How old is my Rodinal?

I bought these two plastic 500ML bottles at an estate sale here in LA for cheap. Both seem full. The boxed one has an old price tag of $6.95. Both bottles have the number 86129Y stamped on them. I see no dates. Can anyone give me an idea of their age?

At least as old as the 90s I'd say, maybe even older than that. The 86 might mean 1986. I believe Agfa changed to clear bottles in the late 90s/early 00s. Don't quote me on that though.

Patrick Robert James said:

At least as old as the 90s I'd say, maybe even older than that. The 86 might mean 1986. I believe Agfa changed to clear bottles in the late 90s/early 00s. Don't quote me on that though.

Click to expand...

Well unless the white plastic bottle of Rodinal I bought in about 2005/6 from a chain of photographic shops in the U.K. called Jessops was from very old stock this may not be the case

However, if you are right then what I thought is about 18/19 years old Rodinal is in fact likely to be at least 23 years old or even older

It is still going strong. At some point after 20 plus years any chemical still working properly must be getting near to the definition of having an indefinite life from a practical aspect or so I'd have thought?

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Well unless the white plastic bottle of Rodinal I bought in about 2005/6 from a chain of photographic shops in the U.K. called Jessops was from very old stock this may not be the case

However, if you are right then what I thought is about 18/19 years old Rodinal is in fact likely to be at least 23 years old or even older

It is still going strong. At some point after 20 plus years any chemical still working properly must be getting near to the definition of having an indefinite life from a practical aspect or so I'd have thought?

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I was just going off my memory which is highly reliable. Lol. I just remember them switching back then sometime. Back then was a long time ago.

The stuff does last forever. At least the original stuff did. These days I mix it myself which lasts a long time too. I use Gainer's EZ Rodinal formula. I've been doing that for the last dozen years or so.

Rodinal has been my developer since 1978 and I still use it. After a couple of years of using whatever film I could afford, or that was available, I settled on a 125 asa film for my day camera and a 400asa film for my evening and night camera. I was taught proper developing by the b/w printer in Paris who I worked for. He got me to understand to judge the entire film and he got me to remember which grades of paper I needed mostly. Everything was about being precise with the temperatures, including the washing and about the agitation. He'd say: "the more you experiment, or change the parameters (film, developers, dilutions), the more you'll get lost".

Sorry for the length of the above, but it has to do with the answer to your question: just do a simple test shot of a well lit subject and develop, then print this. You should already get part of the answer when you look at the wet film after washing. The rest will become clear after printing. You will need to compare the result to your usual experience. If you generally end up using filter 3 (normal) and now you need filter 5, that would be alarming to me.

Yes, Rodinal can be fine after many years. But also not when kept in, for instance, very hot temperatures.

AGFA only used production codes, you must have the key to read them (except for film).
AGFA went bankrupt in March 2006. Rodinal was introduced at the end of the 19th century.
Your plastic 500ml bottle must be around 20 years old al least.
Rodinal made during the interbellum still works fine, so don't worry...
ADOX still makes it according the original formula, it's the oldest commercially made developer on the market.

Philippe-Georges said:

ADOX still makes it according the original formula

Click to expand...

To the latest Agfa formula, from 2004 they say.

Ernst-Jan said:

To the latest Agfa formula, from 2004 they say.

Click to expand...

Yes, they had to make some modifications to comply with the rather severe EEC environmental regulations, but it is basically the same and good product.

On the instruction sheet does it list Panatomic-X ? That was reportedly discontinued in 1987:

Alan Johnson said:

On the instruction sheet does it list Panatomic-X ? That was reportedly discontinued in 1987:

Click to expand...

Yes, it lists Panatomic-X.

It also lists TMax films but not Ilford Delta films.

So, I think that would put it at late 80s to early 90s.

Unless it's just an old data sheet included in a newer product. I have seen that before.

To possibly confuse matters further, I have two sets of Rodinal times The first is one sheet of A4 paper which has the Agfa red diamond with the letters "Afga" inside the diamond in white. It is in English only and does not look like the sort of sheet that would be inside a packet which holds the 500ml bottle. I can only think that I must have found it on the internet in a search for Rodinal times and printed it from there It does look like the sort of sheet that Agfa must have produced rather than a compilation put together by a Rodinal enthusiast. I'll call it the A4 sheet. It has no date on it

The second set was folded inside the packet covering the bottle that I bought about 2005/6 so this is definitely an Agfa sheet. It has the Agfa diamond in black with white letters inside. However the reason for the difference in colour from red to black might be simply to avoid the cost of having the diamond in red. This is reproduced in 7 European languages. English, French, German, Czech. Slovak, Hungarian and Russian. I'll call it the leaflet

As it was with the bottle which was bought 2005/6 then it has to be about or before that date. What I cannot be sure about is the date of manufacture. It was old stock that Jessops were getting rid of and I suspect the packet may have lain forgotten in the back of the stock of chemicals and paper so it may in theory have lain there for at least a couple of years but possibly longer

The single A4 sheet contains times for Panatomic X of 5 mins and 11 mins respectively for 1+25 and 1+50 and also has times for all the Ilford Delta films (100,400 and 3200) plus TMax(100,400 and 3200) It has times for Afga, Fuji and one Konica film, namely Konica Pan 400

The leaflet that came with the bottle has the same set of films except for Panatomic X and the Konica Pan 400

Two other differences are: A4 sheet times are different or appreciably different for most of the films from those on the bottle leaflet Most on the sheet are for shorter times However this may be accounted for by the change in agitation times. The sheet says continuous for first 30 secs then 5 secs per 30 secs whereas the leaflet says continuous for first minute then one tilt every 30 secs

The other differences are: 1. The A4 sheet say that times for D3200 have not been tested whereas the leaflet makes no mention of this and the times are much longer
2. The sheet says NR for HP5+ for 1+50 whereas the leaflet has a time for HP5+ at 1+50

Frankly I am not sure what I can conclude about the age of the bottle from all of this except and this is speculation that the sheet pertained to an earlier period because it lists a Konica film and Agfa was unsure of the times for D3200 because to quote the sheet: "The times for D3200 have not been tested"It also has a time for Kodak Tech Pan and a Konica Pan 400 whereas the leaflet with the bottle does not have this
If the sheet was a copy of genuine Agfa information sheet and it does look as if it was then it might be useful if anyone can recall when Agfa published that agitation pattern, comments on D3200 times and times for Panatomic X and Konica Pan 400

pentaxuser

An old story about RODINAL.
I don't really recall the magazine where and when I got it from, it was residing on my computer for ages and it looks rather old, here it is just for the fun of it, and I hope that there will be no copyright issues...

And here is a brochure with the technical data of all the chemicals for film developing by AGFA.

Thanks Philippe-Georges for the link to the document. I wonder when this document was produced? Was it the last document on all the times? I ask because there are differences between this and my leaflet that was with my bottle

In my leaflet there are times for HP5+ at 1+25 and 1+50 whereas this doc reverts to saying that 1+50 is not recommended for HP5 My leaflet gives times for D3200 at both 1+25 and 1+50 whereas this doc says that 1+50 is not recommended

I wonder what makes T Max 3200 OK at both 1+25 and 1+50 but the later dilution is not recommended for either HP5+ or D3200?

The agitation may not be the same either. My leaflet says agitate continuouslyfor first minute but then says "tilt" every 30 sec whereas yours say continuous for the first 30 secs then every 30 seconds. Neither for how long you should either tilt or invert for in the intermittent agitation every 30 secs.

I get the impression that Agfa perhaps had not finally made up its mind on what was correct for HP5+ and D3200 when my leaflet was produced or had changed its mind again and then made a final decision when it produced this final doc. Assuming of course that your doc was the final doc on subject

pentaxuser

The other thing to be careful of with respect to inserts is that sometimes an insert is supplied by an importer and distributor, not the original manufacturer. So it can be risky to assume that the insert and the product are of exactly the same vintage.

MattKing said:

The other thing to be careful of with respect to inserts is that sometimes an insert is supplied by an importer and distributor, not the original manufacturer. So it can be risky to assume that the insert and the product are of exactly the same vintage.

Click to expand...

Hmm, a new one on me. As the producer you'd need to have trust in your distributor to stick the right leaflet in the box for the product and I'd assume that Agfa, if it changed its leaflet, would have a means of telling its distributor to decease inserting the old leaflets and begin with the new ones plus a means of checking it was doing as was asked

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Hmm, a new one on me. As the producer you'd need to have trust in your distributor to stick the right leaflet in the box for the product and I'd assume that Agfa, if it changed its leaflet, would have a means of telling its distributor to decease inserting the old leaflets and begin with the new ones plus a means of checking it was doing as was asked

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

There is no reason to replace a leaflet just because it still lists some now discontinued films.
And importers are often entirely independent of the manufacturers they buy from.

pentaxuser said:

Thanks Philippe-Georges for the link to the document. I wonder when this document was produced? Was it the last document on all the times? I ask because there are differences between this and my leaflet that was with my bottle

In my leaflet there are times for HP5+ at 1+25 and 1+50 whereas this doc reverts to saying that 1+50 is not recommended for HP5 My leaflet gives times for D3200 at both 1+25 and 1+50 whereas this doc says that 1+50 is not recommended

I wonder what makes T Max 3200 OK at both 1+25 and 1+50 but the later dilution is not recommended for either HP5+ or D3200?

The agitation may not be the same either. My leaflet says agitate continuouslyfor first minute but then says "tilt" every 30 sec whereas yours say continuous for the first 30 secs then every 30 seconds. Neither for how long you should either tilt or invert for in the intermittent agitation every 30 secs.

I get the impression that Agfa perhaps had not finally made up its mind on what was correct for HP5+ and D3200 when my leaflet was produced or had changed its mind again and then made a final decision when it produced this final doc. Assuming of course that your doc was the final doc on subject

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

On the last page the date is marked: 03/2003
I think this is the last technical brochure AGFA published, before going under...

These (new-) data are based on the required modifications they had to apply due to the severe EEC environmental regulations.
Perhaps there could be a second reason: the evolution of the ever 'thinner' getting film's emulsion. Silver prices were rising and film manufacturers had to economise on silver. And some film emulsions where more prone to these changes then others, but this is a personal guess...

MattKing said:

The other thing to be careful of with respect to inserts is that sometimes an insert is supplied by an importer and distributor, not the original manufacturer. So it can be risky to assume that the insert and the product are of exactly the same vintage.

Click to expand...

That is why it is important to have the manufacture's most recent 'officially' published brochure with the correct technical data at hand (and why I added it in my former post)...

Philippe-Georges said:

Perhaps there could be a second reason: the evolution of the ever thinner getting film's emulsion. Silver prices were rising and film manufacturers had to economise on silver.

Click to expand...

Which had as much or more to do with the ever growing popularity of "sharpness" as it did the price of silver.
Thin emulsions are much better at achieving high acutance than the older, thicker ones.
The technology that led to the thin emulsions made the ability of the silver halides to respond to light much more efficient.

MattKing said:

Which had as much or more to do with the ever growing popularity of "sharpness" as it did the price of silver.
Thin emulsions are much better at achieving high acutance than the older, thicker ones.
The technology that led to the thin emulsions made the ability of the silver halides to respond to light much more efficient.

Click to expand...

This is the rather optimistic way of looking at it...

Philippe-Georges said:

An old story about RODINAL.
I don't really recall the magazine where and when I got it from, it was residing on my computer for ages and it looks rather old, here it is just for the fun of it, and I hope that there will be no copyright issues...

View attachment 330754View attachment 330755View attachment 330756View attachment 330757

Click to expand...

And the latest PhotoKlasssik magazine has an advertisement of 130 years of Rodinal

Ernst-Jan said:

And the latest PhotoKlasssik magazine has an advertisement of 130 years of Rodinal

Click to expand...

Which tells a lot, together with Linhof (1889) these are among the oldest still existing, and manufactured, photo products.

Philippe-Georges said:

On the last page the date is marked: 03/2003
I think this is the last technical brochure AGFA published, before going under...

These (new-) data are based on the required modifications they had to apply due to the severe EEC environmental regulations.
Perhaps there could be a second reason: the evolution of the ever 'thinner' getting film's emulsion. Silver prices were rising and film manufacturers had to economise on silver. And some film emulsions where more prone to these changes then others, but this is a personal guess...

Click to expand...

Thanks Philippe-Georges I had not seen that date but I am sure you are right about it being the last brochure. In that case I would use the times in your document as being Agfa's final position on the best developing times

It is still a bit of a puzzle why Agfa seemed to have difficulties deciding on HP5+ and D3200

pentaxuser

BobD said:

I bought these two plastic 500ML bottles at an estate sale here in LA for cheap. Both seem full. The boxed one has an old price tag of $6.95. Both bottles have the number 86129Y stamped on them. I see no dates. Can anyone give me an idea of their age?

Click to expand...

I have 2 bottles like this stamped with 84441U and priced at $10.99. The box, label & instruction sheet mention HP5 Plus which indicates that the juice was bottled after 1989.