R09 problems

[alinCiortea]

I've recently shot a Rollei Retro 400 and developed it in Foma R09 1+40. The first half of the film was shot mostly under bright sun, while the second half in the shade, with the newly acquired 100/2.8

The massive devchart says 9 mins at 20C for Retro 400@400 and 1+40 r09 dilution. It seems a bit short so I've also checked the times for Rodinal and found 11 mins. I went for the latter. The whole film got quite badly underexposed, but the second half seems considerably more damaged than the first. I kept looking at both the neg and the scans and it seems that while the highlights are pretty much ok in the first half (although black on the neg isn't really black, but dark grey), the shadows are barely developed all across the film.

Now, my R09 is Fomadon and it's almost one year old (since I've opened the bottle), but the last film I've developed in it came out just right and that was one week ago. I also have one 125ml bottle of R09 from Maco (came with the eco line 12pack of Rollei Retro) and it says "retro 400 @ 1+50 - 20 minutes". According to this i've underdeveloped it for half the time.

I don't really now what to make of this. First of all, which r09 is which? Some say Fomadon R09 is in fact a Rodinal clone, but the specs mention 1+20 / 1+40 / 1+80 dilutions so it should be the old Rodinal. Maco R09 has the new Rodinal dilutions (manufactured by Connect Chemicals Germany), but the times listed on the bottle are nothing like those on massive devchart.

I intend to stock up with a 1250ml bottle of R09 from Maco as it's more convenient than Rodinal but if it's questionable I prefer not to take any chances and stick with Rodinal.

And to make the long story short, my questions are>

• 
  is Fomadon R09 the same with maco R09? and are they all Rodinal times/dilutions compatible?

• could my neg come out so beat up due to other things? (my incident meter (on reflective) and camera meter both agree within a half stop so it's hard for me to believe they both simultaneously broke down, and the new lens performs very good at a first glance)

Sorry for the rookie questions but I'm a bit lost and I really need some advice from all you film gurus out there

 

[TLR]

If the Maco is "R09 One Shot", it is true Agfa Rodinal. The Fomadon R09, with dilutions 1+20 and 1+40 is not true Agfa Rodinal.

Regards.

 

[alinCiortea]

so foma r09 is prewar rodinal, while maco r09 one shot (yes, that's what i have) is in fact agfa rodinal (also sold by maco) but in a different bottle? same stuff from different manufacturers? (a&o vs connect chemicals)

 

[Michael W]

the shadows are barely developed all across the film.

If there is no shadow detail then your problem is under exposure not developer.

 

[alinCiortea]

i've measured the exposure with the incident meter as i always do. most of the times the camera meter confirmed the exposure so i can pretty much exclude underexposure.

 

[RobertV]

Some manufactureres changed from supplier.
Fomadon R09 (NEW) with the rounded corners is also Rodinal. (after approx. Sept. 2008).

R09 one shot made in Germany is the new name for Agfa Rodinal.

For both products you can see it on the color (light Yellow till light Brown) instead of dark like Coke and the dilutions 1+25 - 1+50 is the Agfa Rodinal.

For the Rollei Retro 400 you can follow this developing table:

Dead Link Removed

Rollei Retro 400 is the 135 micron APX400 (new) 35mm raw material from Agfa Photo bought by the Rollei-Maco company in 2005. Both Retro 100 and 400 is running out of stock now.

The life time of Agfa Rodinal (original) is very long but the R09 (Calbe) receipture is limited from 1 1/2 till 2 years after opening.

Best regards,

Robert

 

[alinCiortea]

well, no times for retro 400 in that table

One problem would be that I have no idea how the developer actually works, so I can't figure out by myself what happened with the film.

 

[RobertV]

Maybe you need an extra glass

10 min. 1+25 and 13:00 min. 1+50.
Because APX400 will not reach an iso 400 with Para-Amino Phenol you shoot this film around iso 250-320.

Best regards,

Robert

(Dutch Foma and Maco distributor)

A Dutch coffee shop. Rollei Retro 400 (iso 250) in Rodinal 1+50 13:00min.
Split Grade photo print on Amaloco VPG (MG IV).

 

[RobertV]

and here some samples and differences in R09 and Rodinal (R09 one shot "made in Germany" ):

Retro 100 (APX100) in R09 (Calbe). Small part of the 35mm negative.

Retro 100 (APX100) in Rodinal. Small part of the 35mm negative.

Rodinal aging test:

First Rodinal fresh, second Rodinal 4 years old.

 

[alinCiortea]

) it seems I do (and some extra knowledge beside that glasses)

This means I've underexposed the film by 2/3 of a stop and underdeveloped by 2 minutes. still, the result is worse than what I'd expect from these two errors. From what you've experienced does Fomadon R09 suddenly start to die? (in a week's time)

Here's an example shot with a pinhole camera on Tura P100 last week. 8 mins in (the same) R09 1+20
And another one, same pinhole but on Neopan 400 (8 mins in R09 1+40)

 

[RobertV]

Same windmill (Stella Polaris) on the other side, shot with Rollei IR820-400 in my Yashica Mat 124G and Bay I RG715nm Heliopan filter:

Just to share some photo results. The rest you can see on my Flickr account

 

[RobertV]

From what you've experienced does Fomadon R09 suddenly start to die? (in a week's time)

There is an expiration date on your Fomadon R09 (old). Depending how full the bottle is I would not take the risk to exceed this date more then a few months.
You can not see anything about the color because it's Coke and stays the same color and suddenly the developer will give faint negatives.

It's the same risk of Xtol after 6 months. It stays the same color and suddenly you have a complete failure.

 

[AgX]

...same stuff from different manufacturers? (a&o vs connect chemicals)

It is the same plant. The owner has changed.

 

[alinCiortea]

that must be my answer... I don't have the original bottle because at one point I couldn't unscrew the cap and had to cut it. I keep the remains in a glass bottle but it's been there for half year now and all that air must have taken its tow. I'll have to test it with a film end.

@AgX> I see.

Thank you all!

 

[RobertV]

You're welcome and good luck with your film and photos.

 

[srs5694]

i've measured the exposure with the incident meter as i always do. most of the times the camera meter confirmed the exposure so i can pretty much exclude underexposure.

You're focusing on the developer and/or development as the cause of your problems, and there's a very good chance you're right to do so; however, another possibility is shutter or aperture problems. Neither would affect the consistency of the meter reading (unless your camera has stop-down TTL metering), but either could produce consistently underexposed negatives. You mentioned that you used a new lens for the second half of the trouble roll, and that the worst frames are from this same second half of the roll. That raises definite suspicions in my mind about your lens -- the f-stop ring could be out of alignment, the mechanism to stop down the lens could be miscalibrated, etc.

At the very least, it's worth investigating the two areas (exposure and development) independently.

 

[alinCiortea]

That last one is what I fear most. I find it hard to believe that the camera suddenly broke down. I've inspected the lens and all seems to work fine. It stops down nicely, there are no funny sounds when I stop it down or focus, the stopping is always the same etc. On the other hand it's from ebay and it does have the filter thread a bit dinged on one side (everything else is in mint condition).

I guess I'll just run a test roll to at least exclude the body/lens from the equation.

Thanks!

 

[alinCiortea]

I just ran a 4 frame strip of Retro 100 through Rodinal 1+50, by mr. Vonk specifications. As expected, it came out just right, so the lens is ok (samples when it dries). That leaves me with two variables> all shutter speeds faster than 1/60 are goners or the R09 I had used last time is the culprit. I've also developed two exposed film leaders from a neopan 400, one in R09 (dilution and time that previously worked - 1+40 for 8 mins) and the other in Rodinal. The one in R09 came out slightly lighter than the one in Rodinal, but still almost black. I'll take that as a sign of developer fatigue though.

And now back to my sill questions
If the R09 one shot from Maco is the same Rodinal Maco's selling, why do they state a 17 minutes time for Retro 100 / APX 100 at 1+50? The devchart says 13 mins for the Retro/APX 100 + Rodinal 1+50 combo and 17 mins for the APX100+R09 combo (thus making the one shot from Maco similar to Foma's R09)
This is APX 100 in Foma R09 @ 1+50, 17'

(Shot back in the days when I was just following the first hint. It seems those were the better days ) )

If I'm getting too annoying let me know and I'll stop. (it's just that I want that big bottle of R09 one shot but I get really confused when I see tables like this one here :|)

 

[RobertV]

Yes, some wrong APX data is on the internet

However it's just a short time schedule due to the fact the Rollei Retro films (APX100/400) are running out of stock worldwide. They were very cheap in the last few stocks from last months.

Some new film material is already around. Super Pan 200 is produced for Rollei - Maco by Gevaert in Belgium. This new film will partial replace the Retro films. The (Rollei) Super Pan 200 is working fine from iso 160 till 800.

Hopefully there will be less confusion on Rodinal and old R09.

You can follow the guidelines from our Rollei developing table. The Orange test data has been checked by myself with the Heiland TRD-Z densitometer.

 

[alinCiortea]

it's a shame the devchart doesn't have a rating system. the input from users could make the difference in many cases.
this is retro 100 in rodinal 1+50. (don't call the animal police! the beast was rampaging my grandma's gardening so we had to temporarily leash him )

indeed, very very nice prices for rollei 100 over at maco. i bought a box of 20 films for 24 euros and now i'm thinking about getting at least another 40 films and a bottle of r09 1250ml (i'll run a couple of films in this combo before) while i still can. after it's all gone i'll probably switch to foma 100 and 200 (i just loved the rollfilm in rodinal stand). i haven't used foma 400 in MF but the one in 35mm traumatized me (had a really hard time getting it in the tank). still, my hopes are that smbd will eventually revive the APX legacy.

LE> does anybody have a clue if we could expect a similar offer for retro 400?

 

[RobertV]

Retro 400 has already ran out of stock and also the last Retro 100 stock is close to zero.

But also Fomapan 100 (E.I. 80) and Fomapan 200 (E.I. 125) is nice in Rodinal 1+50

Fomapan 200 has a nice mixture of hexagonal and cubical crystals.
Here an example on low light contrast conditions N+1 Para-Amino Phenol:

 

[alinCiortea]

this is foma200 in rodinal 1+100 1 hour stand development:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alinciortea/3216700366/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alinciortea/3215847655/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alinciortea/3215847523/sizes/o/

i was quite amazed to see the results. best film in rodinal stand from what i've tried so far.

thanks for the low supply warning. i should stock up... i don't really know what i'll do in the iso400 range afterwards though...

 

[RobertV]

i was quite amazed to see the results

Yes, these are pretty good.

Are they made with a 6x6 roll film camera?

 

[alinCiortea]

yes, a bronica s2a and nikkor 75/2.8

 

[alinCiortea]

I haven't had the chance to see how the 135 version behaves (by my "rules") but if it's the same this is clearly a winner for me. (still have a roll in 120 format but I'm keeping it for natural light)