a particular density in my negs to suit my enlarger and my scanning tools. Even if I can get acceptable negs from either of those guides, I'll bet they'll be slightly different from the results I get with the approach I've settled on. All such guides are a starting point only. Embrace diversity! 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MNS
Developing black and white film without using stop bath?
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
4K
Bolo Kukus
B
S
Looking for Canadian supplier of Hydroquinone
Replies
9
Views
377
Glenn2
G
bucs
Buying in-store from Kitamura Camera Shinjuku Tokyo
Replies
10
Views
1K
Alpsman
A
R
Where do you develop/scan your negatives?
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Luftfeder
L
ped
Aires 35-IIIc rangefinder
2
Replies
25
Views
804
rick oleson
rick oleson
Back
Top Bottom