Parodinal monkeyshines

[eli griggs]

I am interested in knowing more about varations on Parodinal; in particular substitutes for the sodium sulfite.

Cheers

 

[marcsv]

I think you can replace that with Potassium Metabisulfite

 

[eli griggs]

Would that be a 1:1 ratio?

eli

 

[Gerald Koch]

Would that be a 1:1 ratio?

eli

No, if you substitute sodium or potassium metabisulfite you must make adjustments in the amount and also in the amount of sodium hydroxide.

 

[eli griggs]

Gerald Koch wrote:

No, if you substitute sodium or potassium metabisulfite you must make adjustments in the amount and also in the amount of sodium hydroxide.

Ok, now taking into account I have no background as a chemist and I am working with limited equipment; a RCBS 5.0.5.scale in grains, a set of ph test strips, a wine makers hydrometer with basic lab glass/graduates and a couple of good glass thermometers; how do I start making such adjustments?

Are there any charts of equivalent ingredients to refer to or online sources or computers that can helpful or is there any opensource software that can help the novice with his/her experiments?

All of this also raises the question; when putting together a 'common items' lab with off-the-shelf household chemicals, what equipment do you recommend for mixing/testing; beyond the average home darkroom?

Cheers

 

[Gerald Koch]

This formula (parodinal) is basically a curiousity and not something that you would want to use for any serious negatives. If you are interested in mixing your own developers then I suggest getting the two Anchell books. They contain a lot of practical formulas and explain some photographic chemistry.

 

[eli griggs]

Gerald, I already have those books on my halfbay wish list and will be ordering them in the not too distant future.

I am wondering as to why you describe parodinal as a curiosity and recommend looking for another developer for "serious negatives". I was under the impression that this was a well regarded formula and suitable for many films with few practical reservations.

Cheers

 

[ZorkiKat]

This formula (parodinal) is basically a curiousity and not something that you would want to use for any serious negatives. If you are interested in mixing your own developers then I suggest getting the two Anchell books. They contain a lot of practical formulas and explain some photographic chemistry.

I beg to disagree about paRodinal being "a curiosity and not something you would want to use for any serious negatives".

It is an excellent developer. It is what I now use exclusively. It is an excellent Rodinal substitute. It is a developer which can be easily made from ordinary drugstore and hardware chemicals (with exception of sulfite) which do not requrie importation/mail order, government permits, or special toxicity handling measures to make. This developer is the answer for those of us who don't have access to the real Rodinal (or film developers per se); or those who are outside the US were mail-order shops and Photographer's formulary aren't exactly easy to access.

I'm on my fourth batch of paRodinal (using the formula posted by Donald Qualls) right now. The developer works consistently. I've even kept the first batch I made- it's in a plastic bottle, half-full, somewhat darkened, and Stored where temperatures never go cooler than 28C/82F. After 7 months, it's still working the same way as it did when it was just 3 days old.

As far as using it for "serious negatives", may I say that paRodinal is what I've used for all the assignments and commissions (such as those for magazines and CD covers) I got which called for shooting on 'real' BW film?



Jay

 

[ZorkiKat]

It's so easy to use

May I also add that paRodinal is very easy to use? Dilute it with water- using the ones given for real Rodinal- and it's ready to go. Just follow all that's needed for developing film right and film in paRodinal will develop right.

I would venture to say that using three-part developers mixed just before use are even trickier and more subject to variations in terms of end-results due to the increased variables. I would place paRodinal with other home-brews or developer formulae like D23 or D25 or even the Leica Beutler 1+10 in terms of reliability and use.

Grain and contrast is about the same as what I got from real Rodinal with the films I tried with it.

BTW, I have been able to get paracetamol in "pure" form (unprocessed as tablets, therefore without the starch vehicles which the commercially made pills are made of). Using this would allow a less turbid solution to be made.



Jay

 

[eli griggs]

Jay, your opinion and experience fall in line with what I've read in a number of threads on this forum and elsewhere.

Have you tried to substitute sodium or potassium metabisulfite for the sodium sulfite?

If so what was the result?

Cheers

 

[marcsv]

Jay, your opinion and experience fall in line with what I've read in a number of threads on this forum and elsewhere.

Have you tried to substitute sodium or potassium metabisulfite for the sodium sulfite?

If so what was the result?

Cheers

from what i understood from the data sheet (Agfa Formulas for Photographic Use, 1941) , using sodium sulfite(instead of potassium metabisulfite and potassium bromide) gives a softer image.

 

[ZorkiKat]

Batch#2 of the paRodinal I made had sodium metabisulphite alone instead of sodium sulphite (using the same amount) resulted in a developer which behaved like batch #1 which had sodium sulphite in it in terms of developing rate/activity.

I couldn't say if there was a difference in the contrast though since I haven't done any side by side comparisons. To do that would require developing film exposed in an exactly similar manner of exactly the same subjects. I've neither access to sheet film now nor the chance or desire to shoot 36 frames of the same subject in the same light and splitting the roll in half for developing in the two paRodinal batches.

What I've found is just the developer works, giving me negatives which I like and which work for me.

Yes, I have bromide in the mix, the first had 3 grams to the 250 ml concentrate, and the other, 5 grams. Again, I could see no differences in the resulting negatives developed in the slightly varied brews.

Jay

Jay

 

[Gerald Koch]

I beg to disagree about paRodinal being "a curiosity and not something you would want to use for any serious negatives".

I am glad that you are happy with it but I stand by my statement.

 

[srs5694]

Concerning Parodinal being "serious" or not, please keep in mind that we've all got different environments and capabilities. ZorkiKat is in the Philippines, and he's posted in other threads about the difficulty of obtaining commercial B&W developers (D-76, XTOL, Rodinal, etc.) there, or even developing agents (metol, phenidone, etc.). Parodinal is one of the few formulas he can readily make. Given that it does work, and appears to be reliable enough for ZorkiKat (and several others), it's certainly a "serious" developer under those circumstances. Other developers might be more reliable or otherwise preferable, particularly for specific effects, but if they aren't available that superiority is entirely academic.

Look at it another way: If we could discuss film and developers with people across time, would it be fair to tell the people living, say, a century ago that their materials weren't "serious" because they don't match the standards of products in the early 21st Century? I doubt if many would make that claim. We judge the photos (and photographic products) from the past by the standards of the time. I'd say we should do the same for cases of geographical (un)availability today.

 

[Gerald Koch]

Of course, any developer is better than none. I did not realize that there was any location on earth were one could not obtain D-76.

Be that as it may, there are far better choices for developers if one can obtain them or the ingredients.

 

[eli griggs]

meat of the matter

As long as parodinal is being discussed in terms of 'serious tool or not' lets hear from both sets of opinions as to what, if any are parodinal's strong points or weakness.

Such a discussion will certainly be helpful to those of us wanting to work with these tools to know what is simply an opinion and what is a known fact.

I'd still would like to hear from other users more specifics about substitutions and alterations to the basic formula and the resulting quality of the end product; developed film (and paper).

Cheers

 

[srs5694]

As long as parodinal is being discussed in terms of 'serious tool or not' lets hear from both sets of opinions as to what, if any are parodinal's strong points or weakness.

I've never used it, but my understanding is that it's a way to make something that's very similar to Rodinal from materials that you're likely to be able to find on short notice and/or in areas where conventional photographic materials are hard to find. As such, it's got most of Rodinals advantages and disadvantages (including those of home-made Rodinal, such as the need for safety precautions when handling lye), plus:

• It can be made when and where other developers can't be made or obtained (in reasonable time, at reasonable cost, etc.).
• It's very cheap -- about US$5.20 per liter using my own costs, which works out to $0.03/roll at 1+50 dilution. This compares to $12.49 to $20.40 per liter for more conventional homemade Rodinal-like developers or $23.85 per liter for "real" Rodinal (using Freestyle's price for 17-ounce bottles as the basis and not counting shipping). Of course, costs will vary from one area to another.
• The fact that it's made from acetaminophen tablets means that it will have unknown dissolved or suspended solids. These could theoretically cause problems, but I haven't seen reports of problems in practice. If you can get pure acetaminophen powder, this issue might go away.
• Shelf life might not equal "real" Rodinal, but reports indicate it's likely to last several months, at least.
• The developer must sit for at least a few hours and more likely two or three days after mixing before it reaches full potency.

 

[Gerald Koch]

If you are going to go to the bother of making your own rodinal type developer why not just purchase paraminophenol from Photo Formulary and use it rather than pain killer tablets of unknown composition. They sell 100 grams of the base for $10.30. This is equivalent to 140 grams of pure acetaminophen. The hydrochloride salt is also available for $12.95 for 100 grams.

Personally, I would rather let A&O or Calbe do the work for me.

 

[eli griggs]

Gerald, for myself, it is in large part a matter of the pleasure of having control of my own source of developer and other darkroom chemicals. If I can use common items to make these things and, if they are capable of producing results equal to or better than off the shelf prepackaged, well then I enjoy my photography even more. If I need items that are not available except from some place like Photographers' Formulary, I've got there catalog at hand.

Cheers

 

[Bruce Appel]

I've been using this quite a bit, and find it works just like Rodinol. If you like Rodinol, this is good stuff.

 

[marcsv]

Concerning Parodinal being "serious" or not, please keep in mind that we've all got different environments and capabilities. ZorkiKat is in the Philippines, and he's posted in other threads about the difficulty of obtaining commercial B&W developers (D-76, XTOL, Rodinal, etc.) there, or even developing agents (metol, phenidone, etc.)

D-76 is available in the Philippines(even hydroquinone), we only have problems sourcing out Metol(elon) and Phenidone, and there are chemicals thet requires us to get environmental permits/clearance (potassiun ferricyanide).

 

[ZorkiKat]

Properly made, I don't see how much more exotic paRodinal can be compared to pyro, ascorbate, or most other DIY developers. Because of its simplicity, it is not as tricky to use as, say, a three-part pyro/metol developer.

Cost-wise, paRodinal is also very cheap to make. I recently got "pure" paracetamol, 250 grammes for the equivalent of about US$2.00. A litre of paRodinal would call -and cost here to make- for 60 grammes paracetamol (less than US$.50), 200 grammes sulfite (US$0.25), 80 grammes lye (US$0.10), or a total of about US$ 0.85. I don't know how much a litre of Calbe or Forte R09 really costs, but its definitely not going to be $1.00.

A 4 litre-pack of Kodak D76 costs about $6.00 when it could be found here. A litre of paRodinal concentrate will develop more films than 4 litres of D76.
Being a concentrate, paRodinal is perfect for 'one-shot' use. D76 as a one-shot developer isn't too economical, since a litre would only be good for developing approx 8 rolls at 1+1 dilution. Just think how many rolls paRodinal can do when diluted at 1+50.

One-shot developing is also the best route for people who develop only a few rolls at a time. As a concentrate, paRodinal seems to keep well. As previously mentioned, I still have a 7 month old concentrate kept half full in a plastic bottle. It still is potent, and does not show any deterioration or darkening despite being kept in less-than-ideal conditions.

As for negative quality, paRodinal develops film just like Rodinal does. Nor does it cause staining, or any other effect associated or expected from more exotic brews. Being such would make it perfect as an all-around developer.

Jay

 

[ZorkiKat]

D-76 is available in the Philippines(even hydroquinone), we only have problems sourcing out Metol(elon) and Phenidone, and there are chemicals thet requires us to get environmental permits/clearance (potassiun ferricyanide).

D76 is not as easily found now. Just today, I received word that the standby BW generic film ("colpan") is no longer available. One shop said that it has been discontinued.

Phenidone was never imported locally by the chemical houses, and metol had been dropped from their stocks since about 2001 because of zero demand. Hydroquinone still remains because there is still a (non-photographic, but rather pharmaceutical) demand for it. Inspite of being banned elsewhere, hydroquinone formulae for sun block cosmetics are still made here.

 

[Gerald Koch]

The problem that I have with parodinal is that there is a large excess of sodium hydroxide in the final product. A rough calculation indicates that for the typical recipe calling for 15 grams of acetaminophen and 20 grams of sodium hydroxide, 12 grams of the sodium hydroxide remain unchanged after reaction.

This produces three problems.

1. The excess hydroxide is the principle cause that the final product does not keep like true rodinal.

2. I also question what effect this excess hydroxide has on the film emulsion. Assuming a typical dilution of 1:50 then there is 1 g/l of sodium hydroxide in the working solution. Doesn't sound like much, but it can cause excessive softening of the emulsion.

3. The extra hydroxide may produce excessive grain.

There are better ways to produce a developer concentrate from acetaminophen but these methods are more involved.

As I have admitted before, having some developer is better than having none. But unless you absolutely have to use this formula you are much better off using something else.

 

[ZorkiKat]

.....

This produces three problems.

1. The excess hydroxide is the principle cause that the final product does not keep like true rodinal.

2. I also question what effect this excess hydroxide has on the film emulsion. Assuming a typical dilution of 1:50 then there is 1 g/l of sodium hydroxide in the working solution. Doesn't sound like much, but it can cause excessive softening of the emulsion.

3. The extra hydroxide may produce excessive grain.

There are better ways to produce a developer concentrate from acetaminophen but these methods are more involved.

As I have admitted before, having some developer is better than having none. But unless you absolutely have to use this formula you are much better off using something else.

I've one question- have you tried using this developer?

Re #1: Perhaps someone who has kept paRodinal long enough should be able to answer how long it really keeps? My oldest solution is just 7 months old and still as good as when it was just 3 days old. I really don't know how long it will keep. But whether it keeps as long or not is probably not the issue. It's so cheap that once it goes bad, it can be thrown away. My real (Agfa) Rodinal concentrate was quite clear when I first opened its PE bottle. Two months later, about 3/4 full, and it was already rust-coloured. It's now as dark as strong coffee.

Re #2: The films I've used and developed in paRodinal never had stripping problems. At 1+50, the solution never felt any more caustic than 1+50 Rodinal. D72 diluted for film development felt more slippery to the fingers. Then again, the films I used may have more robust emulsions. This would include the cheap Chinese generics- their emulsions never lifted even at the times when I developed at 29 degrees C (about 85F). The softest emulsion I encountered was on Fomapan film. It too never stripped (at least when I processed it at 20C).

Re#3: As other users have already found, this brew works just like Rodinal. I haven't seen any increase in grain. Grain is more pronounced in some films- just as this would be if these films were souped in real Rodinal.

Had I known about this formula years ago when I still did a lot of BW, I would have switched to it. Even if D76 was around. D76 was good, but I felt that there was more to BW than just having fine grain. Rodinal was never sold here anyway.