Rodinal gets better with age?

[StoneNYC]

Several dilute catechol and sodium hydroxide formulas
Highyly dilute DK-50 with added metaborate
Ethol TEC, Neofin Blue are commercial products

I've got a can of DK-50, how much metaborate do I add per Liter or working Dev?

 

[miha]

Several dilute catechol and sodium hydroxide formulas
Highyly dilute DK-50 with added metaborate
Ethol TEC, Neofin Blue are commercial products

Thanks. I have tried Neofin Red with APX 400 120 - years ago - and it seemed sharp working indeed printed.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I've got a can of DK-50, how much metaborate do I add per Liter or working Dev?

Mix the DK-50 as recommended and then dilute the stock 1+4 with a solution of 80 g/l of sodium metaborate.

 

[StoneNYC]

Mix the DK-50 as recommended and then dilute the stock 1+4 with a solution of 80 g/l of sodium metaborate.

If I dilute the stock 1+4 what about my dev times? Does the sodium metaborate somehow increase the dilute stock to compensate for the dilution and end up at the same times?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

If I dilute the stock 1+4 what about my dev times? Does the sodium metaborate somehow increase the dilute stock to compensate for the dilution and end up at the same times?

With the acutance version the amount of developing agents is decreased by 5X and the amount of metaborate is increased by 5X. Its been many years since I used this developer so I really cannot give you specific developing times. From my notes, rate films at their normal speeds. average developing times are 8 to 13 m @ 70F.

 

[StoneNYC]

With the acutance version the amount of developing agents is decreased by 5X and the amount of metaborate is increased by 5X. Its been many years since I used this developer so I really cannot give you specific developing times. My guess for slow films would be 6 to 8 m @ 70F.

Thanks

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Thanks

Dug out my notes and corrected my previous post. Average times are 8 to 13 m @70F. Use box speeds.

 

[StoneNYC]

Dug out my notes and corrected my previous post. Average times are 8 to 13 m @70F. Use box speeds.

Noted

 

[Athiril]

Do you have some verifiable data such as photomicrographs to substantiate your claim? As previously mentioned grain and acutance are highly subjective. The use of potassium iodide is mentioned for highly dilute Metol developers that are most often recommended for producing edge effects. In addition the amount of iodide specified is far higher than that mentioned by Geoffrey Crawley for use with FX-1.

You do not need photomicrographs to show a difference in sharpness and grain. That's a bit silly, if you can't see it in a reproduced image with reasonable equipment, then it's acutance you're looking at, or anything pictorially useful. Try it out.

5mg/L of KI in working developer is an amount I tried, that worked. I've added it to Rodinal before, but don't have copies of that on hand.

This copy shown here is only about a 25 lp/mm transfer, and on HP5+, other combinations will be different, also with higher resolution equipment (good enlarging lenses, dedicated scanners, etc) will show a bigger difference.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I located my notes on using potassium iodide. Crawley states that iodide can used with FX-1 to enhance adjacency effects, however, in doing so it also accentuates lens aberrations and flare. He also says that potassium bromide can also be used instead of the iodide. So there is nothing magical in the use of iodide.

 

[Ian Grant]

I located my notes on using potassium iodide. Crawley states that iodide can used with FX-1 to enhance adjacency effects, however, in doing so it also accentuates lens aberrations and flare. He also says that potassium bromide can also be used instead of the iodide. So there is nothing magical in the use of iodide.

No, Crawley states that FX2 is less prone to lens aberrations and flare compared to FX1, he doesn't attribute this to the Iodide. At the time he wrote the original articles (1960) some films were far more sensitive to iodide in the developer, As manufacturers began using more iodide in the emulsions themselves the samll amounts he advocated had little or no effect and he reflected that in subsequent BJP Annuals.

Crawley's point was that you needed the highest quality optics and the use of a good tripod to achieve the best from these high definition developers and in particular FX1.

Adding Iodide may still help with some films which could be why Athiril is seeing these effects. It wouldn't help with high Iodide films like Tmax but it's why replenished developers can give higher quality results compared to the same developer used one-shot.

Ian

 

[Alan Johnson]

Presumeably what happens to oxidized Rodinal is that the sulfite concentration drops as some is converted to sulfate.There was a study by Crawley of the effect of sulfite concentration on acutance at the levels likely in ,say,Rodinal 1:50, for the chemically similar methyl-aminophenol (Metol).It is likely that the oxidation product of p-aminophenol may, like that of Metol,need some sulfite to remove it.
Crawley,.BJP Jan 6 1961:
"At sulphite concentrations of 2-3 gm/litre.....the inhibition of developer regeneration does sharpen up the picture markedly.......at 1 gm/litre there is a very marked sharpness increase when metol is used.."

 

[Ian Grant]

Comparing Rodinal at dilution to Beutler & similar high definition developers containing Metol and/or Pyrocatchin/Glycin there do seem to be advantages with p-Aminophenol compared to Metol at high dilutions. Rodinal at 1:50 though has just over 6gm/litre Sulphite so is above Crawley's threshold.

It's no coincidence that all the major manufacturers made Rodinal type p-Amininophenol developers. Ilford Certinal was introduced in 1908, Mees and Sheppard worked on p-Aminophenol developers at Wratten & Wainwright around the same time and later Kodak released Kodinol in Europe. M&B, Johnsons etc had similar developers.

Ian

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

...there do seem to be advantages with p-Aminophenol compared to Metol at high dilutions.
Ian

What would you say those advantages are, Ian?

 

[Ian Grant]

What would you say those advantages are, Ian?

Put simply p-Aminophenol in a Rodinal type developer has a long shelf life, a similar Metol based developer keeps badly as a single solution so needs to be stored as 2 parts or made up fresh each time.

Rodinal brings out the best in modern T grain (and similar) emulsions, excellent fine grain and sharpness while still having excellent tonality (a full tonal range) and in this respect it's better than Beutler etc. It's also extremely versatile.

Ian

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Thanks for clarifying for me, Ian.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Then again I'm obviously diving into very hot water with the Rodinal crowd.

WHAT did you just say about Rodinal?!?!?!

 

[semi-ambivalent]

WHAT did you just say about Rodinal?!?!?!

In science results should be endlessly repeatable. Rodinal has been around for over one hundred years and the fact that one can still see these arguments and quarrels about it is one of the reasons I like photography; there is still voodoo in't.

s-a

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

In science results should be endlessly repeatable. Rodinal has been around for over one hundred years and the fact that one can still see these arguments and quarrels about it is one of the reasons I like photography; there is still voodoo in't.

s-a

I'm actually working on a voodoo doll made in part from my last box of "official" Rodinal. Lookout Micheal R!!! :devil:

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

I don't get that either. Adonal, here in the US, makes sense to me... I would be a bit apprehensive about immersing my film in something called Blazinal.

 

[Ian Grant]

There's a version of Rodinal I've seen recently at a local photo store called Blazinal. Where the hell did they come up with that name?

John of J&C registered the Trade name rodinal in the US and tried to pass off Calbe R09 as genuine Rodinal in matching packaging to Agfas. A Canadian company also registered the Rodinal trade name,. This was around the time Agfa were selling off their consumer photo division which later closed down, a consequence was the trade name Rodinal could no longer be used in the US & Canada. So the Canadian importers came up with the name.

What are you basing this on, exactly?

I can think of a few reasons why Metol is preferable to p-Aminophenol. For example, as a single agent p-Aminophenol needs a much higher pH than Metol, and that entails an increase in granularity, without necessarily being any sharper. Rodinal's high pH is one of the reasons I disagree with the common assertion it is an "honest grain" developer. Then again I'm obviously diving into very hot water with the Rodinal crowd.

Unfortunately the results contradict your views Michael. I'm not saying that rodinal is the best developer rather that it produces exceptionally good results with excellent fine grain with modern emulsions like Tmax 100, APX100 etc On a par with Xtol which is way better than D76, Pyrocat HD is up there with Rodinal and Xtol as well.

Ian

 

[MattKing]

The entity in Canada with the distribution and naming rights for what used to be called Rodinal is "Blazes Photographic Inc."

Thus the name.

 

[StoneNYC]

Blazinol is also an R09 formulation and NOT the Adonal formulation which IS the Rodinal formula ... Essentially R09 and Blazinol are similar to Rodinal but NOT identical, where Adox's Adonal is exactly the same chemistry wise as Rodinal.

Though I do caution, someone pointed out, that it's not made in the same original factory, so things like the old dust that was in the original factory that would get into the Rodinal isn't in the new Adonal... This was the argument earlier on either here or another thread, a stupid one, but none-the less important to point out, Adonal is only different from Rodinal in the lack if "magical factory dust" LOL...

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Blazinol is also an R09 formulation and NOT the Adonal formulation which IS the Rodinal formula ... Essentially R09 and Blazinol are similar to Rodinal but NOT identical, where Adox's Adonal is exactly the same chemistry wise as Rodinal.

Blazinol = Adonol (in Canada). Those are the "official" Rodinals in North America. Everything else is some form of R09. At least that is my understanding.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

The entity in Canada with the distribution and naming rights for what used to be called Rodinal is "Blazes Photographic Inc."

Thus the name.

Ahhhh. That's the piece of info I was missing. Makes sense now. Thanks, Matt.