Attacks diminish us all!
Back to the OP Ian. In it, you mention the Agfa antifoggant which is unidentified. In my readings of the BIOS reports, I found that all ingredients were completely identified in the appendices unless marked "Hier ist unbekannt" in parenthetical note next to each use of the compound or mixture ID #.
So, I assume that either of these were / are present in your copy of the BIOS reports. If the compound is not identified in either manner, then this is actually a truly glaring first for the reports. And, the "Hier is unbekannt" is a grave copout on the part of the interviewer. If I were interviewing a major plant manager and he said that to me, I would march him to the safe for the key to the chemical names. All Kodak names are cross indexed that way and I could find them. In fact, some BIOS reports did admit to finding the complete names of all of the emulsion chemicals but one. That one was the famous tank car that was filled with an unknown organic on a siding at the Agfa plant and no one would talk about it.
So, can you identify it for us or let us know what the BIOS report said about it in detail?
Ron it's rather a long time since I read most of the data, I'd guess 1977 :) most of which was in Glafkides, I haven't seen the owner of the books or documents for at least 10 years and then only in passing and briefly. He worked for me as a consultant for a year or so and had a lot of material which had come from his mother, she was French & a member of the Lumiere family. At that point I was really mainly interested in the emulsions.
The only data I have to hand here is in the first post in this thread andwas taken from the British RAF report, this was separate and done after the US team had left the factory, I have been trying to get hold of a copy again, ironically of the two APUG members I know who have copies one has disappeared, like Tom Hoskinson, & the other lent his copy to an Agfa salesman, but is trying to get it back. It should of course be in the major UK reference libraries as it was a Government publication.
I have some Agfa Wolfen material waiting for me on my next trip back to the UK, so I'll see what antifoggants they were using, I also have copies of some of the data on film, shot back in 77, I'll try and find a way of scanning it, so it is possible I have more than I think here in Turkey. I'll look at the emulsions too because there maybe a reference to antifoggant there.
There was only one reference to antifoggants in the emulsion section IIRC. It was so insoluable in water that I have had trouble with it duplicating Agfa results. It recrystallizes in the emulsion when diluted from the alcohol solvent to the water based emulsion. Therefore, I doubt if it was the one. I don't have my data cards here right now to give the name, but it is so inexpensive, I tried it before I went on to the rarer ones that I used at EK.
Ron, the RAF formula is almost exactly the same proportions of p-Aminophenol to sulphite & hydroxide as the Andresen 1900's version allowing for the conversion of the metabisulphite with the hydroxide.
It's essentially the same formula so it's unlikely the organic anti-foggant is particularly special, and the bromide level's only around 0.77%, So the only significant difference is the free base rather than the hydrochloride.
I have had correspondence now with Dr Schneour but he's unable to comment on whether he thinks the free base or hydrochloride form is correct.
Interestingly in the Agfa officially published formulae of 1903-1910 that I've looked at Rodinal is always referred to as a Paramidophenol developer (of an alkali salt) and their others as Paramidophenol Hydrochloride-Hydroquinone Developer and the 3 or 4 sources I have all say the same.
Ian - do you have the Agfa Factory Wolfen Reports in your pdf collection? Could I get a copy of them. I've been looking all over trying to find copies of them. I think we've emailed in the past so you should have my email, if not PM me.
I don't take this quote as being negative:
"Bill Troop has been very well connected to a lot of people in photography over the years and was heavily engaged with developers at Kodak in Rochester. He accumulated a significant amount of subjective information and has pretty much pushed it all right into this book. It's prefect for the darkroom enthusiast who is intrigued with historic processes and how they might effect ones creative options. Note that this is not an instructional book for beginners but something more targeted at the advanced enthusiast whose interest has grown beyond the use of commonly available processes."
And, having talked with Grant Haist, I find that he feels that Bill has captured their interviews quite well. So, I feel comfortable with the rest of the information myself. I am probably the only person here on APUG that has talked to Haist, James, Dickerson, Zawadski, Glafkides, Henn, Lee, Gilman, Pontius, Willis and a host of others in person about some of these topics.
I would add that seeing two historians battle it out over history is rather stressful, and to me it is, from my perspective, like seeing two modern physicians arguing over a copy of a papyrus contemporary with Ipuwer which gives methods of trepanning. Modern formulas are of more import to me. And, to add to this, I might say that I find that the variations in the Windisch, Crawley and Rodinal formulas that we have seen here may be explained or made necessary by the evolution of film emulsions. I have speculated here that Crawley HA developers may fail with some modern emulsions and I have developed a rather extensive theory as to the reasons. From this, I can reason out improved versions and also may even reason out and try an improved Rodinal.
And this is all while you all fuss over formulas that are 50+ years old. I know you are an archaeologist but there is still much to look to the future and work towards.
Kirk, no problem as soon as I'm back in the UK I'll try and sort you out a copy. all I ask is please don't pass it on.
To shorten the sentence a bit, it says that "Bill was heavily engaged with developers at Kodak in Rochester".
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
If I didn't know the history of how Bill put the book together, I would read that sentence as saying that Bill worked on film developers at Kodak in Rochester.
The use of the word "developers" is confusing. The book is about film developers, so it's only natural for the reader to think that the word "developer" in that sentence is referring to film developers. And, appearantly, not the people that actually designed the developers. That is, the developers of the developers. Is that less confusing?
But most importantly, isn't that quote from a "independant" reviewer of the FDC on Amazon? See the comment by John Douglas (Nashville, TN USA). Isn't he's the J&C Photo guy? He's an upstanding member of the photo community, right? I think we need to blame John for that ambiguous statement.
Anyway, we can't fault Bill for that quote.
No problem with those terms, and thanks!
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
I forgot to say that was the 1994 Nov/Dec issue.
Originally Posted by gainer