New Batch of Rodinal?

[RebeccaSC]

Yesterday I started on a brand new bottle of Rodinal which will be from the new manufacturer I guess - anyway I'd worked out that previously using a different bottle of Rodinal that 8 mins on Ilford HP5 @ 20 degrees etc is normally good for me - yesterdays film looked well under developed by quite a bit and I would think prob needs approx 10 mins now - would that be right or have I done something wrong?

Ironically the paper work in the old rodinal suggested dev time of 10mins and the new paperwork says 8min - sorry if this is too wordy I know what I'm trying to say!!!

Any feedback very much appreciated
Regards

 

[CRhymer]

Hi,

I have a bottle of Rodinal (white bottle) that is at least 4 years old, and the paperwork lists 10 min. @ 1+25 for HP5 PLUS and 7 min. for APX 400 @ 1+25. The paperwork for a newer bottle (now clear but old logo) has the new times of 8 min for HP5+ and 10 min. for APX400 @ 1+25 and 30 min. (yes thirty) for APX400 @ 1+50 (previously rated at 11 min). The Agfa Photo bottles, newer, but at least three months old, have similar paperwork.

I don't know about the APX400, but I seem to recall that HP5 Plus was changed back in about 2003 - improvement in b+f - or something of that nature. Please, someone correct me, if I am mistaken. At any rate I will look into the rest of the paperwork and lot numbers for Rodinal of various ages, but I am quite confident that I have no product that was produced by A&O.

The older Rodinal lists a time of 15 min for HP5 Plus @ 1+50 while the newer ones (Agfa old logo and the Agfa Photo) have no time listed for HP5 Plus @ 1+50.

What is the lot number on your bottle? What does the packaging look like?

This may just add to the confusion.

Cheers,
Clarence

 

[RebeccaSC]

Hi Clarence,

Thank you for your reply and sorry for my delay in coming back to you. I need to check packaging properly but the box I'm sure looked the same as the original one but I do think the bottle of the new batch looked different. I was also working on 1+25. I think I need to give it at least another 2 mins i.e total of 10.
Many thanks for your help though
Rebecca

 

[mikeg]

I bought a bottle of Rodinal a few years ago and it specified shorter times than the ones I had been using from older instructions. I did some investigations and downloaded the Rodinal technical document from Agfa's website. My conclusions were that Agfa had forgotten to print the ISO for the films in the newer instructions. The new shorter times were for film rated at a slower ISO! I was using Neopan 400 at the time and the old time was 6mins at 1+25 and the new was 4.5mins at 1+25. In the Rodinal technical document they had the same times but listed the ISO for Neopan 400 as 250 for the 4.5mins!

So, Beware! Use the old times as these seem to be for the rated ISO of the film.

Cheers

Mike

 

[RebeccaSC]

Yes but Mike I did exactly the same amount of time as usual 8 mins 1+25 for HP5 400 iso normal but it has underdeveloped the film- so I think they've changed the chemicals on this new bottle - so rather than undercooking it ie old paper work said 10 mins and I did 8 - this time paperwork says do 8mins and it looks 2 mins under!!!

Rebecca

 

[mikeg]

Oh well, that's that theory out of the window then In fact I just managed to find the old Agfa pdf with their times in. HP5+ is listed as 8 mins 1+25 for ISO 400.

How do the frame numbers look on the negatives? Are they black and easily read or are they grey and a bit feint? If they are grey then the film is under developed. If the frame numbers are black and are easily legible then the film is under exposed.

Cheers

Mike

 

[Photo Engineer]

The bottom line, hinted at in previous threads on Rodinal, seems to be that no one really knows exactly how to make it except the original factory line workers.

Having tried to make it, I find that Rodinal is not simple. If you are just a tad off, things are not the same, and there are so many opinions as to formula and methodology, that even with the right formula staring you in the face, it may just not be the same.

Kodak had problems making developers and emulsions all over the world, and we had to establish internal quality groups to insure that a production batch in Rochester was equal to a production batch in Chalon France or Harrow England. These were all good people, working hard, but things are not always the same with chemical formulas.

That is why so many well meaning and good people here, good photographers all, differ in opinion so often, and why I say "Use what works for you".

So, if you get ISO 400 with 10' and before it was 8', that is a new 'fact of life' but someone else may find that 10' is right now for them. It is odd, but it is the interface between photography, chemistry, and life.

PE

 

[titrisol]

Frame numbers are not a very good indicator of development IMHO... they tend to be inconsistently gray or black between batches

How do the frame numbers look on the negatives? Are they black and easily read or are they grey and a bit feint? If they are grey then the film is under developed. If the frame numbers are black and are easily legible then the film is under exposed.

Cheers

Mike