Rodinal and Sodium Sulfite

pentaxuser · Sep 21, 2023

I noticed on reading Henry Horenstein's "Beyond Basic Photography" recently that he mentioned the use of sodium sulfite with Rodinal. This was to produce finer grain negatives so in one sense not a surprise. His recommendation was use 45 grams with a litre of dilute Rodinal at 1+100 for FP4 or 1+75 for HP4( this was before the days of HP5+) He gives a time of 14.5 mins for HP4 in case anyone is interested. I presume that if anyone wants to try it with HP5+ a similar time might be a good starting point

As he gives a time I assume he had tried it and that the negatives were then correspondingly finer grained However he gives no examples of the difference that sodium sulfite gave nor whether other amounts are possible with different outcomes. Would it still be 45 grams if you chose to use 1+25 or 1+50? I am assuming that 45 grams of sodium sulfite per litre would still be his recommended amount for dilutions of 1+25 and 1+50 but this may not be the case. While a litre is a lot, I am also assuming that he specifies this to ensure that at 1+100 there is enough Rodinal in it to ensure no developer exhaustion. Mind you this begs the question of why you would need a litre when in a 250ml tank you still get 5ml of Rodinal at 1+50 and 10 mls in a 500ml tank. The latter being more than enough I'd have thought

However it may be that as 14.5 mins was clearly not semi-stand development for 1+75 and 1+100 then a higher amount of Rodinal was needed in his opinion.

As it was a short paragraph in his book it inevitable leaves more questions than it provides answers

So can I ask: Has anyone tried adding sodium sulfite to Rodinal and if so at what amounts and what difference did it make to the "look" of Rodinal developed negs? Was it just a zero sum game whereby you got finer grain but lost most if not all of the sharpness and acutance that Rodinal gives so gained nothing ?

Thanks

pentaxuser

titrisol · Sep 21, 2023

Check the archives, there was a very healthy discussion with P.Gainer about this in 2003-4

He recommended adding 4 g/l or ascorbate (neutralized vitamin C) instead, and using the 1+25 time for 1+50 dilution.

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html

Some other threads:

Rodinal and Sodium Sulfite

I was reviewing a copy of Henry Horenstein's "Beyond Basic Photography" and on page 91 he mentions using sodium sulfite with Rodinal to create fine grain negatives. Has anyone tried this or is anyone doing this? Also, I would love some help on the mixtures if you can. I typical use Rodinal...

www.photrio.com

pentaxuser · Sep 22, 2023

Thanks for the links,titrisol. So it looks as if sodium ascorbate and borax may be better alternatives. On that basis I am now interested in hearing from members who have tried any of the 3 ingredients Currently it looks as if there may not be anybody based on your's being the only reply but most threads have a slow start then gather momentum

What I am interested in is whether there is a happy medium that improves grain but not at the expense of eliminating Rodinal's sharpness and acutance

Here's hoping that someone or several have tried one of the three ingredients and will reply

pentaxuser

dynachrome · Sep 22, 2023

If you are content to cut your ISO in half, Patrick Gainer's PC-TEA may work for you. It gives excellent sharpness and doesn't contain any sulfite. I made mine with isoascorbic acid. A few tips - do not heat the TEA in a microwave. I used a stainless steel measuring cup set in a hot water bath. Don't worry that it starts out a light tan color and even in a tightly stoppered bottle will eventually turn a very dark green. It's still good. My use was at 1:50. It also has low toxicity compared to other developers.

ags2mikon · Sep 22, 2023

Back in the 1980's I used Edwal FG-7 with added sulfite. It came in a plastic 1 pound jar with Edwal's label and a 1 oz cup in it. I also used Rodinal during that time period and tried it a few times and it does smooth the grain a bit. But it's not Rodinal now is it?

glbeas · Sep 22, 2023

Adding the sulfite will reduce the acutance rodinal is famous for. The plus is it will extend the life in a rotary machine by eating the oxygen introduced by the agitation.

snusmumriken · Sep 23, 2023

Anyone seen the Holy Grail?

pentaxuser · Sep 23, 2023

snusmumriken said:
Anyone seen the Holy Grail?

Thank all for the replies. Yes my worry, snusmumriken was exactly what you allude to. Is it a quest for the "magic bullet"? However while there is bound to be a compromise i.e. you can't have all of the Rodinal negative benefits there may be a compromise that doesn't entirely destroy the Rodinal benefits before you see a benefit in grain

pentaxuser

snusmumriken · Sep 23, 2023

pentaxuser said:
Thank all for the replies. Yes my worry, snusmumriken was exactly what you allude to. Is it a quest for the "magic bullet"? However while there is bound to be a compromise i.e. you can't have all of the Rodinal negative benefits there may be a compromise that doesn't entirely destroy the Rodinal benefits before you see a benefit in grain

pentaxuser

I know. Please forgive my flippancy. I've been there, still go there from time to time. I always come to the same conclusion. But hell, an enjoyment of chemistry is a good reason to practise photography, and won't it be brilliant if it works?

MarkS · Sep 23, 2023

You're just going to have to run some tests. Since only you can decide where, on the grain---sharpness spectrum, your pictures should be. As Fred Picker used to say, TRY IT.

ags2mikon · Sep 23, 2023

Yes, try it. Shoot gray cards for zone 1, 5 and 8 look at zone 5 for grain and zone 1 for EI and zone 8 for development time. Then shoot a resolution chart with your best lens and compare. Adding sulfite may raise EI, lower grain and resolution or maybe not.

pentaxuser · Sep 24, 2023

ags2mikon said:
Adding sulfite may raise EI, lower grain and resolution or maybe not.

Interesting point that sulfite may raise EI or not I wonder what evidence there is on this? Maybe none if the chance of raising or lowering is 50/50

Mind you on a more serious note sodium sulfite has to do one or the other, doesn't it?

pentaxuser

Paul Howell · Sep 24, 2023

When sulfite was used with Edwal FG 7 it increase film speed. I forgot by how much. For those who only want to keep a single developer on hand, by using sulfite with Rodinal the user has an addition option, maybe to use with films like Foma 400, Tmax 3200? I currently have HC 110 and Rodinal, considering the cost of HC 110 or the ILford version it may worth experimenting.

pentaxuser · Sep 24, 2023

titrisol said:
I could only find some EFKE100 and FP4 developed in Rodinal +C, I out a couple of those pictures in a google album:.

RodinalC

New item added to shared album

photos.app.goo.gl

They look fine. Are these scans of the negatives and can I take it that in your experience similar negatives in just Rodinal would look more grainy i.e. it would show on my screen?

Thanks

pentaxuser

pentaxuser · Sep 24, 2023

Paul Howell said:
When sulfite was used with Edwal FG 7 it increase film speed. I forgot by how much.

So can we assume that sulfite will always increase speed or at worst maintain speed? Can we rule out a loss of speed? I may have wrongly inferred from ags2mikon's post that it could go either way in terms of speed. On re-reading the part of his post on speed, grain and resolution it may be that all should have inferred was that it may make a difference for the better in all three aspects he mentions or may only be better in less than all three or may make no difference at all in any of the three

My interest in this aspect of sodium sulfite is that a lot is used in D23 and combined with metol the development times come closer to D76 which gives box speed than to say Perceptol which gives box speed in the slower films but only manages as little as half speed in all the 400 speed films

The difference in Perceptol is sodium chloride, I think 50 gms was mentioned, so does sodium chloride reduce film speed

So I remain puzzled in terms of how to reconcile all of the above and yes I understand that we may be moving away from my original purpose in starting it but often one thread throws up other questions that are worth exploring

Finally do you have any idea of how much sulfite was used in the Edwal FG7 ? Was it the 45gms that Henry Horenstein mentions?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Paul Howell · Sep 24, 2023

Sorry, don't recall, I need to find my daybook, maybe 20 years ago, I think FG7 has been out of production maybe 15 years.

titrisol · Sep 24, 2023

pentaxuser said:
They look fine. Are these scans of the negatives and can I take it that in your experience similar negatives in just Rodinal would look more grainy i.e. it would show on my screen?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Yes, those are neg scans. It was worth trying at the time

I think I have the article about salt, sulfite and ascorbic by pat gainer somewhere - Found it (Photo Techniques Magazine - Jan/Feb 2002 - pp 27-29)
I will scan and share since both the author and the magazine are not with us anymore,

pentaxuser · Sep 24, 2023

titrisol said:
Yes, those are neg scans. It was worth trying at the time

I think I have the article about salt, sulfite and ascorbic by pat gainer somewhere - Found it (Photo Techniques Magazine - Jan/Feb 2002 - pp 27-29)
I will scan and share since both the author and the magazine are not with us anymore,

Thanks I have looked at the Pat Gainer articles in Unblinkingeye which you provided earlier but what he said or better still backed up with a test about salt will be interesting

pentaxuser

dynachrome · Sep 24, 2023

FG-7 and Panatomic-X was one of my favorite combinations. I rated the film at 64 and used FG-7 1:15 with plain water. This gave me negatives which were much easier to print than what I got rating the film at 32 and using D-76. I added sulfite for developing Tri-X and Plus-X, with good results. FG-7 used to come in a dark brown glass bottle and had a very long shelf life. At some point I think they were bought by Falcon Safety Products. FG-7 was then sold is white plastic bottles with drastically reduced shelf life. If it were to become available again, I would be the first one to buy it, even though Panatomic-X is no longer available.

ags2mikon · Sep 24, 2023

If I remember correctly when I used FG-7 with the added sulfite I got box speed except for the Pan F. At the time I was using Verichrome pan, HP-5 (not plus), Pan F and some Plus X. The added sulfite was pointless for the Pan F. The HP-5 was the best improvement. Testing with the Air Force res. chart showed some loss for the combination of FG-7 with sulfite. That got me started on a quest for developers that were sharper. That was over 35 years ago so I'm a little foggy on the fine details.

ags2mikon · Sep 24, 2023

Between the brown glass bottles and the white bottles they used brown plastic bottles. I only used 2 in glass and then when the brown plastic were introduced I started to have oxidation issues. For a while I would buy a new bottle and pour it directly into one of the old glass bottles. That helped but between manufacturing and my place may have been months or more.

Rudeofus · Sep 26, 2023

pentaxuser said:
So can we assume that sulfite will always increase speed or at worst maintain speed? Can we rule out a loss of speed? I may have wrongly inferred from ags2mikon's post that it could go either way in terms of speed.

If you look at the development process in modern film, it is an extreme amplification of a minuscule effect. You start with tiny clusters of a few silver atoms, and wherever these clusters exist you build up silver grains comprising billions of silver atoms. Tiny deviations will either cause the developer to miss some silver clusters, or can cause it to develop unexposed silver halide.

An ISO 100 emulsion developed in Rodinal will be finer grained than an ISO 400 emulsion in Perceptol, therefore with today's films there is hardly ever a reason to sacrifice speed for grain. You can safely assume, that most commercial developers, and most serious contenders in the amateur league reach film speed, give or take a stop. It would be naive to assume, that the folks who crafted these formulas actually missed low hanging fruit such as "let's add some sulfite" or whatever.

Sodium Sulfite will likely change the grain of Rodinal, but then do something else to it which makes it less attractive overall. This is the umpteenth thread about "oh, let's add sulfite to Rodinal", which starts with great enthusiasm and then quickly dies down - with no lasting result.

pentaxuser said:
The difference in Perceptol is sodium chloride, I think 50 gms was mentioned, so does sodium chloride reduce film speed

Spherical silver grains have less covering power (= density vs. silver weight) than filamental grains. If you have a slow developer, physical development will build larger spherical grains before rapid development sets on and creates filaments. Therefore slow physical developers build up less density in the weakly exposed regions, and this translates into an apparent speed loss. At the same time low covering power requires more developed silver grains to reach a given density - and this higher number of apparently smaller silver grains gives you finer grained results.

Since high speed films are usually very high in iodide, they are harder to develop and will lose more speed in such a soft developer, not because of the solvent, but because its weak action yields underdevelopment.

Yes, Sodium Chloride acts as silver solvent in Perceptol, and together with its otherwise mild action it will give you the effects described above. But you can not generally state "sulfite will increase speed" or "chloride will lose speed". It's the total developer composition which determines, what a certain change will do.

Rodinal and Sodium Sulfite

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency