Windisch Surface Developer _ what's correct

billtroop · Aug 6, 2009

>I'll tell you how decimals get added.

Ron, of course you're right - - but the additional amounts - - potentially as much as 5-10% as Haist told me - - are seldom if ever reflected in the published formula. These amounts are for manufacturing only. Furthermore, such amounts will usually be greater, not lesser. In the incorrect D-61a we have more metol, but less HQ. Hence, it is unlikely to be a manufacturing variant.

Re D-61a, ask yourself why and for whom the formula was published?

>In the UK Kodak sold "Kodak" Sodium Carbonate as the anhydrous form I have a 1950's Tin ?3.5Kg in my chemical store.

Ian, you could buy anhydrous, of course, but monohydrate was preferred at any point that it was economical to use, because it is so much more stable. Published formulas from EK (in the US) typically use the monohydrate because there is the expectation that there may be lengthy storage of the chemical before mixing. The monohydrate is always more expensive and at present, even in the US, is quite a bit more expensive, so I expect to see its use decline. As far as I know, the least expensive source of monohydrate available in the US at present is not manufactured in the US, an additional factor to consider.

If I recall correctly, later Ansco formularies also specify the monohydrate, for the same reasons.

Ron, Ian - - have a look at the publications introducing D-25. These make clear what has always been an overriding concern for Kodak as regards any published formula: it must be easy to use, and must be proof against coarse measurement technique, including sub-lab-quality scales. This is why they seldom if ever have fractional gram amounts except for chemicals, such as KBr, where there is the expectation that, for accuracy, a 10% solution will be used.

It is abundantly clear that Kodak did not expect anyone using their published formulas to have equipment capable of measuring fractions of a gram accurately. It is buncombe to suggest otherwise.

Has anyone looked at the equipment section of PCS? Or similar in contemporaneous publications?

Shucks, it's hard enough today to find a cheap scale with reliable measuring of a tenth of a gram! (which dictates resolution to at least a hundreth of a gram)

Kodak was above all a practical company.

billtroop · Aug 6, 2009

I must just respond to this bit of silliness:

>It is rather a shame and sad that Bill Troop has to constantly try and denigrate the work of other writers, it's easy now in hindsight to criticise Jacabson, Developing, a book first published in 1940 that was already in it's 18th Edition by 1972, particularly when the FDC hasn't even reached a 2nd Edition after 11 years. The FDC had an entirely different agenda to Jacobson, Developing, so direct comparisons aren't valid, it was never written as a book of Formulae.

Focal told me that in its first year, FDC had outsold all previous books of its type. Of course FDC is meant to be a book of formulas. The difference is that it's intended to be a book of formulas done right. And good heavens, most of the research was done the old-fashioned way: in patent libraries. And if I could tell you what I spent on phone calls and travel!

Today I really understand why people like Dick Dickerson and Silvia Zawadzki never go anywhere near internet forums. You tell people something you know, and they fight you. It isn't worth it! They're not interested in information, it's all about their emotions!

Ian Grant · Aug 6, 2009

Bill, my analytical scales weighed to 5 decimal places of a gram in the lab, and the second set to 4, even, rough & readyscales to 0.01g and all had to be checked & certified every 6 moths. The 4 & 5 place scales had internal calibration.

My scales at home that I still use for all my Photochemistry are accurate to 0.01 of a gram.

The Anhydrous/Monohydrated issue is rather like Bisulphite/Metabisulphite where they aren't strictly interchangeable, Kodak published a Research paper referring to this and suggesting the approximate substitutions, it's to do with purity and different manufacture. Bisulphite isn't available as a powder in the EU.

Yes Anso specify Monohydrate, that was once the common form in the US.

By the way Bill on some websites, reviewing the FDC "they" state that you had worked for Kodak Research, is this true, or rather poor précis from an original Press release. I rather think the latter is true but those sites really are misleading people, this is someone else's fault not yours.

Ian

Photo Engineer · Aug 6, 2009

Here we go arguing about purity of photochemicals and accuracy of weights. Then Patrick weighs in.

Maybe we should use Arm and Hammer washing soda and tablespoons and be done with it!

In my formulary text books, all US publications, two of them by Kodak use different Carbonate. One specifies the monohydrate and the other the anhydrous. We stocked both in drums in chem mix, and had bottles of both Kodak and Merck on the shelves in photo grade. The difference was in the mixer. The anhydrous tended to get very hot when dissolved in water and it formed a cake at the bottom of the mixing container that had to be broken up. (this from memory).

So, I've used both at KRL and seen both in formularies.

I did remember after posting that most formulas from EK European divisions used Potassium salts, whereas formulas from the US used Sodium salts. The exceptions being Kodalk (always Na) and KI being used universally due to the instability of NaI.

PE

gainer · Aug 6, 2009

I didn't mention teaspoons. I mentioned customary methods of specifying precision to be used in measurements by the number of significant figures in the specification of amount. The specification "3 grams of X" means any number that rounds off to 3 by customary rules of rounding. Likewise, 3.1 means any amount that rounds to 3.1, which includes numbers greater than 3.05 and less than 3.15.

Scrupulosity is one thing. Mindlessly scrupulous adherence to a formula without some investigation of the results of errors in measurement, either random or consistent, is quite another. I did investigate the possible variations in D-76 measured by kitchen measuring spoons . If you read my "Kitchen Tested Soups" article of years ago in Petersen's Photographic, you would know that.

billtroop · Aug 6, 2009

>Bill, my analytical scales weighed to 5 decimal places of a gram in the lab,

It's not about you, Ian ! It's about the lowest common denominator. Don't forget that between roughly 1940 and 1960, the safety factor for film was appx 2.4x. After that, it was only 1.4x (appx). Why was it 2.4x? To prevent underexposure. What was it before 1940? Probably more, to the extent they understood speed at all before 1940 and L.A. Jones's work.

>state that you had worked for Kodak Research

It's completely untrue!!! But I don't think there's anything in a press release that gets anywhere near that.

Ian Grant · Aug 6, 2009

billtroop said:
>state that you had worked for Kodak Research

It's completely untrue!!! But I don't think there's anything in a press release that gets anywhere near that.

I'm sure that's the case because when I bought the book through Abel Books or Amazon last year the description/ details were very much along the lines of what was either on the rear Book cover or in the Preface, particularly the line about you.

Next time I come across any of the erroneous descriptions I'll forward you the links privately.

Ian

Photo Engineer · Aug 6, 2009

gainer said:
I didn't mention teaspoons. I mentioned customary methods of specifying precision to be used in measurements by the number of significant figures in the specification of amount. The specification "3 grams of X" means any number that rounds off to 3 by customary rules of rounding. Likewise, 3.1 means any amount that rounds to 3.1, which includes numbers greater than 3.05 and less than 3.15.

Scrupulosity is one thing. Mindlessly scrupulous adherence to a formula without some investigation of the results of errors in measurement, either random or consistent, is quite another. I did investigate the possible variations in D-76 measured by kitchen measuring spoons . If you read my "Kitchen Tested Soups" article of years ago in Petersen's Photographic, you would know that.

Patrick;

Your article passed far under my radar at that time. I was doing serious work at Kodak. No offence is intended, it is just related to the level of work we were each doing.

PE

gainer · Aug 6, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Patrick;

Your article passed far under my radar at that time. I was doing serious work at Kodak. No offence is intended, it is just related to the level of work we were each doing.

PE

Don't feel bad. A lot of my friends in the Langley Camera Club read my article and went out and bought more precise balances. No digital scales at that time.

I'm sure that there are cases where the difference between 3.10 and 3.00 is physically significant, but when we are using chemicals of ordinary photographic or technical grade we may have other things to worry about. There is always a need to test before serious use. Remember the XTOL problem?

I still think it is a good idea, whenever we publish a formula, to indicate by the number of significant figures in the specified amounts the tolerable error in measurement, or otherwise indicate the tolerance.

Photo Engineer · Aug 6, 2009

Patrick;

The issue here to me is that 3.1 and 3.0 may be insignificant, but the English system values are way off from either possible Metric conversion in some cases.

PE

Ian Grant · Aug 6, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Patrick;
The issue here to me is that 3.1 and 3.0 may be insignificant, but the English system values are way off from either possible Metric conversion in some cases.
PE

Are they ?

I checked the Metol, Hydroquinone, Bisulphite & Bromide of the original (your column 1) and I was extremely surprised to find they were all within 0.01 of a gram.

One problem is the Metric version of say D61a is per litre & the English version per 80 Fl Oz, but then a US Fl Oz is different so were you actually comparing to the English or American avoirdupois version and is that actually made clear in the book with the Formulae.

It's not worth doing, I think we've agreed now that the original formulae are valid in their own right.

I've never used anything but metric in practice, although I often had to report & use Troy Ounces for prices and some results when dealing with Precious metals, I knew the conversion factor off by heart to 4 decimal places.

This highlights why we use Metric

Ian

Photo Engineer · Aug 6, 2009

Ian;

See the post by Paul earlier and my post with the conversion data.

PE

Ian Grant · Aug 6, 2009

I saw it it's gibberish particulary as I don't hae your Metric and Avoirduois weights, and don't want too either.

Having UK Metric & Avoirdupois weights all I can say is they convert perfectly but God only knows who decided on the US system. At least a UK foot was based on the size of Henry the VIII'ths foot, but US measurement seem to be based on short measure

Ian

Photo Engineer · Aug 6, 2009

They were probably measuring some other organ then. Perhaps yours?

IDK.

PE

I just couldn't help myself. Sorry Ian.

wogster · Aug 6, 2009

Ian Grant said:
Are they ?

I checked the Metol, Hydroquinone, Bisulphite & Bromide of the original (your column 1) and I was extremely surprised to find they were all within 0.01 of a gram.

One problem is the Metric version of say D61a is per litre & the English version per 80 Fl Oz, but then a US Fl Oz is different so were you actually comparing to the English or American avoirdupois version and is that actually made clear in the book with the Formulae.

It's not worth doing, I think we've agreed now that the original formulae are valid in their own right.

I've never used anything but metric in practice, although I often had to report & use Troy Ounces for prices and some results when dealing with Precious metals, I knew the conversion factor off by heart to 4 decimal places.

This highlights why we use Metric

Ian

This has always been a problem, and the reason I went metric in the darkroom in the 1970's you could work in Litres or in quarts, the problem with quarts is that an Imperial quart is 1.1365225 Litres and a US quart is only 0.946 352 946 Litres and few formulae that are not from official sources will specify which is being used. The nationality of the source often does, but not always, a British publication might use US quarts and a US magazine might have a formulae using Imperial measure if the original source was Imperial and didn't specify.

Here in Canada we used imperial measure, but often chemistries from the US, including some from Kodak were in US measure, which made it too confusing to figure out what was what.

neelin · Aug 6, 2009

Ian Grant said:
This highlights why we use Metric
Ian

In Canada, to relax in the summer at home we've been going out in the back .9144 meter & putting our .3048 meter's up & sipping a .568 liter since we went metric in the 70's.

It can be wild at times French/English Metric/Imperial & all the permutations of conversions/translations make for fun in building buildings, and we won't even mention 1983 metric/imperial fuel quantity conversion fubar resulting in the world's largest glider (Boeing 767-200) landing in Gimli, MB.

robert

billtroop · Aug 6, 2009

>I checked the Metol, Hydroquinone, Bisulphite & Bromide of the original (your column 1) and I was extremely surprised to find they were all within 0.01 of a gram.

Does this mean that UK publications more or less agree but US publications don't?

It really is all too baffling. I am sure there must be one person left at Kodak who knows the story behind this. I don't know anyone in their technical documentation department now, but maybe it's worth trying to contact someone? Failing that, there must be someone among the surviving retirees who knows. While I am sure the exact constitution of D-61a is fairly unimportant to photographic history, anyone preparing a formulary in the future would want to know.

>Next time I come across any of the erroneous descriptions I'll forward you the links privately.

Many thanks!

PS. One of the articles Bob Schwalberg was working on at the time he died concerned Rodinal. Agfa had agreed to publish every formula they had used except the present one. The only thing they told Schwalberg in advance was that none of the pretend formulas for 'Rodinal' that have been published for nearly a hundred years was correct. What a might-have-been!

john_s · Aug 6, 2009

And didn't NASA have a disaster not long ago when a conversion was done incorrectly? The aeronautical people used feet and the scientists used metric. I think it was a Mars landing or something like that.

Tom Kershaw · Aug 6, 2009

Bill,

Reading through various threads on APUG I understand that the "previously latest" version of Rodinal is no longer available.

Tom.

wogster · Aug 6, 2009

neelin said:
In Canada, to relax in the summer at home we've been going out in the back .9144 meter & putting our .3048 meter's up & sipping a .568 liter since we went metric in the 70's.

It can be wild at times French/English Metric/Imperial & all the permutations of conversions/translations make for fun in building buildings, and we won't even mention 1983 metric/imperial fuel quantity conversion fubar resulting in the world's largest glider (Boeing 767-200) landing in Gimli, MB.

robert

I don't know I still refer to the back yard as a backyard, and still put my feet into shoes, although a pint may be in fact .568L I don't think I ever actually called a bottle of beer that, no matter the size. As for Gimli that's not metrics fault, it's the fuel handlers fault for not making sure of the units, assuming that you are loading imperial gallons, when if fact your loading US gallons can create just as much of a problem. In fact probably more of a problem considering that nobody refers to it by the full name, but just uses the term gallons. Don't forget there are thousands of flights everyday, and that was, IIRC a one time occurrence.

Ian Grant · Aug 7, 2009

billtroop said:
Does this mean that UK publications more or less agree but US publications don't?

Bill, I've never checked a US formulae to see if the Metric/Avoirdupois agree, the Metric weights are identical I have checked them for similar aged UK & US publications. The UK weights Metric & Avoirdupois came from the Research Department themselves, so it's perhaps not surprising the conversions are accurate.

We don't know who did the conversions for the US publications, and they aren't a simple weight conversion, which would have be done with conversion tables anyway, as the volumes differ so figures need adjustment. It's easy for us now with a computer or calculator.

billtroop said:
It really is all too baffling. I am sure there must be one person left at Kodak who knows the story behind this. I don't know anyone in their technical documentation department now, but maybe it's worth trying to contact someone? Failing that, there must be someone among the surviving retirees who knows. While I am sure the exact constitution of D-61a is fairly unimportant to photographic history, anyone preparing a formulary in the future would want to know.

Even a 20 year old of that time (around 1940) would now be 89 !! and any one directly involved in decisions on the formulae themselves would surely have been much older. So anyone alive is likely to only have second hand knowledge.

billtroop said:
PS. One of the articles Bob Schwalberg was working on at the time he died concerned Rodinal. Agfa had agreed to publish every formula they had used except the present one. The only thing they told Schwalberg in advance was that none of the pretend formulas for 'Rodinal' that have been published for nearly a hundred years was correct. What a might-have-been!

There's also Kodak's Kodelon sold both as p-Aminophenol Oxalate and p-Aminophenol Hydrochloride, Ilford's Certinal, others like Azol etc.

The WWII era formulae for Rodinal was published in the F.I.A.T. Report and is supposed to be accurate, Agfa's designated number was R09 which continued with the Orwo range after the war, 08 is a Glycin based developer and 10 is a 2 part p-Aminophenol dev, with high Sulphite & high Carbonate.

Clerc published a few Rodinal "type" formulae in 1940, but there have been a great many others over the years, many companies made an equivalent.

Ian

Ian Grant · Aug 7, 2009

Tom Kershaw said:
Bill,
Reading through various threads on APUG I understand that the "previously latest" version of Rodinal is no longer available.
Tom.

It is still available and made to exactly the same formula in the same former Agfa factory, with the same machinery etc, the problem is the company no longer sells it or distributes themselves except in bulk batches.

The situation is complex as Agfa let their Trade names lapsed. J&C owned "Rodinal" in the US, John will still own it even though J&C is gone.

Mirko (Fotoimpex) has posted on APUG & his own site that the situation with Agfa Trade names, cost of licensing and these other issues mean that the name Rodinal has been dropped, he's selling it as Adox Adonal, in Canada it's now called Blazonal.

So now each distributor buys "Rodinal" in bulk and then has it packed under their own names, other products such as Neutol WA are also now sold under different house names.

Extremely confusing.

Ian

Tom Kershaw · Aug 7, 2009

Does "Rodinal" become Rodinal at any point during the distribution process? http://macodirect.de/rodinalbr4x-500ml-p-452.html - this link refers to a 4 x 500ml packaging of what is still referred to on macodirect.de as Agfa Rodinal. Additionally I note that both macodirect.de and UK dealers such as RK Photographic still list Agfa black & white chemistry. I do note however the E6 Agfa process 44 kit that came with my Jobo no longer appears to be available. It is an impressive kit as it was still working a couple of months ago, even though the kit was probably from around 2004.

Tom

DutchShooter · Aug 7, 2009

In the Netherlands, I recently bought Rodinal, made by A&O, with an Agfa Rodinal label... :S

Ian Grant · Aug 7, 2009

I think the change over is really only happening at the moment as new batches are made. A&O who manufacture Agfa chemistry have pulled out of the consumer market but there may well still be large stocks available for some time with their name etc on it.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) says, then look what brand names Freestyle and B&H are using in the US for Rodinal & Neutol WA etc.

Mirko is at least is straight forward & honest, unlike some other companies, he has made another post somewhere on APUG explaining why the Agfa product names are being dropped.

Ian

Windisch Surface Developer _ what's correct

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency