Defective Acros or bad rodinal?

DREW WILEY · Nov 15, 2016

If you're inattentive enough, you might get edge frilling from excessively warm water or perhaps a pH shock from too strong a stop bath. I dunno. Actual reticulation is rather hard to achieve in modern thin emulsions. My brother used to do it on purpose with good ole Super-XX sheet film, moving the film back and forth between hot trays and iced ones. The cute result looked like the crackled glaze on a piece of kiln pottery. Wouldn't surprise me if they now have a reticulation app on some digital device, just like the smashed-ant-between-two-sheets-of-film app.

bvy · Nov 15, 2016

By way of example, here's a roll I developed just last night. Since the implication is that it must be user error, I'd love to hear what it could be. I don't mean that sarcastically (entirely) -- I mean, I'd love to hear that I could do something to control or prevent this because I've tried everything. I do not experience this with 35mm Acros, though I've only a shot a couple rolls of it. I think it must be related to the backing paper, although the film doesn't stick to it nor do the problem areas leave behind marks on the paper. I've posted about this at length before. I have two more undeveloped rolls of Acros 120, then I'll start looking for a suitable replacement.

Acros 100, XTOL 1+1, 68F for 8:30 (constant agitation)

Ian Grant · Nov 16, 2016

Jim Noel said:
Excess grain is not reticulation.

Increased graininess in prints and scans from film can be caused by surface artefacts (Kodak/s term) of the surface layer of the film, others call it incipient or micro reticulation, It isn't the grain structure of the film rather the combination of the film grain and film surface when printing or scanning. It's one reason why wet mounting when scanning can give higher quality, wet mounting goes back to at least 1926 when a British Journal of Photography published an artice on wet mounting miniature (35mm) negatives for increased quality.

There's plenty written on the subject, articles, Patents etc, it affects films and surprisingly papers. With papers changes in temperatures can cause patchy dull areas, it's more noticeable with RC papers, it's the same surface changes that happen with films with poor temperature control.

If you read current Kodak film data sheets you will see that some mention better scanning capabilities or say "Ideal for scanning", this reflects the big improvements in film hardening to minimise surface artefacts. But if you want to soften emulsion one of the best agent is sodium hydroxide and Rodinal contains free hydroxide and Acros is a softer than most emulsion.

Ian

DWThomas · Nov 16, 2016

I shoot a fair amount of 120 Acros, am not overly obsessive about temperature and haven't seen problems -- but -- I develop in HC110 1+63, use good old Kodak Indicator Stop and the old plain vanilla Kodak Fixer. I might add my "darkroom" is in an interior of the basement, no outside walls, and seldom makes it to 68ºF, even in the summer. I normally warm the developer if it's way low, but my temps never run high.

DREW WILEY · Nov 16, 2016

No I'm not lucky. And NO, I do NOT EVEN NEED to look harder. My prints tell it all. I'm sorry if others have had problems, but the last thing I'd blame
is the film. Sometimes you have to adapt your methods. If your car runs on diesel, do you pour vegetable oil in the tank? Rodinal isn't the only developer on the planet.

flavio81 · Nov 16, 2016

Photo Engineer said:
This is not the first, second or third thread involving problems with Acros.

It may be that this is an old and unchanged product using old chemistry. IDK, but I advise that people take great care with it.

PE

This is true, Acros is a bit of a "delicate" film.
When i bought a bottle of Tetenal Ultrafin, i was surprised that for many films (like FP4) there were many development time/dilution combinations suggested (as one would expect), but on the other hand there was only ONE time/dilution suggested for Acros. So i come to understand that it's a bit of a 'delicate' film. Also, on the dr5 website, they can do reversal on many films, except Acros...

I love Acros, though, and has worked fine for me so far.

DREW WILEY · Nov 16, 2016

I find it distinctly less delicate than FP4, which I don't have any issues with either. But the only recent film that I'd call actually fussy in terms of temp and stop concentration was Ekfe 25. ACROS is a very popular film at our local camera store, which serves a lot of students and hobbyists and not just us more intense types.

Ian Grant · Nov 16, 2016

I've shot a lot of EFKE (Adox) 25 and processed in Rodinal, also Acros, with no issues. Tight temperature control +/- 1º C is actually very easy. I remember colour reversal processing that required +/- 0.2º F (before the UK went metric and that is a lot harder.

Laziness has crept in in recent years, those of us who were processing films like FP3/HP3 and the Kodak films of that era (1960's) will remember that it was easy to reticulate films. Now it's hard to generate full reticulation with Ilford films, most Kodak etc. But there's still the odd films that use softer emulsions. In the case of Acros it's a trade off for the almost total lack of reciprocity.

Ian

Gerald C Koch · Nov 16, 2016

Health warnings concerning formaldehyde are intended for chronic exposure to the chemical. Occasional exposure to low levels of formaldehyde do not pose a serious risk. In addition the risk is for gaseous formaldehyde and not its solutions.

DREW WILEY · Nov 16, 2016

Sometimes people forget about wash water temp. Efke 25 gelatin wouldn't tolerate anything above 75F, nor did it like a strong stop bath. But I really
can't think any application that requires a 2% stop for one-time use. I use just enough indicator stop to get a very pale yellow, probably around 1/4%.
Acros sheet film can be a bit sensitive to air bell marks during tray development if you don't shuffle it frequently enough. For general photography
temp control is sufficiently easy. For very fussy application like color separation negs I might hook up a thermoregulator to keep things within 1/10th
deg F; but that's total overkill for routine work.

DREW WILEY · Nov 16, 2016

There's are safer alternatives to formaldehyde as a hardener, such as Glyaxol. I have no idea why a hardener is even realistically needed in the context of this particular thread. But formaldehyde in general is getting banned for all kinds of applications, especially plywood glues since it takes
time to outgas in new homes. My wife's anatomy teacher in med school died fairly young from formaldehyde exposure. Back in the old days delivered bottled milk contained a bit of formaldehyde to prevent it from spoiling. Everyone born in that era should receive a complimentary discount
from mortuary companies these days, since the chemical is already in their system.

Gerald C Koch · Nov 16, 2016

DREW WILEY said:
My wife's anatomy teacher in med school died fairly young from formaldehyde exposure. Back in the old days delivered bottled milk contained a bit of formaldehyde to prevent it from spoiling. Everyone born in that era should receive a complimentary discount
from mortuary companies these days, since the chemical is already in their system.

Indeed chronic exposure. Glyoxal is not without its own toxicological problems.

Liked the idea of a discount.

DREW WILEY · Nov 16, 2016

The problem is that all we wee users of formaldehyde add up to potentially very serious health hazards to those working where these products are manufactured, used on industrial scale, or routinely handled. That's why most plywood is imported nowadays. Nobody gives a damn about who gets cancer in another country; and I'm beginning to think that nobody gives a damn about anyone here anymore either. It's becoming politically correct to poison your neighbor. Otherwise, for us darkroom types, common sense is the rule, along with a good fume hood and nitrile gloves. But being aware
of alternative chemicals is also important, because some things are getting more restricted, at least until someone comes along and tells you cancer
is good for you, which is no doubt propaganda right around the corner somewhere.

Ian Grant · Nov 16, 2016

Gerald C Koch said:
Health warnings concerning formaldehyde are intended for chronic exposure to the chemical. Occasional exposure to low levels of formaldehyde do not pose a serious risk. In addition the risk is for gaseous formaldehyde and not its solutions.

Which is quite ironic as biologists, medical students etc get high exposure to animal/human bodies used in dissections pickled in formaldehyde and suffer no ill effects. It is the stronger solutions etc that are the most dangerous but that goes for many other chemicals,

I used Formaldehyde commercially for over a decade in developer, however I always had extremely good fume extraction, and was using an airline respirator fed from a compressor drawing air from the opposite side of a building. For photographic purposes Formaldehyde 40% soln goes a very long way a few drops per litre is all that's needed, in a decade I never finished a 500ml bottle.

In the 70'sand early 80's I used a chrome alum hardening stop bath with EFKE films, this worked perfectly, however by the 90's Fotokemia had improved their film hardening (compared to what had been extremely poor previously) and I just processed normally and still do I have quite a bit left.

Ian

DREW WILEY · Nov 16, 2016

I don't take any of this for granted. I'm right down the street from UC Berkeley. We have former UC chemists working here. Bayer's huge mfg facility
is a block away. There's a sick joke that goes around town about three careers where nobody lives past 52: crop dusters, industrial painters, and research chemists. All kinds of weird cancers. And although Bayer's quality control in the final product is fantastically clean and dependable, just like
the extremely stringent standards for other local Biotech and Pharmaceutical companies, the mfg waste has done some very terrible things to the health of facility maintenance employees. Computer E-waste is even worse. It's a dirty little secret, not always so secret when entire neighborhoods
get sick. But you are very very incorrect to assume there are no health risks to medical students from formaldehyde. More commonly people develop
serious respiratory or allergic reactions to it. I've seen far more than my fair share of macho, "It never hurt me" types that change their tune a few
years later when their own health is ruined. Better safe than sorry. Fume hoods and nitrile gloves were invented for a reason.

Photo Engineer · Nov 16, 2016

Many KRL researchers are living past 80 after years of exposure to many toxic chemicals. Using the right precautions you can get by.

PE

bvy · Nov 17, 2016

DREW WILEY said:
No I'm not lucky. And NO, I do NOT EVEN NEED to look harder. My prints tell it all. I'm sorry if others have had problems, but the last thing I'd blame
is the film. Sometimes you have to adapt your methods. If your car runs on diesel, do you pour vegetable oil in the tank? Rodinal isn't the only developer on the planet.

When you change everything about how you process the film and it has no impact on the problem (favorably or unfavorably) -- and then change nothing about your process except the film and the problem disappears -- well, it's hard not think it's the film. I'm all for adapting my methods, but when you follow the instructions to the letter and the emulsion still falls off, it's not worth it. For my time and money, the problem is the film.

DREW WILEY · Nov 17, 2016

Guess it all depends on your perspective. There are thousands of photographers who love ACROS and never complain about it. They sell it down the
street to darkroom beginners; and their only complaint is if they run out of that particular film. We have numerous choices of developer as well as numerous choices of film. Do what works best for you.

dpurdy · Nov 17, 2016

I always find it somewhat annoying when people weigh in on problems by saying they have never ever seen it. I am very glad in this case to be one of those annoying people. For 10 years now ACROS has been my go to, nearly only used 120 film. I use Xtol, Beutlers, Pyrocat HD and Rodinal, no hardner in the fix and on occasion screw up the wash water temp. Now I get to say it.. I have never ever had any problem at all with my all time favorite film Acros. And I do obsess over technical quality.
Dennis

Harry Stevens · Nov 19, 2016

Well I wish you peeps would make you mind up because I have ten rolls of ACROS in the freezer and I have never used the film before.

bvy · Nov 19, 2016

Harry Stevens said:
Well I wish you peeps would make you mind up because I have ten rolls of ACROS in the freezer and I have never used the film before.

It's a great film or else I wouldn't be wrestling with it like I am. It was brash of me to suggest that everyone should be having the same problem I am. Still, it does have some weak spots that a few of us here seem to be hitting in spite of our best efforts. I still maintain that it's not my processing. It could be I got a bad batch, or something that was stored improperly... Your post makes me wonder if it shouldn't be frozen. I kept mine in the freezer, though I always allowed a "thaw time" of a day or more.

Photo Engineer · Nov 19, 2016

Must be that river water in Pittsburgh! Nasty stuff that!

PE

bvy · Nov 20, 2016

Photo Engineer said:
Must be that river water in Pittsburgh! Nasty stuff that!

Oh, but I only use Mon water! It's cleaner, you know...

Photo Engineer · Nov 20, 2016

Nowdays, yes. I lived ~100 ft from the Mon for a great portion of my life. I know how bad it was.

PE

Sirius Glass · Nov 20, 2016

Photo Engineer said:
Must be that river water in Pittsburgh! Nasty stuff that!

PE

Do not knock it. If you want to pickle steel it is great right from the tap!

Defective Acros or bad rodinal?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency