I would hate to condemn a book that has done a great service to our community, because one reference has changed his goals and work area in the years since the book was published.
I must admit to knowing both authors to some extent, but I used the book for quite a while before I met either of them and I found it useful but not perfect. Nothing is!
I'd add something here not directly related to this thread or any book mentioned in it.
I worked with someone once who told me how he wrote his Degree Thesis/Dissertation (History of Art) about a painter, he totally fabricated the quotes and references he attributed to one particular source. When I last visited the US I was told by a very senior Company Vice President (ex Kodak) to tell the same person how he to was about to get his MBA. I'm afraid at that point I told the truth, my work colleague had no MBA, he wasn't actually bright enough to get on a course.
A quote or reference has to be totally verifiable or it's completely worthless. In our own fields of higher academic research many of us did/do follow up references made.
We have quite a large number of people on APUG with post Graduate Degree's and a significant number of Professors, so quotes & citations etc need to be accurate.
This could go on forever. Just because, 10 years or so later, a particular reference refuses to comment on old work does not mean much to me. Many of my friends are the same. They refuse to comment here or to me when I ask them things that are vague in my memory. So, your entire premise to me is faulty.
In addition, I have verification that these conversations did take place. Grant Haist confirmed not only the nature of the conversations but the content and time period. So, I have to say that you are not being fair in this situation.
In addition, if two authors are involved, the senior author is responsible for the veracity (or for verifying) the data as well as the other author. So, this whole thing appears to be an unfair attack to me. I have used the book and found it was a worthwhile investment.
There is absolutely no evidence that the quote in question is inaccurate, merely that the person quoted is no longer interested in responding.
I agree that a verifiable quote or reference is most desirable, but unfortunately not every last one can always be confirmed. That - in and of it self - does not invalidate their intrinsic value. There are many references one cannot locate due to any number of reasons. Cost, typing errors, rarity/ limited distribution, total destruction due to wars... and what about pc... "personal communication"? People die as well as forget.
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
I am not taking sides here, I think everyone has truth by the tail, hand or foot....
Can we come back on topic.
My contact with Dr Dr Shneour was to try and find out more about Rodinal, and to hopefully tie up what I've found in 1930's Agfa Patents relating to additives to a p-Aminophenol developers and the mystery additive mentioned in the FIAT reports.
None of this information has been published in any books or articles, and I had hoped that Dr Shneour might have been able to shed some further light on this in view of any analysis he's done of Rodinal.
Other than a CAS # and synthesis for the desensitizer,
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
I am not so sure there is that much mystery. ;)
I wouldn't expect the Professor Dr. to know those things from a simple study.
More interesting is the question of how the developer behaves without it...
Is there any evidence of problems with the simple rodinal formulas?
I don't see the sense of trying to duplicate one particular formula if other,
similar formulas work just as well.
You make a good point Ray.
Rodinal is unique in that no other developing agent keeps as well in such a high alkali concentrate. Sometimes understanding how a particular developer functions triggers/sparks ideas for others.
As the Agfa Patents are cited in even quite recent Patents, or cross linked through others to Ilford, Fuji and Kodak it appears that the anti-oxidant used is quite important.
The simple Rodinal type formula has been reported to cause Dichroic fog with some emulsions. This may have become a problem as emulsion speeds were improved, there are quite a number of Patent's many not so easy to access, and some would need translation.
The problem with Dichroic fogging reared it's head again when Kodak released Tmax Developer, which isn't recommended for sheet film use for this reason.
On the strength of Ian's advice in this article I have prepared a substitute using the last formula he listed. 45% solution of potassium sulfite is easy to get so I adjusted for a 1 liter bottle and adjusted the hydroxide to provide a pH of 13. It appears to work exactly the same as the Agfa Rodinal I have, whether it's their exact formula or not, it's really good and I am happy with it.
Thanks to Ian Grant
Ianol makes 1.3 L
p-Aminophenol (free base) ................... 53 g
Potassium sulfite 45% sol...................... 1L
Potassium Hydroxide ........................... 54 g
Potassium Bromide ............................. 13 g
Benzotriazole 1% ............................... 13 ml
Water to make .................................. 1.3 L
Stock pH 13
I like this for stand development in a Jobo drum, use 20g stock in 2 Liters of water, agitate briefly and develop for one hour..good with TMY, TriX, Delta, FP4 and nice with Rollei Retro 100,
Why do you make 1.3L of stock (that won't fit in any standard commercial container) rather than 1L?
Originally Posted by eclarke
Why do you specify the amount of stock solution by weight rather than by volume?
Originally Posted by eclarke
Because I can buy liter bottles of 45% potassium sulfite solution and the dry ingredient, which I can't get calls for 348g. I recalculated to just dump a liter of 45% as opposed to having 102 cc left over. I have all kinds of containers..no problems with storing it.
Originally Posted by Leigh B
I weigh extremely dilute working strength developer because it's just accurate..14cc in a graduate is pretty fickle..If you want to measure, it's 14 cc in 2 liters of water.