Looking into trying Rodinal and have a few questions.

[timor]

do you develop in what ?

 

[Ornello]

do you develop in what ?

Mostly FX-39 1+14. The last thing on earth I would use is Rodinal. It is the worst developer of all time.

 

[timor]

Where are you getting that ?

 

[timor]

OK, I see it at Freestyle...

 

[Ornello]

Where are you getting that ?

I believe there are several sources. It is no longer marketed by Paterson, and is now sold by Adox.

ADOX FX 39

Adox FX-39 Film Developer - 500ml | Freestyle Photographic Supplies

Adox FX-39 Film Developer - 500ml

 

[timor]

Some confusing info at Freestyle site about the origin of that formula.

 

[Ornello]

Some confusing info at Freestyle site about the origin of that formula.

It has nothing to do with Beutler's efforts.

 

[limr]

I tried Rodinal once...
tasted terrible.
not recommended.

I think production costs forced the manufacturer to reduce the amount of flavor crystals.

 

[timor]

Some confusing info at Freestyle site about the origin of that formula.

It has nothing to do with Beutler's efforts.

That's what I was thinking...

 

[Ornello]

Some confusing info at Freestyle site about the origin of that formula.

It has nothing to do with Beutler's efforts.

That's what I was thinking...

Beutler's developers used high-ph alkali and very low concentrations of developing agents and sulphite. Most of Crawley's formulas are derived from Adox MQ borax formula, which is a variant of the d-76 formula. See:

http://www.subclub.org/darkroom/develop2.htm

 

[timor]

FX 37 doesn't look anything like D 76. And first time I see Beutler formula with potassium iodide

 

[Ornello]

FX 37 doesn't look anything like D 76

Well, it's an evolution of it, and I was referring to Crawley's own statements on the matter. You can look in old copies of the British Journal of Photography from the 1970s and 80s. Look up FX3, FX4, FX7, FX11, FX15 and FX18.

Crawley believed (and I agree) that straight D-76 is too active, and not as sharp as it could be.

Look closely at this image (an extreme blow-up), and note the slight increase of density of the dark areas adjacent to bright ones, and vice versa. The effect is subtle, but real.

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/006/006xoB-15979984.jpg

I don't remember which film this is, but the developer was either Acutol or FX-39.

 

[timor]

Yes, but then many were trying to improve on known formulas and one can always say that the start was this or that. D76 itself was a failure with it intended target.
What about that picture ? I see, what you saying, but this only occurs on the border between shadow and strong highlight, not in shadows or highlights.So, what is this effect ?

 

[Ornello]

Yes, but then many were trying to improve on known formulas and one can always say that the start was this or that. D76 itself was a failure with it intended target.
What about that picture ? I see, what you saying, but this only occurs on the border between shadow and strong highlight, not in shadows or highlights.So, what is this effect ?

What do you mean by 'D76 itself was a failure with its intended target.'? D-76 has been very successful since its formulation in 1927, when it was introduced for motion-picture film. Straight D-76 is perhaps a bit too strong for modern 35mm films, leading to excessive contrast and less than ideal sharpness. Films of today are much finer-grained than what was available in 1927, so reduction of graininess is of less importance. D-76 1:1 works very well, though, and can serve as an almost ideal developer.

The effect you see is called an 'adjacency effect'. There are several varieties, including the Eberhard effect, which is of importance in astrophotography. Rodinal does this too (in fact, most developers do) but Rodinal is a crude formulation compared to more modern formulas such as Crawley's. Crawley tried to balance all the properties to provide better speed, fine grain, and excellent sharpness.

These 'adjacency effects' give an enhanced impression of sharpness, and are useful to counter-act the loss of sharpness in enlarging caused by diffraction.

 

[timor]

D 76 was formulated for motion picture industry, proved to be inconsistent and inside 2 years was replaced by D 96. So, the several tons Kodak still had in warehouses Kodak sold for bargain price to still photography suckers that proved to be a success. Remember, that at the time most amateurs only contact printed, Leica was still in the beginnings.
I have no knowledge of astrophotography. How this effect is important there ?
On the other hand what apertures are you using for printing ?