Difference between R09 and Rodinal

[Ian Grant]

I have made various rodinal type developers. From my personal experience an excess of hydroxide shortens the shelf life of the developer.

That's true however before WWII Agfa were testing long chain wetting agents and patened some which they found to have unexpected anti-oxidising properties. One of these is used in later versions of Rodinal, it was being used during WWII.

This is one reason why the Agfa version of Rodinal with it's excess Hydroxide has better keeping properties than the Calbe RO9 developer.

Ian

 

[georg16nik]

Yep, thou on the Adonal page there are 2 different .pdf's the second one, being very brief its saids shelf life: at least 6 months..
http://adox.de/RODINAL.pdf
Now, on the APH09 page its saids "Shelf life of concentrate: up to 50 years" http://www.adox.de/english/ADOLUX/ADOLUX/ADOLUX/APH09.html

In the age of the present day films, it might be not that much critical if the pH is 11.8 or 14. even thou that is more than 20 times more alkaline, thou as Ian said, temperature differences might shuffle the buffalo..

 

[Ian Grant]

It seems pH of Adox APH 09 & Adox Adonal have identical pH = 11.8, if those data sheets are correct.

The Adonal datasheet is incorrect, the manufacturers datasheets Bayer/Agfa are more exact with the pH 14. It's still made in the same factory.

Ian

 

[georg16nik]

The Adonal datasheet is incorrect, the manufacturers datasheets Bayer/Agfa are more exact with the pH 14. It's still made in the same factory.

Ian

That is why I regularly check the pH of developer, fixer, water..
pH is a logarithmic, so a difference of 1 pH unit is equivalent to a tenfold difference in hydrogen ion concentration
Sometimes there are surprises.. 11,8 and 14 are quite a different league..lol

 

[baachitraka]

We can now draw a conclusion on choosing the developer for stand development. Can we?

 

[georg16nik]

Looks like it... Depending on the film

 

[baachitraka]

Now I have Delta 100 and PanF+, would like to put it on Stand.

In the past HP5+ with Atomal 49. With 1+1 for 10mins it gave really good negatives.

 

[georg16nik]

Years ago I have tried 1 hour stand with Foma 400 (expired 2004) in APH09 1:200, 2 slow inv @ 30min - was ok.., if You don't mind that on one side of the film, towards the perforation You might have unevenness, to my understanding due to developer exhaustion.. but the edge effect is interesting for some shots.
With Delta 100 and PanF+ might be different

 

[Ottrdaemmerung]

For stand development, I've found that regardless of film speed, 1+100 for 1 hour is a good guideline. Agitate well at the beginning of development, then gently halfway through.

 

[georg16nik]

Indeed, ~ 1 min agitation

 

[baachitraka]

I have small Jobo talk, yesterday I measured how much water does it take.

Result: 500ml.

That said at-least 5ml developer is recommended for stand.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

That's true however before WWII Agfa were testing long chain wetting agents and patened some which they found to have unexpected anti-oxidising properties. One of these is used in later versions of Rodinal, it was being used during WWII.

Ian, thanks for this information.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Once you get above pH 12 it becomes increasingly harder to measure the actual pH accurately.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Now I have Delta 100 and PanF+, would like to put it on Stand.

This keeps getting said over and over on APUG. Stand development is not a general purpose developing method. It is used to compress the tonal scale of a contrasty subject. It should not be used on subjects of normal contrast.

 

[Ian Grant]

This keeps getting said over and over on APUG. Stand development is not a general purpose developing method. It is used to compress the tonal scale of a contrasty subject. It should not be used on subjects of normal contrast.

I'd add it's also used to increase edge adjacency effects. If there's sufficient volume of developer then there shouldn't be much change in contrast or any compression. This occurs when there's insufficient developing agent and it begins to exhaust.

Ian

 

[baachitraka]

That said, it is recommended to have at-least 5ml of developer for stand. With that I may require 500ml of water to have 1+100 stand for 60 mins.

I try to fill my small jobo tank with that volume of water and the level has surpassed tank's neck... :-|

But, I have no idea why 5ml...

 

[Ian Grant]

But, I have no idea why 5ml...

That's relatively easy it's possible to calculate how much of a developing agent is needed to process a film, and there need to be excess because otherwise local exhaustion limits development of the highlights.

I have figures Ilford published in the 1950's when they were working on a new developer and they are applicable to ther developers/developing agents once you allow for M's etc.

Ian

 

[Roger Cole]

I just got a bottle from Freestyle, and it's "Compard." Which variant is that?

I confess I tried Rodinal in the 90s and never was able to get results I liked. No matter how much I developed it still seemed flat, which doesn't seem consistent with other reports but there it was. So many people seem to like it I decided to give it another try.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I just got a bottle from Freestyle, and it's "Compard." Which variant is that?

I confess I tried Rodinal in the 90s and never was able to get results I liked. No matter how much I developed it still seemed flat, which doesn't seem consistent with other reports but there it was. So many people seem to like it I decided to give it another try.

What dilution were you using? I hope you weren't attempting to do stand development.

 

[Roger Cole]

What dilution were you using? I hope you weren't attempting to do stand development.

No of course not. I'm not even sure I'd HEARD of stand development then, though I could have figured out the gist from the name.

I think it was 1+50, agitation every 30 seconds with a couple of inversions. I could probably dig up those negatives and the notes.

They weren't unprintable or anything, but definitely seemed to need harder paper than my other negs even if I developed enough they were starting to look just too dense overall. Results otherwise were ok but nothing special.

 

[Diapositivo]

I just got a bottle from Freestyle, and it's "Compard." Which variant is that?

Compard is a German firm which produces photographic chemicals. They also make the Rollei Digibase C-41 treatment.

This particular product has a ph of 10.2 according to the safety data sheet:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/msds/compard/Compard_R09_Spezial.pdf

(Old-style Rodinal?)

The description is very funny:

Now called R09 Spezial. Exactly the same formulation as
Agfa Rodinal Special.

Special Note: This product and Agfa Rodinal Special are not Rodinal.
Rodinal Special is a smaller unit version of Agfa Studional.

So beware: Agfa Rodinal Special is not Rodinal. It's Rodinal Special, which is equivalent to Studional. Is this a third variant?*

These guys have to have learned marketing by mail

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/9721-Compard-R09-Spezial-film-Developer-125-ml-Agfa-Rodinal-Special

* EDIT: This appears to be a phenidone-hydroquinone developer and has nothing to do with Rodinal, either old-style or new-style.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Dilution and agitation sound OK. Contrast also depends on the lightiing of the subject. For less contrasty subjects one would decrease exposure and increase development time. This prevents the negatives from becoming too dense. But if you were shooting 35mm your target paper grade would be 2-1/2 or 3.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Rodinal Special was developed by Agfa for the photofinishing business which accounts for the short developing times.

 

[Roger Cole]

Compard is a German firm which produces photographic chemicals. They also make the Rollei Digibase C-41 treatment.

This particular product has a ph of 10.2 according to the safety data sheet:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/msds/compard/Compard_R09_Spezial.pdf

(Old-style Rodinal?)

The description is very funny:

Now called R09 Spezial. Exactly the same formulation as
Agfa Rodinal Special.

Special Note: This product and Agfa Rodinal Special are not Rodinal.
Rodinal Special is a smaller unit version of Agfa Studional.

So beware: Agfa Rodinal Special is not Rodinal. It's Rodinal Special, which is equivalent to Studional. Is this a third variant?*

These guys have to have learned marketing by mail

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/9721-Compard-R09-Spezial-film-Developer-125-ml-Agfa-Rodinal-Special

* EDIT: This appears to be a phenidone-hydroquinone developer and has nothing to do with Rodinal, either old-style or new-style.

But that isn't what I got. This is what I got:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/9724-Compard-R09-One-Shot-Film-Developer-125ml-4-oz.?

This is the exact same developer version as the world renowned Agfaphoto Rodinal you have come to love and respect.

This is not an imitation or previous/older Rodinal formulation.
Like Agfa Rodinal it is a classic developer--some would say the classic developer--that features fine grain and high acutance, perfect for use with Arista, Ilford and Foma films. Use at 1:25 or 1:50 dilution.

Replaces Agfa Rodinal, Item #9719

 

[Roger Cole]

Dilution and agitation sound OK. Contrast also depends on the lightiing of the subject. For less contrasty subjects one would decrease exposure and increase development time. This prevents the negatives from becoming too dense. But if you were shooting 35mm your target paper grade would be 2-1/2 or 3.

Thanks I know all that. I've been doing darkroom work since 1979 or so.