Rodinal comparison with R09

I managed to find some time to run a quick and dirty test with Agfa Rodinal and Calbe R09, using Efke KB25. I decided that running both developers at identical times and dilutions would be the best way to reveal different levels of activity. I have always preferred slow films in a 1:100 dilution of Rodinal, so I stuck with that for this test.

I shot half a roll at EI 25 and processed it in Rodinal and then shot the second half of the same roll and processed in R09. I shot with a Bessa R3A and 75mm Color Skopar at middle apertures and in auto-exposure mode through an ExpoDisc (diffuser), and adjusted the film speed setting to get exposures for Zones I, V, and VIII. Both halves of the film were developed in 300ml water (I use local spring water that I've found to be good for developing) with 3ml of developer concentrate, and both at a time of 12 minutes. Agitation was constant for the first 45 seconds, then two torus inversions and a rap and quarter twist on the bench once each 3 minutes. They were developed at ambient temperature in the darkroom, about 74 degrees.

I measured negative density with a diffuse light above a Gossen Luna Pro F and enlarging attachment, with the negative center covering the enlarger attachment aperture. The Luna Pro F has 1/3 stop (0.1 log density) markings that are spaced enough for reasonable interpolation to about 1/12 stop. (I know this assumes linear response, but it's what I have to work with.)

I found that the Rodinal gave slightly higher density, a bit less than 1/6th stop, and slightly higher gamma, .605 for R09 and .619 for Rodinal. With the Rodinal and this processing routine, EI 25 looks like a good place to start with KB25. I might downrate it slightly to EI 20 with R09, or if going for a gamma nearer .55.

So in this application, it looks like the Rodinal is slightly more active than the R09 at the same 1:100 dilution, but not radically so. It will take further experimentation to find exact equivalents, but there's not enough difference in this application for me to want to dial in a 2% change in gamma. I'd rather be shooting real images. Next time with straight R09 and KB25, I'll probably extend development very slightly and see if the EI comes up a hair to equal the Rodinal speed. But I'll probably also get on with trying KB25 in both Rodinal and R09 laced with sodium ascorbate and borax before I do that.

I haven't done any enlargements, or looked under a microscope to detect grain differences yet.

Hope this helps folks who are looking to get a handle on how Rodinal compares to R09. I don't know about extrapolating from this information to other films, dilutions, or developing times. Test and let us know what you get.

And thanks again to Roman (rjr) for providing more concrete information on R09 than I've seen elsewhere.

Lee

Lee,

I am a devoted user of R09, having had trouble in the past getting Rodinal becasue of where I was living. That said, I love the stuff!

The important thing is to run film speed and development time tests with whatever film and developer combination you wish to use. There is no point in comparing times and densities between the two developers -- just test each developer independently with a film and see what the final PRINT looks like. Determine whatever times give you the proper densities (Zone VIII on a print for developing time, .10 density over film base plus fog for film speed) and then make prints.

Once you have those critical test results in, then make photos of the SAME SCENE, shoot the same film using the determined exposure index, develop both films according to your newly-determined times, and then make prints of the final negs. Both negs should print the same, but may well look different in grain, "atmosphere," local contrast, etc. That will tell you which developer to use.

It's a little more involved, but the only thing that really matters in the end is the print and you want to use the developer that gives you the best image in the final print.

I've been using R09 with Efke 25 and Ilford Pan F for several years now and absolutely love it. I had no qualms with Rodinal (loved it too!), but now that I've got all the procedures down pat with R09, I'll stick with it.

Thanks J&C!

A few years ago there was a lot of discussion on another forum initiated by an apparently knowlegeable German gentleman on this subject. He asserted than the original pre-war formula, R09, had been cheapened by Agfa which they are presently marketing as Rodinal. But the more-expensive-to-produce R09 remains far superior.

After relatively superficial testing two years ago, my conclusion was that the resulting negatives from each developer were virtually identical in appearance. At least very, very close.

This is good news for me. Agfa has a decades-long history of abruptly pulling products off the USA market without warning. They have done it to me several times since the 1960's.

Rodinal is becoming difficult to obtain - B&H won't ship it. Nobody local wants to stock it.

JandC seems to have an unlimited supply of R09 which they seem eager to send me. As the obverse of the old Herbert Taryton cigarette ads used to say, "I'd rather switch than fight".

John,

Those are the same reasons I'm trying R09, apart from curiosity about it. I can get Rodinal if I drive a bit, or order from Calumet or other places that still ship it. But with R09 readily available from a great vendor like J&C, I figured I should try it out.

I'm not so much trying to match R09 to Rodinal very accurately, and I expect some minor differences if I look hard enough, I'm just trying to get a general notion of relative activity, and to see if any of the differences are important to me one way or another.

I thought I'd post my results here because there have been a couple of threads in which people have been curious about how the two developers compare in activity levels. I think most of this curiosity is born out of the manufacturers' different standard dilution rates.

I do shoot mostly "real" subjects on these test rolls, but I include a blank frame for fb+f, Zone I, Zone V, and Zone VIII exposures to get gamma and speed references.

Lee

Bump

titrisol said:

Bump

Click to expand...

I've heard about things that go bump on the 'net, but never experienced it before now.

Lee

Comparison between R09 and PF Rodinal formulation

If we are talking comparisons, how does the Calbe R09 product compare to the Photographers Formulary Paraminophenol (Rodinal) offering?

For that matter, how do they compare with Parodinal, a Rodinal substitute made from acetaminophen, household lye, and sodium sulfite?

My guess is, they're all the same within variations of technique -- and the 55 cents worth of Parodinal I mixed November 30 is less than half gone, after processing half a dozen rolls of film; as of yesterday, it was just as good as it was three days after mixing.

If you'd like a couple of laughs....

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006fc5

jim appleyard said:

If you'd like a couple of laughs....

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006fc5

Click to expand...

Jeez! I stuck it out as long as I could and still didn't even make it half way through...

Bruce

Toward the end is where Bill Troop speculates that Agfa has been putting a secret ingredient into the "new" Rodinal that is superadditive and is responsible for good results at high dilutions. It shouldn't keep anybody awake at night, but I do wonder about that.

I would be interested to see tests done comparing Agfa Rodinal with Calbe RO9 at higher concentrations (1+25 and 1+50) and the more usual temperature of 68degrees.

jim appleyard said:

If you'd like a couple of laughs....

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006fc5

Click to expand...

I got as far as Ed Zimmerman's first post, saw the same old same old I've seen a hundred times here, and went no further.

"The biggest enemy of Rodinal is Agfa".

BruceN said:

Jeez! I stuck it out as long as I could and still didn't even make it half way through...

Bruce

Click to expand...

And I should not that a lot of it was editied OUT and some messages were removed--- especially some of the more comic and, I think, more entertaining passages and messages in cultural history and politics.

Bill and I are, in the meantime, in good terms.

Wow, are we not glad that APUG is mostly not like that?
I was expecting to see comments on what else Fraben was famous (or infamous, rather) for making and what that makes you if you use Rodinal.
Wow. Pretty funny.

Lee, 1000 pardons if I hijacked your thread. I thought folks could use a chuckle or two. I also hope there is/was some useful info there re: your question.

Andy K said:

I would be interested to see tests done comparing Agfa Rodinal with Calbe RO9 at higher concentrations (1+25 and 1+50) and the more usual temperature of 68degrees.




I got as far as Ed Zimmerman's first post, saw the same old same old I've seen a hundred times here, and went no further.

Click to expand...

I'm the one who posted that Photo.net link in anothe apug thread(and cited the supposed secret ingredient as noted by troop), the one on finding out where Rodinal can be purchased. I came across a lot of info in various other posts and from what I have read the differences with higher dilutions are more like 1:100. I very much doubt you would have an issue with 1:50 using R09. What is more interesting to me though is a post I found here at apug which stated that the R09 did not have the keeping qualities of agfa Rodinal. Can anyone confirm or dismiss this? I have used 10 year old Rodinal(opened and used 10 years ago!) with no noticeable loss of quality. Does anyone have experience using any of the Rodinal substitutes which have been opened long ago?

jim appleyard said:

Lee, 1000 pardons if I hijacked your thread. I thought folks could use a chuckle or two. I also hope there is/was some useful info there re: your question.

Click to expand...

Jim,

I think it was Whiteymorange who used to have a sig that applies here, especially where the internet is concerned, something like "control is an illusion". I might like to think it's my thread, but I don't waste a lot of time fooling myself these days; and trying to control other people.... I stand a better chance of changing earth's orbit through concentrated thought.
----
Q: How many people does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Only one, but the lightbulb has to really want to change.
----
I saw the link in the other thread from Gibran's post and read a bit of it. I've seen that history rehashed elsewhere several times, so I skipped much of the pnet thread. In my original post I was more interested in the relative activity, Rodinal vs. R09, especially the relationship between the recommended dilutions, and that wasn't addressed in the pnet thread.

Gibran's post is an interesting question, but I don't think my R09 will go unused for anywhere near 10 years. Gainer tested his glycol stock longevity by exposing the concentrate in a shallow puddle to the open air for weeks. The same could be done with R09 and Rodinal, but I don't plan on doing it myself. And I haven't had any R09 for anywhere near long enough to judge.

Lee

Lee L said:

Jim,

I think it was Whiteymorange who used to have a sig that applies here, especially where the internet is concerned, something like "control is an illusion". I might like to think it's my thread, but I don't waste a lot of time fooling myself these days; and trying to control other people.... I stand a better chance of changing earth's orbit through concentrated thought.
----
Q: How many people does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Only one, but the lightbulb has to really want to change.
----
I saw the link in the other thread from Gibran's post and read a bit of it. I've seen that history rehashed elsewhere several times, so I skipped much of the pnet thread. In my original post I was more interested in the relative activity, Rodinal vs. R09, especially the relationship between the recommended dilutions, and that wasn't addressed in the pnet thread.

Gibran's post is an interesting question, but I don't think my R09 will go unused for anywhere near 10 years. Gainer tested his glycol stock longevity by exposing the concentrate in a shallow puddle to the open air for weeks. The same could be done with R09 and Rodinal, but I don't plan on doing it myself. And I haven't had any R09 for anywhere near long enough to judge.

Lee

Click to expand...

I sort of paniced last fall and picked up about 12 500ml bottles of Rodinal for cheap($7 ea. or whatever they where going for at Uniquephoto). I had that original 10 year old bottle of Rodinal from way back when I switched over to HC-110 and TMY. A few years back I switched back to Rodinal when I started shooting APX 100. With the current state of Rodinal(and APX), I'm again testing HC-110 just to see what I can get out of it. As a side note to your proposed experiment on accelerated aging, I read that with HC-110, it is not air as much as its mixture with water which activates and ages it and in fact un-diluted HC-110 will not develop anything! It needs water to activate. So another question for anyone who knows, how long will undiluted HC-110 syrup keep in an opened bottle?

HC-110 will keep a long time! I can't give you an exact figure, but I was given a bottle that was opened (about 80% full, or 20% empty; depends on your POV!) and who knows how many decades old (it is a tall bottle, not the short, squatty one sold today) and it works just fine.

Thanks Jim, that's what I suspected. Just did a test comparing HC-110 Dilution H with Rodinal 1:50 using Fomapan 200. Seem to be having a bit of trouble getting the same speed out of the HC-110 compared to the Rodinal(lack of shadow detail with the HC-110 at same ASA). The HC-110 does give slightly less apparent grain I guess due to its solvent qualities). Sorry to get off topic a bit to the original question.

Bill Troop speculates that Agfa has been putting a secret ingredient into the "new" Rodinal that is superadditive and is responsible for good results at high dilutions.

Click to expand...

The operative word here is "speculates". Something that people should seldom do.

Gerald Koch said:

The operative word here is "speculates". Something that people should seldom do.

Click to expand...

Really? I would disagree with you strongly. Whether you call it "speculate" or Hypothesis(both based on observation), its the cornerstone and first step of the Scientific Method is it not? Here is Bill Troops Quote from the above linked pnet thread(and are you familiar with Bill Troops work by the way?)

"This is what we know about Agfa Rodinal today:
1. it contains exactly 3% potassium hydroxide 2. it contains otherwise

water 55-60% potassium sulfite 30-40% potassium bromide 1-5% p-aminophenol 1-5% the pH is approx. 14 (Dead Link Removed, for what it is worth)

It is therefore manifestly clear that other ingredients below 1%, which do not have to be listed on the MSDS, are present, because otherwise the formula would not be sufficiently active to support dilutions of 1:100 or higher. Most likely, given the huge amount of research resulting in dozens of papers by Agfa-Gevaert scientists (particularly Willems and Van Veelen) during the 1950s and 60s into p-aminophenol derivatives and superadditivity, Agfa now uses a proprietary developing chemical which is strongly superadditive with p-aminophenol, permitting substantial economy in manufacture over the traditional formula. Supporting this suspicion is the fact that the level of restrainer and developing agent in the MSDS are both given as 1-5%! This is a strong clue that a powerful unlisted developing agent is included in the formula. Needless to say, p-aminophenol produces low fog; a developer containing just that agent would not need an antifoggant, which would serve to decrease speed. The greatest probability is that Agfa Rodinal now contanins a strongly superadditive secondary agent.

Haist writes (v. 1 p. 521) "The classic concentrated developer is Rodinal, a sodium hydroxide solution of p-aminophenol which is usually diluted with 20 to 100 times its volume of water. ... The preparation of the Rodinal-type developer was known for many years before 1920 when W.F.A. Ermen gave this preparation for the concentrated developer ...." and that formula is substantially the same as what I published in FDC except that it is weaker. Nearly all of the formulas for what we designated in the book as traditional Rodinal have 1 part p-aminophenol to 3 parts potassium sulfite; what differs is the amount of water. I have always favored the formula that gives 100 g p-a-p and 300 g potassium sulfite to 1/L water because it is the strongest. Schneour recommends a maturation period of 6 months; Crawley has pointed out (BJ 60/61) that fresh Rodinal, by which he means "traditional Rodinal" used within a few weeks of making up) has somewhat higher activity.

It would be nice to resolve the lingering mystery, but the fact is that anyone who wants to achieve an authentic Rodinal experience has only to make up the formula we give. I have yet to encounter a photographic chemist who does not believe that the various "traditional Rodinal" formulas approximate closely enough the commercial product as it was known until relatively recent decades. To that end, I will try once more, a little harder, over the next few months, to find someone at Agfa who will part with reliable information, or someone at a reliable competitor who will part with a reliable analysis. It may be too late. If I learn anything I am allowed to publish, I will naturally share the information."

Gibran said:

Whether you call it "speculate" or Hypothesis(both based on observation), its the cornerstone and first step of the Scientific Method is it not?

Click to expand...

There is a difference between a hypothesis, which is based on facts and a vague hunch which is all that Anchell can propose.

Anchell said:

Agfa now uses a proprietary developing chemical which is strongly superadditive with p-aminophenol, permitting substantial economy in manufacture over the traditional formula."

Click to expand...

There is absolutely nothing to support this claim.

a developer containing just that agent (paraminophenol) would not need an antifoggant.

Click to expand...

The recently published Wolfen recipe shows that in the 40's Rodinal contained an antifoggant, Agfa P.1347.

As to the claim that there must be something else or Rodinal could not develop at 1:100 dilution -- this is pure nonsense.

Gibran said:

What is more interesting to me though is a post I found here at apug which stated that the R09 did not have the keeping qualities of agfa Rodinal.

Click to expand...

R09 has the keeping powers not much unlike those of legendary Rodinal. The p-aminophenol in R09 is, if I'm not mistaken, still from the days of the DDR (and that country was annexed and its state disolved 15 years ago)--- and probably is from much earlier production. The problem with R09, however, are the horrible plastic bottles. The bottles seem to biodegrade right from day one.... Better were the old glass bottles with their low grade porous rubber stops.. but then again Agfa R.I.P. went over to less than ideal bottles too...

Gerald Koch said:

There is a difference between a hypothesis, which is based on facts and a vague hunch which is all that Anchell can propose.


There is absolutely nothing to support this claim.


The recently published Wolfen recipe shows that in the 40's Rodinal contained an antifoggant, Agfa P.1347.

As to the claim that there must be something else or Rodinal could not develop at 1:100 dilution -- this is pure nonsense.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you got us back on topic. Sorry for the detour although we will just have to agree to disagree on the merits of Bill Troops argument for the possibility of a second developing agent. You dismiss as pure nonsense that the fact that Rodinal is active at 1:100 is not collaborating evidence of said second highly active developing agent. My question to you is, have you used some of the other Rodinal substitues, in particular the R09 at dilutions of 1:100 to back up your nonsense claim. Otherwise, your just, well speculating yourself. But, if you have, then that would provide the original poster with some good info and discard what has been said here previously(that R09 does not work as well as Agfa Rodinal at high dilutions such as 1:100 or above).