• 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

RODINAL! You lucky Americans..

Terry Christian said:
$7 + shipping for a kit that makes 250mL of stock? Wow, that's no cheaper than a bottle of the real thing, if you can get it.
Click to expand...

It's more expensive as Rodjnal sells for $13 at 500ml, his would be $14 for 2 packs (500ml) and you have to mix it, and it's probably not Rodinal it's probably that Tylenol/aspirin whatever it is version... Lol
 
pdeeh said:
I'm just finishing a bottle of APH09, about 18 months after opening it.
No bottom goo, no problems ever in fact.
Click to expand...


I quote myself to note that I finally finally finished the bottle tonight ... and it was dead as a doornail, not even a whisper of an edge code on my Acros, less than a month after I last used it when it produced perfectly well developed negatives.

So, in my house at least, APH09 lasts a quite long time, but not indefinitely, and then dies suddenly



The eBay kit, I imagine, is being produced and sold by KennyE; he ought to be careful, calling it Rodinal and advertising it with a picture of a Rodinal bottle ...
 

Stone was not talking about under funded pensions being safe. That's a big difference.

Personally I think Kodak Alaris will fail as a film producer, but not as an entire entity. So the KPP retirees should be OK in the long run.
 
Another Rodinal pop-up. Thread put on ignore list. No contempt towards Rodinal fanboys intended. Good luck with that. If that stuff be your preference and they still make it these days, I'm glad for you. I'll use my Microdol and if I want Rodinal effects, I'll just sprinkle salt and pepper on my negative before enlarging it.
 
KA's merely markets EK's film cause it has been some time since eg their Harrow factory has coated film.

When EK stops film the KA can rebadge or start up manufacture but a start up similar to 'impossible' seems unlikely for practical Ie investment/future sales reasons.
 

The title is Rodinal, if you don't like it you shouldn't have followed in the first place! Lol
 

Yes but which salt? Standard table? Iodized? Some of that pink Tibetan sea salt they sell now were you grind out the little chips of salt for each use? My god this matters!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Richard Sintchak (rich815) said:
Yes but which salt? Standard table? Ionized? Some of that pink Tibetan sea salt they sell now were you grind out the little chips of salt for each use? My god this matters!!!
Click to expand...

Ionized salt ??!:w00t:
 
StoneNYC said:
It sounds essentially like glass plates... Simply placed into a lantern... You can make your own... Unexposed lantern slides that are old would be like shooting film that's old
Click to expand...


Do you actually mean that Kodak no longer makes lantern slide plates? Where has the time gone? The ones that I once used were (if my memory still works) somewhere around 3 1/2" x 5" and coated with, what seemed like, a Kodabromide emulsion. They were exposed by contact printing or under the enlarger and we developed them in Dektol under the safelight just like any normal photo paper. The ones we used definitely WERE NOT FILM. I am sure that someone of you have had experience with other types. Koday also made and sold lantern-slide cover glass. I'll bet if Rodinal can be used as a paper developer, it would be great used with lantern slides......Regards
 
I swear, if they could they'd include "good for drinking" and "Makes your coffee taste better"...
 
Curt said:
I wish I hadn't thrown out all those Agfa Rodinal glass bottles from the seventies and eighties and...

Bring back the glass campaign!
Click to expand...

"Rodinal Retro Edition", glass bottles with 1920's labels. That would be nice, but glass is heavy and difficult to ship by mail.
 
Where is the comparison negative?
 
ic-racer said:
Where is the comparison negative?
Click to expand...

Because I wasn't trying to prove a deductive assertion, but rather trying to disprove an implied assertion, it wasn't necessary.

NB23 said:
I have a request: Write on the bottle that Stand development is NOT recommended and that it shall not be spread around as a valid and official development (sloppy) technique.
Click to expand...

Tom1956 said:
If I see one more Rodinal stand development thread on the internet, I'm gonna barf.
Click to expand...

In other words, the assertion implied by the above two quotes was that it is not possible to produce a successful negative using the stand development protocol. It should never be recommended, and any discussion of it as a successful technique makes one barf.

I merely offered an example of a print created from a negative produced by that very method that, at least according to the subsequent comments of a few gallery viewers, seemed to meet the threshold of success. As I recall, the Blind Print Exchange recipient liked the print as well.

I was attempting to disprove a negative, not to prove a positive. When one claims never, all it takes is a single valid exception to disprove that claim. The comparison was against the never claim, not against a different physical negative.



Ken
 
Ken, your logic is impeccable!

Nevertheless, a lot of people are having problems with stand development.

PE
 
Photo Engineer said:
Ken, your logic is impeccable!

Nevertheless, a lot of people are having problems with stand development.
Click to expand...

And I have wondered why I didn't. Or if the exact same result (or a better result) may have been realized using a different agitation scheme. Or if the horizontal orientation of the developing negative played a part in reducing the chances of bromide drag. Or if 1+200 dilution reduces the effect of drag. Or, or...

My setup was overkill. An 11x14 stainless steel tray clamped by the edges and held mostly submerged up to the lip in an oversized tempering water bath. The bath was trickle-fed from a Hass Intellifaucet. The faucet temperature set point and the ambient room temperature were identical at 68F/20C. The room itself has its own small vertical mixing fan which was in use. Everything was allowed to thermally stabilize beforehand.

The idea was to minimize temperature-driven eddy currents. I placed the 8x10 negative in a Kodak SS hanger, dunked it into the tray emulsion side up, hand agitated (submerged figure-eight swirling) for 60 seconds, centered the hanger in the tray, and sat down for 60 minutes to wait. I listened to the radio while I waited.

At 60 minutes I raised and drip-drained the hanger, then followed up with a short stop, fix, and wash aid in my normal 8x10 stainless tank line. The tank line is also water-jacketed and was also being fed by the Intellifauct. Nothing fancy, really.

However, after reading about other's difficulties, I'm not so sure I'd try stand processing with roll film oriented vertically in a spiral tank. Or even 4x5s held vertically in my Nikor 4x5 cage tank.

Ken
 
Ken keep it up. You saved me from drinking the 10 bottles I just bought.

I stand by it.

But, I am working on gaseous burst.

Just a couple more bits to gather....
 
I think the point is lots of people have problems with any sort of development or fixing.

I normally from '65 or so use stand 1:100 in a Patterson 3x, 5x or 8x multi tank, cept when I'm on holiday and I use an Agfa daylight tank. So I get some convection...

So the objectors are religious/political dogma in nature, as in Millers allegoric play the crucible...
 

Attachments

  • bath-darkroom2kopie.jpg
    346.2 KB · Views: 393
Last edited by a moderator:
I know the thread is a bit old by some standards but thought I'd interject my 2 cents. Rodinal and FP-4 work superb together be it 120 or 35mm film. I used it way back decades ago with FP-4 and Agfapan 400 and loved it. I was glad to see it available again and bought a bottle(500ml) from Freestyle recently and used it 1:75 with FP-4 as a test since I didn't know if either had changed since I first used it. I was pleasantly surprised it seemed neither had.

In 6x7 format with FP-4 it approaches 4x5 quality, IMHO. This shot made with Agfapan 400 and Rodinal in 120.

img018a by David Fincher, on Flickr
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register