• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Rebranding Debate (Arista / Adox content inside)

5stringdeath

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
600
Location
St. Louis
Format
35mm
So after reading many threads here and elsewhere, and through a situation of running out of supplies at the same time, I am trying to find out if the current re-branding combination is flawed somehow. Let me clarify:

I recently ran out of Rodinal and film at about the same time. So, I decided to order some Adonal and some Arista Premium 100 ... given that Adonal is EXACTLY Rodinal and AP100 is EXACTLY Plus-X, both materials I am very familiar with. Again, the "exact" part can be found on this forum and elsewhere.

Shot two rolls at box speed ... developed with my normal time for Plus-X in Rodinal 1:50. Rolls were clearly overdeveloped ... not over-exposed (yes I know the difference.) However, to clear my mind I decided to shoot two more rolls at 125ASA (because, after all, Plus-X is a 125 film )

Same development ... same result. Definitely over-developed.

So I'm at a loss .... I know its not optimal to change two variables at the same time, but clearly one of these items is not EXACTLY what is supposed to replace, and I'm trying to find out which is off.

Next step is to try the film in a different developer.

PS - yes my water temp was fine, etc etc ... I already triple checked all the other variables in my processing room and I soup plenty of film in here

Danke in advance for any thoughts.
 
As to the brand question and especially Adonal, I don't know.

But for a time comparison I shoot AP100 at ei 80, and develop in Rodinal 1:50 for 11 minutes, with gentle agitation for first 30 seconds, two gentle inversions every 30 seconds. (This prints right for me on grade 2.)
 
Why not get a roll of Plus-X and develop it along with the Arista at the same time? It doesn't sound like you have an alternative developer, like D-76, that you use so it may not be a good test.
 
fotch said:
Why not get a roll of Plus-X and develop it along with the Arista at the same time? It doesn't sound like you have an alternative developer, like D-76, that you use so it may not be a good test.
Click to expand...

That's an idea. And yes, I have plenty of Sprint developer around .. I just have a love for Rodinal
 
fotch said:
Why not get a roll of Plus-X and develop it along with the Arista at the same time? It doesn't sound like you have an alternative developer, like D-76, that you use so it may not be a good test.
Click to expand...

I do not know how much Arista you've got(assuming you have 100 feet, or a pack of 20). I would suggest actually using one Arista film roll to calibrate it using exposure index test as Carson Graves suggests in his book "Zone system for 35mm photographers". That way you can shoot the remainder of your arista brand and develop it in the "new" Rodinal.
 
Perhaps your old Rodinal was indeed old, it does change at it ages. Sounds like the new developer is more active for some reason. You have a few options: change dilution, time, or agitation until you get back to a contrast that works for you. Vedmak's suggestion is a good one.
 
Initial temperature may be fine, but in the hot weather, have you looked into temperature drift? If you don't measure it normally, you won't have a baseline for comparison, but if like most of us, you're not using a tempering bath for B&W film, you might be getting a little more temperature drift in the summer than you normally would.

Another possibility is that the water is chemically different in the summer. If you're using an urban water supply, for instance, there may be more chlorine in the water in the summer to fight bacteria. I'm not sure how this would effect development times, but it's another thing to think about.

I also agree with the suggestion that an old bottle of Rodinal may be less active than a fresh bottle.

I'd just test them as if they were new materials or a new film/developer batch and adjust the development time accordingly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

This is a temperature controlled darkroom where I work .. been using the same facilities for years ... as I said, I've ruled out all that. We even have water chillers / temp controllers on the water itself, so everything is always exactly 68 degrees.

It wasn't an "old" bottle of Rodinal, just the last one I ordered from Freestyle and used up. So I ordered Adonal instead, since I've read its exactly the same and a bit cheaper. But yes, its my mistake of not treating them like new materials instead of just assuming they are the same since many people on here proclaim that fact I mean even Adox claims the Adonal formula is exactly the same as Rodinal ....

Now, that's not to say I'm blaming the Adonal ... in fact I'm going to shoot some Tri-X and develop it, since its the film I'm sure of in Rodinal given my shooting and developing conditions, probably the film I've used more than any other. Once I rule that out, I'll start looking at the Arista Premium 100 ....

As an aside, I mean to order Arista Premium 400 and must have hit the wrong button on Freestyle's checkout .... but I decided to give the 100 a go since I like Plus-X as well ... so this has been kind of funny from the start ... something throwing me a lesson.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well if we don't have a baseline or control here, and there's nothing amiss with the dilutions used, then we don't have much to go off of, unfortunately.

Figure out the times for PX125 in Adonal, to approach your Rodinal developed negatives, and then do comparisons. I'm fully confident that Arista Premium 100 is Plus-X, the true variable is more so in Rodinal vs Adonal.

Either way, too many variables.
 
(there was a url link here which no longer exists), made at the same factory by the same people, it's just there's a problem over the Agfa trade names. The Rodinal trade name was registered by J&C in the US so legal issues, which Agfa aren't interested in, and the company making the chemistry is independent of Agfa..

It's possibly the film that's very slightly different, in the same way that Kentmere 100 & 400 aren't FP4 & HP5, and neither are Ilford 100 & 400 despite having some close resemblance.

Ian
 
Ian Grant said:
It's possibly the film that's very slightly different, in the same way that Kentmere 100 & 400 aren't FP4 & HP5, and neither are Ilford 100 & 400 despite having some close resemblance.

Ian
Click to expand...

Let's not go down this road. Those (Kentmere vs Ilford) are indeed different films. Arista Premium 100 and 400 *ARE* Plus-X and Tri-X.
 
I've never used Rodinal or a substitute. I like the Arista Premium 100 developed in Arista 76. Contrast and tone are excellent. Just like Plus-X and D-76.
 
Maybe it's simply batch to batch variation of the film. With Legacy Pro 100 vs. Acros I found a contrast difference in XTOL - noticeable but smaller than the difference I found earlier between two batches of Acros (AFAIR the older batch had the higher contrast). A 10% change in dev time would have been enough to compensate this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's been pure speculation for some time that the Arista Premiun 100 & 400 films are Plus-X & Tri-X, with nothing to substantiate or refute it.

Photographic films (and papers) are often made by blending emulsions before coating, there was a time when Tri-X was made & coated in three different countries US, UK & Canada, (& possibly 4 - Hungary 1939, Super-XX was coated there), now it's down to much smaller numbers of coating runs each year at one plant.

It's far more likely that the Arista films utilise most of the same emulsions as Plus-X/Tri-X but the blend may be slightly different. These emulsions have a finite shelf life (6 months typically before coating) in the cold store and Kodak have been known to make runs of “budget” low cost C41 colour films to use up stock, it's more economic than scrapping emulsion. The end result can be film that's very close in all intents & purposes but not the exact product and not as some speculate sub-standard.

An analogy is Carl Zeiss Jena after WWII when specialist glasses were in short supply, they had to tweak their lens designs to take into account what was available.

For all we know Legacy Pro may be similar.

Ian
 
"Far more likely?" You are assuming that Kodak did a special run just for Freestyle, that's a big assumption. Going on the evidence that is reported here we have many users reporting that they are getting exactly the same results with these films and their developers of choice. We have one user in this thread who is getting a different result. On that and on the results he is reporting it points to a difference in the developer (or processing) not in the film.
 
Erik, I don't think it's important either way, it's pure speculation that the two films are absolutely identical. There have been other reports (mainly outside APUG) that suggest very minor differences. What's more important is how they are used.

Freestyle sell and distribute sufficient film & paper to have production runs made specifically, they did this with Kentmere (before Ilford's takeover) where a discontinued grade was made again just for them.

In this case I was pointing out that we know for absolute certainty that Rodinal and Adonal are identical.

Ian
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh for Christ sake Ian, they're the same film. It's his processing and nothing else.
 
Kodak and Fuji are not Kentmere and that was a different market. In this case there is only one bottle each of Rodinal and Arista rodinal and no one can say for sure they are identical. I have to agree with Clayne, processing looks like the most likely culprit.
 
erikg said:
In this case there is only one bottle each of Rodinal and Arista rodinal and no one can say for sure they are identical.
Click to expand...

Read the OP's post he says Rodinal and Adonal, which the MANUFACTURER states is the same, and Freestyle distribute.

Only J&C passed of Calbe R09 as genuine (modern) Rodinal, relabelling to mimic Agfa Rodinal, and they were threatenedv with legal action and ceased trading shortly after.

There is a ludicrous situation where Agfa own the trade names, Rodinal is made by their former factory who don't hold rights to the name, and it's now manufactured in bulk to order for separate distributors who sell it under differing names.

Ian
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not disputing what you say about Adonal, I don't doubt it in the least. It's just that the sample size here is too small. I suggested earlier that the first bottle of Rodinal may have been old. It could have been changed by age or oxidation or compromised in another way. If the OP thinks that was not the case then he has to look elsewhere. Some variation in processing seems to me the most likely place to look.
 
It is also possible that either or both of items (film & developer) were stored improperly somewhere between point of manufacture and point of use. We have no way to know (for example) if they were in shipping container or truck somewhere under direct sun for hours on end sometime in the past or in warehouse somewhere for weeks or months like this. My point is, I'm sure manufacturer and OP took great care in storing and handling. But anything is possible in between.

Of course I'm guessing BIG TIME. I think we are trying to determine, if those items were INTENDED to be the same and WERE THE SAME when manufactured. They may very well be....

It wouldn't be the first time something arrives at consumer site slightly damaged. I think there is a need to take another sample from different time frame and repeat the test.
 
I understand and agree with Ian’s statement. I think you can break this down into three groups.

Group 1. True believers. Convinced that Arista Premium 100 & 400 films are Plus-X & Tri-X, with nothing to substantiate or refute it. They want to believe they are saving money. No real proof, just lots of opinion. Although this is kind of a lynch mob mentality, no harm done, if the belief makes them feel better, so be it.

Group 2. Skeptics. They want real proof. A statement from Kodak that they are the same is about the only thing that they would accept. Of course, doing so would ruin the market for the higher price product and help kill the product, if not the company, quicker.

Group 3. In Betweeners. They think group one may be right but don’t really care. They like the film, they like the price, and whatever it is, will continue to enjoy using it for as long as it lasts. Use it or lose it. Be happy.

IMHO, if you need Plus-X or Tri-X, pay the price and have peace of mind if nothing else. On the other hand, if the initial cost is more important then, save money with the Arista.

Nothing else matters and it’s a waste of time to assume anything else. You know what they say about the word assume
 
fotch, you have forgotten at least one group: the people who are able and willing to do (and have done) a serious, more or less scientific comparison between the films. And if it walks like a duck...
 
ath said:
fotch, you have forgotten at least one group: the people who are able and willing to do (and have done) a serious, more or less scientific comparison between the films. And if it walks like a duck...
Click to expand...

See Group 1 :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register