Efke 25, Rodinal, stand development

[titrisol]

YES

Very nice! Thank you also for posting the example, Scott.

I'm just about convinced... one more question... can I use my regular stop and fixer with the PF version of rodinal?

Wait a sec... do you even use the typical line up of chems when using rodinal?

 

[chuck94022]

I'm no expert, but have developed a few rolls of film in Rodinal 1+50. I was able to use the same stop, fix, hypo clear, and rinse agent as with D76, no problem. However, I'm about to try the Darkroom Cookbook's suggestion of no acid development. I'm going to try a water stop, PF TF-4 alkali fix, no hypo clear, and see what happens.

-chuck

 

[Digidurst]

Good to know! Gosh, maybe one of these days I won't feel like such a newb! LOL

But thank you all for your help, suggestions, and advice!

 

[Lee L]

Very nice! Thank you also for posting the example, Scott.

I'm just about convinced... one more question... can I use my regular stop and fixer with the PF version of rodinal?

Wait a sec... do you even use the typical line up of chems when using rodinal?

Yes, you use typical formulations for the rest of the processing steps with Rodinal.

Is there a reason you want to mix it yourself from PF's kit? Many photo shops carry Rodinal, and it's pretty cheap. Other than curiosity, I don't see the point in mixing this one yourself, although I'm open to arguments for doing so. If you can't find it locally, there are some mail order sources for Rodinal mentioned in other threads here. J&C carries an older, more concentrated version of Rodinal, Calbe R09, that can be mail ordered. I've put a couple of rolls through that and been pleased. The PF kit is similar to Rodinal, but may not be an exact duplicate.

You may want to read about mixing the PF kit here: http://www.photoformulary.com/uploads/01-0160.DOC
before deciding whether to buy the PF formula vs. Agfa Rodinal or Calbe R09.

Hope this is useful.

Lee

 

[Digidurst]

Yes, you use typical formulations for the rest of the processing steps with Rodinal.

Is there a reason you want to mix it yourself from PF's kit? Many photo shops carry Rodinal, and it's pretty cheap. Other than curiosity, I don't see the point in mixing this one yourself, although I'm open to arguments for doing so. If you can't find it locally, there are some mail order sources for Rodinal mentioned in other threads here. J&C carries an older, more concentrated version of Rodinal, Calbe R09, that can be mail ordered. I've put a couple of rolls through that and been pleased. The PF kit is similar to Rodinal, but may not be an exact duplicate.

You may want to read about mixing the PF kit here: http://www.photoformulary.com/uploads/01-0160.DOC
before deciding whether to buy the PF formula vs. Agfa Rodinal or Calbe R09.

Hope this is useful.

Lee

No Lee, there's no reason that I would want to mix it myself! LOL See, I wouldn't know a bottle of Rodinal if I tripped over it Thank you for pointing out my almost- faux pa and for suggesting other resources.

 

[titrisol]

PF-Rodinal

Solution B is almost a 50% NaOH solution... no wonder it needs cooling!
I'd prepare it using very cold water and if possible in a ice-water filled sink.

Don;t be afraid though, NaOH is red-devil lye or similar producst used in household cleaners and drain uncloggers. Have a bowl with some vinegar handy to neutralize enay NaOH on your hands and use some protective glasses

 

[Lee L]

No Lee, there's no reason that I would want to mix it myself! LOL See, I wouldn't know a bottle of Rodinal if I tripped over it Thank you for pointing out my almost- faux pa and for suggesting other resources.

Mixing your own developer is definitely not a faux pas. In my view there's just not a real advantage to doing it in this particular case. But as Pablo/titrisol says, there's no particular danger if you use due care and correct procedure.

If you trip over one of these: http://calumetphoto.com/ctl?PAGE=Co...&ac.cat.CatTreeSearch.detail=y&type=SPDSEARCH then it was Rodinal in the retail box.

For a little history and other info see: http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html
or search on Rodinal in APUG, although you may have to wade through some "religious" content and be subjected to some proselytizing in the APUG posts.

Lee

 

[Digidurst]

LOL - Wrong wording maybe (i.e. faux pas)... I mix my own stuff for Argyrotypes and toner so a little Rodinal mixing wouldn't freak me out - I just didn't know it was sold retail like that. I have A LOT to learn as you're probably guessing!

Thanks for the links!!

 

[Digidurst]

Well, ya'll convinced me... Placed my order for some of the magic elixir (needed some other stuff anyway so what the hey!) and we'll see how it goes.

Thanks again for all the help! I imagine you'll be hearing from me again round about the time the UPS truck gets here

 

[rjr]

Lee,

"J&C carries an older, more concentrated version of Rodinal, Calbe R09,"

Nitpick: it´s vice versa, Rodinal is more concentrated, thus you have to dillute it 1+50 when you dilute R09 at 1+40.

The bottles Calbe and Foma use for their stuff are known to be a bit problematic - mine are leaky on the caps, a friend of mine found a bottle in the rack with ruptured welds.

I tend to use the real stuff and keep the R09/F09 for those times I forget to restock it - or for the day I may move up to LF where I´d have to use much more stock/film.

 

[Marco Buonocore]

This are samples, and a crop at 2400 dpi (from negative)

HP5+ in Rodinal 1+50

Thanks for the scans - always appreciate seeing a good example of grain, especially with a film I've been using a lot of lately.

Out of curiosity, what do you rate your HP5+ at when developing in Rodinal? How long do you soup it for? I've been going the EI 320 HC110(B) (5 or 5.5 m) route, and have been happy with it, but keep Rodinal in the darkroom for Acros and APX 100. I wouldn't mind having a crack at it, and like the look of the examples you've posted.

Any information would be great.

Thanks in advance!

 

[mikewhi]

I uploaded 4 photos that Gene sent me a few nights ago to the Technical Gallery. I edited the photos, gave credit to Gene and pointed people to this thread.
I'll leave them in my gallery space until I need to reclaim the space.

-Mike

 

[Lee L]

Lee,

"J&C carries an older, more concentrated version of Rodinal, Calbe R09,"

Nitpick: it´s vice versa, Rodinal is more concentrated, thus you have to dillute it 1+50 when you dilute R09 at 1+40.

The bottles Calbe and Foma use for their stuff are known to be a bit problematic - mine are leaky on the caps, a friend of mine found a bottle in the rack with ruptured welds.

I tend to use the real stuff and keep the R09/F09 for those times I forget to restock it - or for the day I may move up to LF where I´d have to use much more stock/film.

Roman,

Interesting. I was under the impression that R09 at 1:40 was equivalent to Rodinal at 1:25 and that 1:80 R09 was equivalent to 1:50 Rodinal. Using that conversion has worked for me on the few times I've used R09. But I've only started back at this recently and haven't done a controlled test for this. I've searched, but been unable to find anything official stating equivalent dilutions. I'd appreciate it if you could point out something definitive.

Perhaps my bottle of Calbe is differently packaged (I'm not talking about concentration here). It has a very tight internal plastic stopper that curves over the rim of the opening in addition to the normal external cap. I wonder if US distributed R09 is packaged differently from European supplies, or if Calbe and Foma are in different bottles.

Lee

 

[rjr]

Lee,

Roman,
Interesting. I was under the impression that R09 at 1:40 was equivalent to Rodinal at 1:25 and that 1:80 R09 was equivalent to 1:50 Rodinal.

1+20 is the Calbe/Foma equvivalent to Agfa´s 1+25.

Using that conversion has worked for me on the few times I've used R09. But I've only started back at this recently and haven't done a controlled test for this.

Mmmh. I could do that. Still got a stack of leftover sensitometer strips of FP4... but the times for the dillutions differ not that much, you just may have been lucky and ended up with the right time for your camera/shutter/film/agitation combination.

I've searched, but been unable to find anything official stating equivalent dilutions. I'd appreciate it if you could point out something definitive.

This proved to be a difficult task. ,-)

If you take Mirko´s word for granted:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

It´s common knowledge out on the streets, no one I know has ever questioned that.

Perhaps my bottle of Calbe is differently packaged (I'm not talking about concentration here).

Some people belief Calbe R09 and Foma F09 are the same stuff. Later tonight (if not by Tuesday) I´ll snap a pic of "my" Foma bottles. ,-)

HTH.

 

[Lee L]

Roman,

Thanks. I hadn't seen that APUG thread, and am perfectly willing to trust the info from photoimpex as to dilution rates. As you say, it's hard to find the specific dilution comparison to the Agfa product, even on sites that sell F09/C09. I suspect that this common knowledge is more common in Europe than the US. No form of R09 has ever had much distribution here, and even Rodinal is sometimes hard to find these days.

I agree entirely that my exposure and routine, especially with the new films I've been trying out, is enough to swamp having changed the relative dilutions in the wrong direction. But then I started with suggestions for R09 anyway for what I've done so far.

Thanks again,
Lee

 

[titrisol]

My usual process includes: presoak (1-2 minutes)
Development: Agitate and rap the tank a few times for the first 30 secs or so
Then agitate once a minute.

Tri-X at box speed (400). HP5+ at 320 (1/2 exp comp)
Rodinal 1+50, 9 min @24C (the water was hot so I adjusted for temp)

Rodinal 1+100, 20 min @20C agitating every other minute. Could have used a tad more though... I should have used 30 minutes.

 

[B. Poetz]

There is simply too much conflicting information being spread about R09 dilutions. I recently posted a question about converting Rodinal to R09 dilutions on Photo.net http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Bsvq and much of the information is in crass contrast to what is being proferred here as fact.

I am taking the liberty of posting here my latest contribution to the above mentioned thread. Hopefully, this will be of value and generate some insight.

Regarding the seemingly factual statement that R09 is more concentrated than Rodinal, everything I have found published, including the ORWO film processing chart http://www.digitaltruth.com/chart/old/orwo_old.html which compares R. and R09 suggest otherwise.

Now, I am the first person to say that empirical testing is the ONLY real way to discover truth. Even well meaning advice can be tremendously misleading when one considers variables such as enlarger variations, paper, film, agitation and so on. Not to mention that we all find different ideals in contrast. This last factor -- the subjective nature of judging ideal negatives can't be underestimated. Still, sharing experience and knowledge is often helpful and interesting.

Now... here's where it gets interesting: in ORWO's own "Developer R09 - Directions for use" the suggested time for NP15 (IS0 25) is "approx. 9 min." @ 20 deg. C. in a 1:40 dilution. Then... ORWO suggests a Multiplying Factor of 1.5 for 1:60, 2 for 1:80, 3 for 1:100, 4 for 150 and 6 for 1:200.

Based on their suggested 9 minutes at 1:40, using a 1:150 dilution would require 36 minutes for Efke 25!

Obviously, I plan to test this -- arghhh! -- in the darkroom, but I thought this was intersting information considering the 20 minutes time that seems to accepted by most here in this thread. Remember, using Ronald Moravec's and others theory of a 1.6 factor difference betoween R. and R09, the 1:150 dilution would be close to the 1:100 Rodinal dilution.

APUGERS, HELP! There must be some definitive information out there.

 

[ElrodCod]

I suggest using a hydrometer to compare the specific gravity of RO9 @ 1:40 to Rodinal @ 1:50 and make whatever adjustment required to make the SG's equal. That and a pocket calculator should tell the tale.

 

[Lee L]

I suggest using a hydrometer to compare the specific gravity of RO9 @ 1:40 to Rodinal @ 1:50 and make whatever adjustment required to make the SG's equal. That and a pocket calculator should tell the tale.

I'm not a chemist, and don't play one on TV, but the R09 formula is a pre-WWII Agfa Rodinal formula and is several iterations of the formula different from the current Agfa version. Wouldn't this make specific gravity comparisons invalid?

Neither formula is published as far as I know.

All the information I'd found before this APUG thread was consistent with Ronald Moravic and Dean Williams' postings on photo.net, i.e. R09 1:40 = Rodinal 1:25, R09 1:80 = Rodinal 1:50, as opposed to the information posted here that R09 is less concentrated. I haven't had time to make a direct comparison test.

Lee

 

[ElrodCod]

Lee,
I agree that it's not good scientific methodology. I just threw that out there as a possibility. After thinking about it; the SG of those dilutions will read pretty close to that of plain water. A better way would be to compare the SG's of the concentrates. I know, I know...we don't have any idea of the exact formulae but they ought to be close enough to get a handle on which is more concentrated.
Exhaustive development testing of various concentrations of each until a match of the FB+fog is found would be alot better. The other option is believing what you read on the internet but that doesn't seem scientific either. The best plan would be to pick whichever developer of the two is most readily available and not worry about the comparison. For me, that's Agfa Rodinal.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[B. Poetz]

Well, at least I'm not the only one frustrated with all of this!

Yes, I agree that the 1:40/1:80 R09 = 1:25/1:50 R. seems to be the accepted correlation based on popular opinion. But, this certainly is a far cry from anything approaching scientific.

What I find really irking is that Calbe's own formula for Dilution/Multiplying Factor doesn't jive at all.

For example, the generally accepted (MDC and J&C) time for Efke 100 in R09 1:40 is 13m. Now, if you use Calbe Multiply Factor or '3' for a 1:100 dilution, you get 39 minutes! More than TWICE the duration of the 19 minute time published. Yet, the 6 m. time for ISO 25 when Factored by 3 for a 100 dilution gets you 18 min. -- precisely the time suggested on these charts. It just doesn't make any sense. And these are Germans! How can there be such a gap in logic?

 

[Papa Tango]

Take your pick

1:100 dilution 68F. Agitate lightly the first 30 seconds, stand dev for about 40- 45 minutes with a couple of light agitations (10 sec)during the first 10-15 minutes. I've even left it in for more than an hour without much difference

Dilute 1:200, prewash 5 minutes, leave the film in for 90 minutes without agitation.

1:100 68F 30 sec presoak, 5 initial inversions, stand 30 min total development time

1:100 72F. Agitate 45 seconds, every 3 after, 12 minutes development

9 minutes, 20 minutes, 18 minutes, the list goes on. GAAHHHH….

On my first shot out of the box, I went with the PF recommended 12 minutes. Negatives so thin I could shave with them. Working shots, so I will end up going out and re-shooting. What’s up with this developer that so many state that they get good results with the same mix and so radically different times?

I am beginning to suspect that unlike any other developer (such as D76) there is no accepted and dependable beginning point to fine tune from. It looks like I simply need to shoot a half-dozen frames of 4x5 of the same test subject and develop to all of these times to see what happens.