Resource icon

Modern Rodinal Substitutes

Custom Cab

A
Custom Cab

  • 0
  • 0
  • 6
Table for four.

H
Table for four.

  • 8
  • 0
  • 73
Waiting

A
Waiting

  • 5
  • 0
  • 73
Westpier

A
Westpier

  • 2
  • 2
  • 76
Westpier

A
Westpier

  • 4
  • 0
  • 55

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
197,593
Messages
2,761,549
Members
99,410
Latest member
lbrown29
Recent bookmarks
11

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
To be precise it must be specified as wt/vol or wt/wt. With liquids it would be wt/vol or vol/vol.

You specified weight / unit volume. You just crashed on Mars! :sad:

PE
 

gainer

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
3,699
And so did you. K2SO3 does not raise the temperature of the solution as it is being dissolved. I frankly do not care if you understand my expressions. The fact of the matter, however you express it, is that the potassium sulphite I have is not as soluble as the potassium sulphite Ian has. I do have a good triple beam balance and I do know how to use it. I learned how to read at a very early age as the son of an English Professor, certainly well enough to read the label on the container from PF that proclaims it to contain potassium sulfite. Maybe the non-British spelling is the problem, but I doubt it.

What I specified the first time was weight of solute per volume of solvent. I could specify the weight of solute per weight of solution by simply adding solute to solvent to get total weight, which in any case would be a more precise way of specifying the solution. Weight of solvent per volume of solution changes with temperature due to expansion or contraction.
 
OP
OP
Ian Grant

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,234
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
Patrick further reading of my notes indicates that Rodinal (current variety) does have a Specific Gravity of 1.383 so that's a very clear indication that the Sulphite is up around the 344g/litre mark, Bayer quote a total solids content of 432g/litre.

The Potassium Sulpjite is the major ingredient in Rodinal. I've had Sodium sulpite that wouldn't dissolve and it something must happen to prevent it.

Ian
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
According to my textbooks, the dihydrate can be rapidly oxidized to the sulfate if not tightly capped. It therefore appears to be less soluable as Potassium Sulfate is less soluable.

Might be a thought to consider.

Also, 50% by weight is an incomplete spec in this case. Due to the high solubility of some items the full spec of wt/vol or wt/wt must be used for accuracy.

PE
 

gainer

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
3,699
My plan was to dissolve my 320 g potassium sulfite in 750 ml water. When it dissolved. I was to add the KOH. I saved th p-aminophenol til last to minimize its oxidation. When the sulfite did not all dissolve after considerable time and stirring, I muttered what my father used to call "Pious ejaculations" and added the KOH anyway. Still had sludge.

It is pretty hard to put 40 g p-aminophenol in a liter or so of water along with some sulfite and enough hydroxide to clear up the solution without producing a potent developer concentrate. Whether we would call it Rodinal, or just learn to use it is another matter. Still, I've got to learn why my sulfite was so much different from the standard. It will take a while for me to get more. Wild and Wonderful though it is, West Virginia's places to buy such things are not within a hundred US miles of my home.
 

gainer

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
3,699
According to my textbooks, the dihydrate can be rapidly oxidized to the sulfate if not tightly capped. It therefore appears to be less soluable as Potassium Sulfate is less soluable.

Might be a thought to consider.

Also, 50% by weight is an incomplete spec in this case. Due to the high solubility of some items the full spec of wt/vol or wt/wt must be used for accuracy.

PE
Ron, dad blamit, I was not saying we need a 50% solution for the Rodinal expedient. I was saying that if I could not get 100 grams of what I have to dissolve in 100 grams of water, there is something wrong with what I have in the container labelled "Potassium Sulfite." A 28% wt/wt solution would be just ducky, but I couldn't even get that.
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Patrick;

I was giving you a possible answer. It might have oxidized to Potassium Sulfate which is much less soluable! Thats all.

PE
 
OP
OP
Ian Grant

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,234
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
More motes on Rodinal & the FDC

Reading the Film Developing Cookbook it's apparent that there are misconceptions about the "Rodinal Type" developer listed and Agfa Rodinal of all vintages over the years.


1. First the date is given as 1881 but Andresen didn't discover p-Aminophenol until 1888, Rodinal came on the market in 1891.


2. Rodinal has always been a p-Aminophenol developer using the free base, although in the early years the hydrochloride was used to prepare the free base.


3. Rodinal (except Agfa after 1964) has always used Potassium Sulphite and just enough Hydroxide to form p-Aminophenolate, and no excess. The level of Hydroxide was increased by Agfa in their 1964 re-formulation, not decreased.

The FDC states that "Agfa Rodinal still contains p-Aminophenol and Potassium Hyrdroxide but in much smaller amounts". The Major change in 1964 was an increase in the Hydroxide taking the concentrate pH from 11.8 to 14, at the same time the amount of developing agent was cut by approx 20%. The FDC makes no reference to the continued production of the older formula by Orwo/Calbe so no comparison.

It's easy to see where this misunderstanding comes from. As Agfa themselves stated around the beginning of last century "In addition to neutral sulphite and water "Agfa"-Rodinal contains only an alkaline salt of Paramidophenol, but no excess of caustic alkali".

The older formula (in the FDC and in the first post in this thread) uses 100 g of p-Aminophenol and 300gms of Potassium Metabisulphite, and about 216ml of a 400ml 50% Sodium Hydroxide solution (107.95 g) to form a 50/50 mix of Sodium and Potassium Sulphite (170.1 g + 213.5g). A small additional amount of Sodium Hydroxide is used to convert the p-Aminophenol free base, and slightly more for the Hydrochloride.

Agfa stopped using Metabisulphite as the source of the Sulphite sometime before WWII and began using Potassium Sulphite instead, probably for economic reasons, the direct replacement in the FDC formula would be 427.11g, the amount of Hydroxide needed would fall to around 50g, a bit more if you use p-Aminophenol Hydrochloride rather than the free base.

It's the amount of Hydroxide in the final developer that's important, rather than any used to convert Metabisulphite to Sulphite which completely disappears in the process anyway.

One molecule of Potassium Metabisulphite and two Potassium Hydroxide react to give two Potassium Sulphite and water :D


4. Bromide and anti-foggant.
In the FDC Page 59 (Agfa Rodinal - 1964 onwards) Bill Troop states that "Potassium Bromide has also been added, which would not be necessary if p-Aminophenol was the sole developing agent"

However we know that Agfa were already using Potassium Bromide and another anti-foggant (P.1347) many years earlier in Rodinal from F.I.A.T. and British RAF reports, they were probably introduced during the 1930's, so the statement doesn't make sense. The amount of Bromide then works out at less than 1% (0.77%) so would not be shown on Calbe's MSDS if they use a similar level.

There are unsubstantiated reports that that the formulae Andresen himself published can sometimes cause Dichroic fog, whether this is due to the use of the Hydrochloride or incorrect balancing of the alkali by adding excess we can't know.

But an increase in the alkalinity particularly as it's a hydroxide will greatly increase the potential for fog even more so because there's such a low level of sulphite and we know that dilute Agfa Rodinal has a higher pH than even the Calbe R09 concentrate, before that drops itself with dilution.


5. If Agfa Rodinal is added to Bill Troop's table of High Acutance developers on page 59 of the FDC then a 1 in 50 working solution would fit extremely nicely alongside Beutler etc

P-Aminophenol 0.82 g
Potassium Sulphite 6.8g
Potassium Hydroxide 0.12

There's about 6 g per litre free Potassium Hydroxide in Agfa Rodinal concentrate and the p-Aminophenolate is also alkali so the pH is somewhere around 11.55 even when diluted 1+50, (Agfa's own pH figure).

In comparison Calbe R09 needs to be used at 1 in 40 to achieve roughly comparable results and in this case we would have:

p-Aminophenol 1.25 g
Potassium Sulphite 6 g

Relying on the alkalinity of the phenolate itself the pH will be much lower than Agfa Rodinal which is why over 50% more developing agent is needed.


6. We do know the precise amount of p-Aminophenol in Rodinal, it's in the MSDS along with the Hydroxide, 4.1% and 2.7%, also all Rodinal MSDS's etc confirm it's the free base, typical German precision.

Although Agfa Rodinal has nearly 20% less developing agent than Calbe R09 (old Rodinal formula) it's working at a much higher pH

So these facts rule out Bill Troop's speculation in the FDC & on the Internet that a second developing agent has been added. p-Aminophenol shows good additivity & super-additivity with other developing agents so add even a trace at Agfa Rodinal's high pH's and the increase in activity would take Rodinal into a completely new realm hitherto unexplored :D which more than compensates.

The FDC Rodinal type dev will work better with 133.4 g of p-Aminophenol Hydrochloride per litre, and made up to a litre will be more similar to R09 but with a lower sulphite content and no anti foggants. Of course it works as is it's such a simple develop.

Ian
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gainer

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
3,699
Patrick;

I was giving you a possible answer. It might have oxidized to Potassium Sulfate which is much less soluable! Thats all.

PE

I have some of the concentrated K2SO3 45% solution coming. I think that will work just fine, and probably keep better.
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Ian;

I don't find Bill speculating in the book at all. He may have in a post, but I have not looked that up. In the book it is rather straightforward regarding Rodinal and the formula is quite reasonable.

PE
 
OP
OP
Ian Grant

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,234
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
Ian;
I don't find Bill speculating in the book at all. He may have in a post, but I have not looked that up. In the book it is rather straightforward regarding Rodinal and the formula is quite reasonable.
PE

Page 59 of the FDC 3rd paragraph of the block titled Agfa Rodinal - Bill Troop states that "Potassium Bromide has also been added, which would not be necessary if p-Aminophenol was the sole developing agent"

That's speculation :D

I have the same formula as Bill publishes in the FDC in many books, and Dr Momme Andresen published it in an Agfa publication himself, it's often listed as a Paramidophenol single solution developer, which is Agfa's original name for p-Aminophenol.

No-one doubts the formula is close to Rodinal, but no book I have other than the FDC/DCB states it's the original Rodinal, in fact none even use the word Rodinal.

J.Desalme & others state that Rodinal type developers use the free base rather than the hydrochloride. Desalme is likely to have been well informed, he was researching similar developing agents to Andresen including phenylene diamines, aminophenols, and disclosed Pyramidol as a developing agent in 1912. (His first research papers are from the1890's).

A 1912 research paper from Cornell University, quotes from work done by Sheppard and Mees (1907 so pre-Kodak) indicating that p-Aminophenol developers aren't suppressed by high levels of Bromide. So there's no reason what so ever why a high level of Bromide can't be present in modern Rodinal purely to suppress fog caused by the higher level of Hydroxide.

Ian
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Ian;

Thanks, I was looking on the wrong page. Found it. I can agree with what you say, to an extent. You see, you are right also about p-Aminophenol developers not being supressed by high levels of Bromide (AFAIK) but OTOH, this is an interaction with all ingredients and hydroxide is quite similar in all versions and so Bromide would have no extra effect as a function of hydroxide in any version of Rodinal.

Therefore, there must be a reason for the high level of Bromide. Something else is going on if Bromide does not act as an effective antifoggant with Hydroxide. I would like to suggest that it might be moderating edge effects which began to become prominent as film emulsions evolved. Think about it.

PE
 
OP
OP
Ian Grant

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,234
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
Ron, I think what Sheppard & Mees found was that Bromide works well as an anti-foggant in p-Aminophenol devlopers, but with some developers/developing agents at a higher level the Bromide suppresses overall development, Metol & MQ developers are prone to this.

Anyway Rodinal has been using a combination of Bromide and an organic anti-foggant for over 64 years, so this seems to dispel the speculative statement. How much they might have raised it by when the reformulated is less important.

People who prefer the older Calbe R09 version claim it's cleaner working, it's probable the extra hydroxide in Rodinal may lead to a higher base fog, but in all honesty Agfa Rodinal is a superb developer and with Tmax 100 or Agfapan 100 delivers cleaner sharper negatives than ID-11/D76 IMO. It was my main developer for personal work 35mm to LF for about 19n years.

Was Kodinol, the Kodak p-Aminophenol concentrated developer, ever sold in the US. There's nothing on the internet at all, but it's listed in my Kodak UK 40's & 50's books.

Ian
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Kodinol does not appear in any of my books back to 1941. I don't remember ever having heard of a PAP developer either when I started developing pictures in the 40s or when at Kodak. I would have to assume that it was not sold in the US.

If Rodinal works well with no bromide then that should tell us something about fogging and about development in this developer at this pH with this deveoping agent. Something slightly different is going on than in average developers and I think I am beginning to understand it.

My train of thought does suggest that there are some variants that can be designed with some superior trait or other.

PE
 

gainer

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
3,699
Just as a matter of p-aminophenol interest, I have a U. S. War Department Technical Manual of Basic Photography dated July 1, 1941 that lists a Tropical Developer:

Water (at 125 F)..............96 ounces.
Para-aminophenol hydrochloride.....400 grains.
Sodium sulfite (des.)....................6 ounces, 200 grains.
Sodium carbonate (des.)...............6 ounces, 200 grains.
Water to make 1 gallon.

This translates to 7, 50 and 50 grams per liter. It was to be used full strength. Adding the sulfite should result in precipitation of the p-aminophenol base, as it does when making Rodinal, and I suppose a paraminophenolate is formed to make it soluble as the carbonate is added.
 

gainer

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
3,699
BTW, several other developers are listed in that manual without attribute, but D-76 is obviously there. IIRC, the hydrochloride was listed by Kodak as Kodelon.
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Just as a matter of p-aminophenol interest, I have a U. S. War Department Technical Manual of Basic Photography dated July 1, 1941 that lists a Tropical Developer:

Water (at 125 F)..............96 ounces.
Para-aminophenol hydrochloride.....400 grains.
Sodium sulfite (des.)....................6 ounces, 200 grains.
Sodium carbonate (des.)...............6 ounces, 200 grains.
Water to make 1 gallon.

This translates to 7, 50 and 50 grams per liter. It was to be used full strength. Adding the sulfite should result in precipitation of the p-aminophenol base, as it does when making Rodinal, and I suppose a paraminophenolate is formed to make it soluble as the carbonate is added.


Patrick;

Could you verify that? The only military tropical developers I have contain Sodium Sulfate to supress swell.

Thanks.

PE
 

gainer

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
3,699
Patrick;

Could you verify that? The only military tropical developers I have contain Sodium Sulfate to supress swell.

Thanks.

PE

The instructions do say that if the temperature is above 80 F , add 6 oz. desiccated sodium sulfate to the gallon. It can be used at 65 F with average development 7 to 9 minutes, up to 3 to 4 minutes at 80 F. without the sulfate. I guess you're on your own anywhere else, unless you have an old sergeant looking after you. Sergeants run the Army. They know where and how to get things that are not on any official list. I worked with a retired sergeant at NASA. He would show up with things we needed but couldn't get on the limited budget we had then, but wouldn't say where they came from. Those were the days of creativity. The only instructions we got from books were the laws of physics and the math to use them. Sorry for wandering. It usually only happens to old folks.
 

gainer

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
3,699
While waiting for the good sulfite, I have been playing with substituting ascorbic acid for the sulfite. Depending on the pH, its antioxidant qualities outweigh its ability to develop film. I figured equal mole fractions were in order, so I tried 35 g ascorbic acid, 21.8 g p-aminophenol and 22.4 g KOH. I dissolved the ascorbic acid first in about 400 ml water. I added the p-aminophenol, which of course did not dissolve. The KOH is hard to weigh accurately because of the little puddles of "concentrated humidity" that one can see forming while it is being weighed, so I was ot surprised that the calculated amount of KOH was not enough. Anyway, I wound up with a liter of clear yellow stuff that still had pH<14 and is very potent. Arist 400 EDU Ultra developed normally in a 1+50 dilurion in 9 minutes @ 68 F. I got this photo to prove it.
 

Attachments

  • Oh and Oh.pdf
    340.6 KB · Views: 255

gainer

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
3,699
Patrick;

While you are waiting could you comment on project Charon and the role of the engineers? :D

PE

Nope. I don't even know what that is, other than a moon of Pluto. After the Mercury project, for which my major contribution was designing and computing the coordinate trnsformations for their star charts, I got involved in human factors and was in the Simulation and Human Factors Branch at Langley Research Center. I studied mathematical modeling of the human operator, from what they tell me. What I tried to do was to show that if there was any worthwhile modelling to be done, it could not be in the form of linear dynamic systems. I helped drsign a compact device for observing the time history of the pilot's look point. I have a feeling the autofocussing cameras of today are based on NASA's research along that line.
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Charon was the proposed use of H2 and F2 as fuels for a new rocket with high specific impulse. The reaction is the highest energy chemical reaction possible, but would have contaminated the east coast from Georgia to Cuba.

Fortunately, an astute engineer pointed this out to NASA. One of their oversights I guess.

PE
 

Alan Johnson

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,224
There seems to be an availability problem with potassium sulfite outside the US,where it is at Photoformulary.com.I only checked the UK and could only find the metabisulfite from retrophotographic.com ,no sulfite.
It may be that the version given by Bill Troop in FDC ,which uses metabisulfite,is the only viable Rodinal substitute based on potassium that can be made in some parts of the world.
 
OP
OP
Ian Grant

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,234
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
You can make the Potassium Sulpite from the Metabisulpite & Potassium Hydroxide, that's how Agfa used to do it, it's a simple conversion.

Decent chemical suppliers in the UK sell Potassium Sulphite but you usually need a business account, and an official order.

Ian.
 
OP
OP
Ian Grant

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,234
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
Patrick;
Could you verify that? The only military tropical developers I have contain Sodium Sulfate to supress swell.
Thanks.
PE

I have the same formula in it's correct metric form from 1931.

One problem with the US Military manuals was that they re-wrote formulae to what for them was more practical avoirdupois measures and quantities.

Nov., 1931 J PHOTOGRAPHIC SENSITOMETRY 701


p-Aminophenol hydrochloride 7.25 g.
Sodium sulphite (anhydrous) 50 g.
Sodium carbonate (anhydrous) 50 g.
Water to 1 litre

The developer was proposed by"Sheppard and Trivelli" as as a standard for Sensitometric testing.

It was adopted as as a standard "Scientific Sensiometric Developer for Arial Photography (8th International Luftbild Congress, Desden 1931)

So here again we have Sheppard working on p-Aminophenol developer at Kodak, 24 years after his work with Mees at Wratten & Wainwright.

This developer actually triggers a clue to Rodinal, all published formulae always use p-Aminophenol hydrochloride when carbonate is present in the developer, this forms the free base in the presence of carbonate and sulphite. While this is the method used to precipitate the free base there's considerable excess carbonate and sulphite which ensures the free base is dissolved in the solution.

So with no carbonate in Rodinal which we know uses the free base and hydroxide to form the phenolate there maybe a significant difference to a substitute formula using p-Aminophenol Hydrochloride.

We know that with PPD type developers the choice of the free base rather than a salt can be critical in some formulae, so it's likely this is why Agaf have never used p-Aminiphenol Hydrochloride in Rodinal.

Maybe p-Aminophenol Hydrochloride doesn't form the phenolate with Hydroxide.

Ian
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom