Is Fomadon R09 the Same as Rodinal?

ArgentixCa · Jan 14, 2014

Hi everybody!
I personnally prefer APH09 for my day to day works.
It works pretty well in stand development and last so long...I roughly remember when I bought my current bottle.

It can be used in so many possible dilution with, again, so many different films brands and speeds that it saves space on my shelves.

The crystalization reported sometimes never bothered me. I saw in a recipe that you need at least one crystal in the mixture to make sure it works properly.

Probably that I commited a sin, but I tested Adox CMSII (exposed at ISO 20) in APH09 instead of the Adotech-II developer.
If you are a high contrast lover, you will see no sin in it...
I processed in stand-development, 4 35mm films, with 3 ml of APH09 per film (dilution 1:100), for 60 minutes. The result remember me the old Kodalith.
And there are more tests to be done with this combination.

Have a great day!

Richard S. (rich815) · Jan 14, 2014

I have both original Rodinal bottles and some newer R09. I'm going to mix them. Wish me luck!

piu58 · Jan 15, 2014

Once I checked whether there are differences between Rodinal and R09 (the old 1+40 formula). I devloped two strips of the same film, taken with the same scene and same light. There were only small differences in density, around a tenth of a stop. All remaining was the same. Especially I could not detect any differences in grain and sharpness.

StoneNYC · Jan 15, 2014

Ok everyone, someone early on referenced Mirko talking about Adox Adonal being the "real" formula.

This whole thing comes in many threads... Here's the simple explanation.

Adox bought the rights to the LATEST formula of Rodinal. (They've also bought the name now and claim they will start using the Rodinal name again soon).

All other companies are using OLDER versions of the Rodinal formula.

They are ALL Rodinal. But only Adox Adonal us the last formula that was being sold as Rodinal before the company folded.

OK?? So it's all basically the same, but the Adox Adonal is the most recent, some people say the older formulas were better for various reasons but they basically all produce similar results.

However I've always used the Adox Adonal and it's great.

PS the crystals are normal and you just shake it up a bit and most of them dissolve.

miha · Jan 15, 2014

Stone, 'other' companies are not using OLDER versions of the Rodinal formula as you say but a formula SIMILAR to Rodinal as Mirko of Fotoimpex said. It could be similar or the same - it's made by Tetenal now, I don't know who to believe, but it's certainly not one of the pre WW2 formulae as you suggest.

Maco R09 MSDS: http://www.tetenal.com/sidaopener_uk.htm?file=SIDA/SIDADE/105081.pdf

Adox Rodinal (Adonal) MSDS: http://www.tetenal.com/sidaopener_uk.htm?file=SIDA/SIDADE/105100.pdf

StoneNYC · Jan 15, 2014

Alessandro Serrao said:
So basically Tetenal produces photo chemistry for Maco, Adox, Ilford, Kodak, the same Tetenal and...
Am I wrong?

It's confusing, I think that's right BUT the formula Tetenal uses for Adox is different than the one they use for the others.

And to the other poster, I didn't say pre WW formula, I just said older, they re-formulated quite a few times even after WWII and so it's one of those, or a variant that never came to market officially perhaps.

It doesn't really matter that much, if you want the "official latest version" then by Adox Adonal, if you just want the Rodinal style developer, buy the other stuff. But the price is so cheap why not buy the official stuff.

Cheers

miha · Jan 15, 2014

Alessandro Serrao said:
So basically Tetenal produces photo chemistry for Maco, Adox, Ilford, Kodak, the same Tetenal and...
Am I wrong?

Sure, they are big!*

Foma Bohemia also claim that their Fomadol R09 duplicates Agfa Rodinal. From their site:

Fomadon R09 is equivalent to former developer Agfa Rodinal.

*and Old! Their Tetenal Emofin developer was brought to market in 1929, so this makes it about the same age as D76.

dorff · Jan 15, 2014

jochen said:
Hello,
I think that the crystals are p-aminophenol. The solubility of the p-aminophenol is borderline. In some formula it is recommended to leave some crystals undissolved.

It is a mixture of sulphite and p-aminophenolate.

Rodinal is a single-agent developer that can be made in various ways, with the p-aminophenol introduced as one of either metol, paracetamol, p-aminophenol hydrochloride or p-aminophenol (there could be more!). I have made all except the metol variant. What is important is to use potassium salts in a ratio of at least 2:1 to sodium on molar basis, to get 0.5 moles/L of aminophenolate in the final solution, and to get the excess hydroxide correct (otherwise the pH is too low or high after dilution). The various methods end up with different salts as "baggage" - chloride, sulphate, acetate or none. However, after dilution the quantities are so low that it does not seem to impact development. If the aminophenolate, sulphite and hydroxide concentrations are correct in the final product, it will last for years no matter how it was prepared (including parodinal which has been branded unfairly as short-lived). In my view the whole discussion about whether this or that is Rodinal is a storm in a teacup. They could differ by adding or leaving out the EDTA and/or bromide, perhaps. If there is any other developing agent than p-aminophenolate in there, it is not Rodinal. It is so simple to make that one can arguably just toss all ingredients in a bottle, top it up to volume, cap and leave for a few days. I make a one-litre batch once a year or so, at a cost of about $7, if that much. 1 litre develops around 150 films.

Xmas · Jan 15, 2014

dorff said:
It is a mixture of sulphite and p-aminophenolate.

Rodinal is a single-agent developer that can be made in various ways, with the p-aminophenol introduced as one of either metol, paracetamol, p-aminophenol hydrochloride or p-aminophenol (there could be more!). I have made all except the metol variant. What is important is to use potassium salts in a ratio of at least 2:1 to sodium on molar basis, to get 0.5 moles/L of aminophenolate in the final solution, and to get the excess hydroxide correct (otherwise the pH is too low or high after dilution). The various methods end up with different salts as "baggage" - chloride, sulphate, acetate or none. However, after dilution the quantities are so low that it does not seem to impact development. If the aminophenolate, sulphite and hydroxide concentrations are correct in the final product, it will last for years no matter how it was prepared (including parodinal which has been branded unfairly as short-lived). In my view the whole discussion about whether this or that is Rodinal is a storm in a teacup. They could differ by adding or leaving out the EDTA and/or bromide, perhaps. If there is any other developing agent than p-aminophenolate in there, it is not Rodinal. It is so simple to make that one can arguably just toss all ingredients in a bottle, top it up to volume, cap and leave for a few days. I make a one-litre batch once a year or so, at a cost of about $7, if that much. 1 litre develops around 150 films.

Yes but dont expect any one to listen...
The rule book is:- don't decant, don't filter just drip into measuring cylinder until last drip, expect 25 years plus life in normal container, this offends lots of people.

StoneNYC · Jan 15, 2014

Xmas said:
Yes but dont expect any one to listen...
The rule book is:- don't decant, don't filter just drip into measuring cylinder until last drip, expect 25 years plus life in normal container, this offends lots of people.

I know it's probably an illusion but I find that my negs get finer grained once the bottle turns brown and has a few crystals, when it's new and clear, the negs seem less sharp and fuzzy at the edges. It must be me imagining it.

The sharpest best negs I ever had from Rodinal were from a bottle that suddenly turned super black and was about 1/5th full and I couldn't figure out why it was so black, after mixing, I discovered the top had cracked completely, and had been that way in my basement for roughly 2-3 weeks, after that I shook it real good as the crystals that formed were super large, and took a while to break up, even in the dilute working solution. Anyway the negs were outstandingly sharp. I've been trying to figure out which part helped that, the exposures were all the same so I can't imagine it was evaporation, since that would change the concentration amount, but anyway, people don't believe that story either...

Xmas · Jan 15, 2014

StoneNYC said:
Anyway the negs were outstandingly sharp. I've been trying to figure out which part helped that, the exposures were all the same so I can't imagine it was evaporation, since that would change the concentration amount, but anyway, people don't believe that story either...

Hi Stone
You can get edge effects that enhance apparent sharpness
http://www.jackspcs.com/fdnb.htm
but your experiments wont be repeatable...
See got it wrong again you will be getting a complex?
Noel

timor · Jan 15, 2014

Xmas said:
Hi Stone
You can get edge effects that enhance apparent sharpness
http://www.jackspcs.com/fdnb.htm
but your experiments wont be repeatable...
See got it wrong again you will be getting a complex?
Noel

"Rodinal mess", I think it is a number one topic generating the most excitement in forum discussions. The second IMO would be DoF.
There is no magic in Rodinal's famous sharpness of negatives. Any non solving developer will do the same. Beutler is one of them. Anyone ever replaced sodium carbonate component of this developer with borax ? Try it, sharpness stay the same, but tonal range is much better. I am getting Rodinla's sharpness or better with properly used HC 110.
Sharpness is not a problem, tonal range is.
As for Stone experience: did you take notes of temperature of this extra sharp development ?

miha · Jan 15, 2014

timor said:
Beutler is one of them. Anyone ever replaced sodium carbonate component of this developer with borax ? Try it, sharpness stay the same, but tonal range is much better.

Can you explain the role of Borax here?

timor · Jan 15, 2014

Role is the same like of sodium carbonate. But with lower pH. It gives less contrast and print looks smoother.

miha · Jan 15, 2014

Thanks, I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. To me Beutler (neofin) developed film looks great printed.

JW PHOTO · Jan 15, 2014

timor said:
"Rodinal mess", I think it is a number one topic generating the most excitement in forum discussions. The second IMO would be DoF.
There is no magic in Rodinal's famous sharpness of negatives. Any non solving developer will do the same. Beutler is one of them. Anyone ever replaced sodium carbonate component of this developer with borax ? Try it, sharpness stay the same, but tonal range is much better. I am getting Rodinla's sharpness or better with properly used HC 110.
Sharpness is not a problem, tonal range is.
As for Stone experience: did you take notes of temperature of this extra sharp development ?

After reading these posts and while having dinner, I was thinking of substituting Sodium metaborate (Kodalk) for the sodium carbonate in the Beutler formula . I then come back here and read this. Good timing I guess. I have about 20 lbs or more of Kodalk and have been substituting it in places where I can do that, just because I have that much of it. I'm going to mix a Beutler batch tonight and see how it works tomorrow. Nothing out cost wise. That should put this Beutler blend between Borax and sodium carbonate. It also calls for 50g of sodium carbonate in part "B" so I plan to add 60g of Kodalk to replace the sodium carbonate. Does that sound about right? Oh, to keep on topic, I use Adonal and have found it the same as my last batch of Rodinal as far as I could tell. JohnW

StoneNYC · Jan 15, 2014

timor said:
"Rodinal mess", I think it is a number one topic generating the most excitement in forum discussions. The second IMO would be DoF.
There is no magic in Rodinal's famous sharpness of negatives. Any non solving developer will do the same. Beutler is one of them. Anyone ever replaced sodium carbonate component of this developer with borax ? Try it, sharpness stay the same, but tonal range is much better. I am getting Rodinla's sharpness or better with properly used HC 110.
Sharpness is not a problem, tonal range is.
As for Stone experience: did you take notes of temperature of this extra sharp development ?

Not notes, but I follow the same procedure for temperature every time, always at 70 degrees to begin, I do assume the temp will drop slightly as time passes, but always start at 70.

Anyway it wasn't an "experiment" it was just normal developing, it was only with the fresh bottle that I was suddenly disappointed and went back to compare, and they appear sharper with the mud looking Rodinal. This is not "official" as it's all scanned, no science instruments to test with, but sure enough, a month later as the new bottle got oxidized a bit, the images again appeared to have a better edge sharpness.

But it's not like I did special tests. Either way I will continue to use it.

timor · Jan 15, 2014

JW PHOTO said:
That should put this Beutler blend between Borax and sodium carbonate. It also calls for 50g of sodium carbonate in part "B" so I plan to add 60g of Kodalk to replace the sodium carbonate. Does that sound about right?

John, the problem with borax is, it is impossible to dissolve 50 grams of borax in 1 liter of water. At 50 C it's fine, but after two weeks ice like crystalline forms on the bottom of the vessel. Beutler with borax also require 10-15% longer development, so the first film with Beutler-Kodalk treat as an experiment.

timor · Jan 15, 2014

StoneNYC said:
Not notes, but I follow the same procedure for temperature every time, always at 70 degrees to begin, I do assume the temp will drop slightly as time passes, but always start at 70.

Anyway it wasn't an "experiment" it was just normal developing, it was only with the fresh bottle that I was suddenly disappointed and went back to compare, and they appear sharper with the mud looking Rodinal. This is not "official" as it's all scanned, no science instruments to test with, but sure enough, a month later as the new bottle got oxidized a bit, the images again appeared to have a better edge sharpness.

But it's not like I did special tests. Either way I will continue to use it.

I personally never call it a test. , just your experience in the sense of adventure.
The question is, what is oxidizing in Rodinal. I ask about temperature as I know one guy in England, who is conducting developments with Rodinal as an developer in fridge. He claims high sharpness.

JW PHOTO · Jan 15, 2014

timor said:
John, the problem with borax is, it is impossible to dissolve 50 grams of borax in 1 liter of water. At 50 C it's fine, but after two weeks ice like crystalline forms on the bottom of the vessel. Beutler with borax also require 10-15% longer development, so the first film with Beutler-Kodalk treat as an experiment.

Yes, this will be an experiment and I will treat it as such. It just so happens I have just finished repairing two old cameras (Zeiss Contaflex and Agfa Super Silette) and have to test them anyway. Good time to kill two birds with one stone. 60g of Kodalk should bot be a problem to dilute in 1 liter. I hope?

JW PHOTO · Jan 15, 2014

Alessandro Serrao said:
Do you think it's sharper than Rodinal?

This is just my take on the comparison of Rodinal and Beutler and only what I have seen between the two. In 120 format and TMY2 I think Rodinal looked snappier and maybe slightly sharper up to a print size of 12x12, but after that the Beutler negatives look sharper. This was using Rodinal at 1:100 for 1hr stand. The highlights held better in the Rodinal developed negatives also, but it was also the first time I had used the Beutler developer on TMY2 and that might have had something to do with it also. All in all they were both darn sharp and maybe too sharp for some scenes. Just my take anyway. JohnW

JW PHOTO · Jan 15, 2014

Alessandro Serrao said:
I'd like to try Emofin out but it's way more expensive than Rodinal.
Hence my question. Do you think it's worthwhile?

I can't say since I have never used Emofin, but buying the chemicals to make the Beutler formula cost very little. Rodinals long shelf life means it should be in every darkroom and it's always in mine. Sometimes I think there are just toooooo many developer formulas out there and folks either get confused or mislead on them. Of course it is fun experimenting on cold winter nights here in the frigid state of Michigan and there's not much else to do anyway at this time of year. JohnW

jochen · Jan 16, 2014

Hello Alessandro,
you cannot compare Rodinal with Emofin. These are two totally different concepts. Emofin is a 2-bath developer. You'll get an increase of useable film speed combined with a limitation of the grey scale in the lights, something like a compensationg effect. Emofin makes dirty brown spots on your cloth, your fingers and on your equipment which can hardly be removed. Very similar results you'll get with D-76 2-bath.

miha · Jan 16, 2014

Alessandro Serrao said:
Do you think it's sharper than Rodinal?

I can't answer that as my experience with both developers is limited to a couple of rolls of 120 film. Photos made from Tmax 100 120 were basically grainless to the size my darkroom is capable of (12x16), but my emphasis was on tonality; prints from APX 400 (120) developed in neofin Rot looked quite differnet from anything else, in a good way.

miha · Jan 16, 2014

jochen said:
Hello Alessandro,
Emofin makes dirty brown spots on your cloth, your fingers and on your equipment which can hardly be removed. Very similar results you'll get with D-76 2-bath.

Because of the paraphenylenediamine (CD-1) it contains?

Is Fomadon R09 the Same as Rodinal?

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency