Comparability of Orwo R09 and today's Rodinal (or identical)

michael-kielgmxnet · 2012-09-10T07:59:50+00:00

Hallo zusammen, ich habe eine Frage bzgl. der Vergleichbarkeit der Angaben zum Orwo R09 (= Ur-Rodinal) und dem heutigen Rodinal bzw. dessen baugleichen Able...

michael-kielgmxnet

Hello everyone, I have a question regarding the comparability of the specifications for Orwo R09 (= the original Rodinal) and today’s Rodinal, or its equivalents. The R09 data sheet specifies a dilution of 1+40. Is this comparable to the 1+50 dilution used with today’s Rodinal, or would I also need to dilute to 1+40 to achieve comparable development times? The reason for my question is that I would like to develop an Orwo NP 15 in Rodinal. However, this film is no longer listed in the data sheets for the more modern developers, only in that of the Orwo R09. There, a time of 9 minutes at 1+40 is specified. Best regards, Michael

MirkoBoeddecker

Hello Michael, The APH09 is the R09, but about seven years ago we insisted that an improved raw material should be used to achieve the same development times as with Rodinal (as it was known back then). So, as you suspected, the R09 development sheet’s time specification for 1+40 applies to 1+50 for the APH09. Best regards, Mirko

michael-kielgmxnet

Hi Mirko, Thanks so much for the quick help. I’m already looking forward to seeing how the film with a best-before date of 1991 turns out. I’ll give Rodinal 1+100 a go, and add a little ‘safety margin’ to the development time.

piu58

> a small "safety margin" at this stage This is not recommended. Rodinal does not tolerate overdevelopment.

michael-kielgmxnet

I thought that, given the higher base fog I’m expecting, a bit more contrast couldn’t do any harm. On the other hand, blown-out highlights aren’t exactly what I’m aiming for either. Is a 10% increase (i.e. 20 minutes instead of 18) already considered critical?

piu58

NP 15 is very steep to begin with. Ideally, you’d need to use overexposure and develop it gently. I never really got on with this film back then (30 years ago).

michael-kielgmxnet

Right, the film has been developed. My settings were: Rodinal 1+100, development time 20 minutes at 18 °C. The negatives look good – rich in detail but not too contrasty. There’s no sign of increased base fog, which does surprise me a bit given the age of the films. The scanning will have to wait a bit, as the film strips are curling quite badly. So they’ll have to spend a few days under some heavy books first, so that my film scanner can handle them.

MirkoBoeddecker

There’s no sign of increased base fog, which does surprise me a bit given the age of the films.

Low-speed emulsions are more stable than high-speed ones. Besides, an NP 15 produced in the GDR surely still contains some of those ‘good’ stabilisers that the hypochondriacs at the EU took away from us by decree a good 15 years ago :-( Best regards, Mirko

GeorgK

Strictly speaking, this is untitled, but whenever this topic comes up, my toenails curl up just like other people’s negatives do... What’s the point of flattening negatives under ‘heavy books’, apart from pressing dust and the like into the emulsion? Flat is flat, whether there’s a single 100-page glossy magazine on top or half the bookcase. It doesn’t offer any additional benefit, even if you sit on them... It is far more effective and gentler to roll them up in the opposite direction, either the film as a whole immediately after drying (secured with a peg), or the cut negatives in storage sheets – wrap a rubber band round them and leave them like that for a few hours to a few days (as required). Georg

michael-kielgmxnet

Strictly speaking, this is untitled, but whenever this topic comes up, my toenails curl up just like other people’s negatives do... What’s the point of flattening negatives under ‘heavy books’, apart from pressing dust and the like into the emulsion? Flat is flat, whether there’s a single 100-page glossy magazine on top or half the bookcase. It doesn’t offer any additional benefit, even if you sit on it...

I’ve never had any problems with dust getting pressed in, and the method works, so I’ve got no reason to stop doing it. The main problem for me is the longitudinal curl, i.e. the negative strips bulging out. My film scanner can’t cope with that at all.