Ian, where are you quoting from? You don't say. Certainly not from my book. Can I suggest you buy a copy and keep it in your overnight luggage? It would save a lot of trouble when you're 'quoting' from it. Alternatively, you could learn to use Google Books. Like I've said before,
think before you post. I do! You're not, I must say, displaying the signs of a good researcher. By the way, have you -- or anyone you know -- done any spectrographic analysis of Rodinal? Shneour, a well-known biochemist, has, and has shared his results with me.
Regarding something Ed Zimmerman wrote about me and Rodinal on the Net in 2003
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006fc5
which is practically indistinguishable from this thread, but go ahead and read it to prove Nietzsche's doctrine of the Eternal Recurrence of the Same -- and while away some more time not taking good photos, I asked Dr Schneour to comment, and he did as follows:
'I have read the exchanges about "Rodinal". These consist mainly of flailings about its formula (actually a whole bunch of them) which in the last analysis mean nothing in today's world. There are at least two outstanding issues regarding "Rodinal". One of them is the variations in the actual early formula which were made almost continuously and thus it is today difficult to discern which of these variants was the actual "original" formula. The other issue is that one of the remarkable properties of "Rodinal" was its long life before dilution for use. The caveat to this long life was (and is) that its developing properties change importantly but subtly as a function of time and storage conditions, to say nothing about the quality of the water used in the dilution for use. The formula I have settled on and which is listed in the now classic Anchell & Troop "The Film Deevloping Cookbook" is stored at about 15 degrees Celsius after compounding and is "marinated" for six months before first use. When compared to an old version (about 1936) it is undistinguishable for my uses. The conclusion must be that the arguments about "Rodinal" and its successor(s) will remain controversial because there are so many versions and so many usage and storage variations as to make any emotional discussion about that developer unproductive and a total waste of time. Instead, if you work with monochrome photography, make or buy the stuff, work out your best combination of variables and be productive rather than engage in idle chatter signifying nothing.'
I've seen it all before. I actually like Ed Zimmerman, who is very intelligent if irascible, but he and Ian both belong to that class of pestiferous readers who submerge themselves in the exquisite frustration of not having written a book that someone else has written. They then spend a substantial part of their lives making that author's life as miserable as possible, instead of letting him get on with his work, much less getting on with their own. I have noticed before that the impulse to create one's own work is not really compatible with the impulse to criticize other people's work. That's probably one reason why Ian hasn't written a book about photochem.