Who is Dr Elie Scheour "of Agfa", (or rather who your readers assume is from Agfa, as he's not) ?
I quote "According to Bill Troop, Agfa's Elie Shneour provided the following mixing instructions for what is generally agreed to be, for all intents and purposes, Rodinal." and another "According to Elie Shneour of Agfa, the original Rodinal". I have to admit that I assumed he was probably from Agfa when I first read the FDC.
Agfa, Bayer & A&O have published far more accurate MSDS's than the one you quote.
Even the original Agfa Rodinal could be used at 1+100 it's in the 1910 Agfa books etc used for papers at that dilution, and the modern version while it contains approx 20% less p-Aminophenol will work well at 1+ 100 because of the higher pH. The increased Sulphite helps with the stability of the modern developer.
Edward Zimmermann is particularly authoritative about Rodinal, and knows his facts, and I tend to agre with all he's written on the subject.
Ian, where are you quoting from? You don't say. Certainly not from my book. Can I suggest you buy a copy and keep it in your overnight luggage? It would save a lot of trouble when you're 'quoting' from it. Alternatively, you could learn to use Google Books. Like I've said before, think before you post. I do! You're not, I must say, displaying the signs of a good researcher. By the way, have you -- or anyone you know -- done any spectrographic analysis of Rodinal? Shneour, a well-known biochemist, has, and has shared his results with me.
Regarding something Ed Zimmerman wrote about me and Rodinal on the Net in 2003
which is practically indistinguishable from this thread, but go ahead and read it to prove Nietzsche's doctrine of the Eternal Recurrence of the Same -- and while away some more time not taking good photos, I asked Dr Schneour to comment, and he did as follows:
'I have read the exchanges about "Rodinal". These consist mainly of flailings about its formula (actually a whole bunch of them) which in the last analysis mean nothing in today's world. There are at least two outstanding issues regarding "Rodinal". One of them is the variations in the actual early formula which were made almost continuously and thus it is today difficult to discern which of these variants was the actual "original" formula. The other issue is that one of the remarkable properties of "Rodinal" was its long life before dilution for use. The caveat to this long life was (and is) that its developing properties change importantly but subtly as a function of time and storage conditions, to say nothing about the quality of the water used in the dilution for use. The formula I have settled on and which is listed in the now classic Anchell & Troop "The Film Deevloping Cookbook" is stored at about 15 degrees Celsius after compounding and is "marinated" for six months before first use. When compared to an old version (about 1936) it is undistinguishable for my uses. The conclusion must be that the arguments about "Rodinal" and its successor(s) will remain controversial because there are so many versions and so many usage and storage variations as to make any emotional discussion about that developer unproductive and a total waste of time. Instead, if you work with monochrome photography, make or buy the stuff, work out your best combination of variables and be productive rather than engage in idle chatter signifying nothing.'
I've seen it all before. I actually like Ed Zimmerman, who is very intelligent if irascible, but he and Ian both belong to that class of pestiferous readers who submerge themselves in the exquisite frustration of not having written a book that someone else has written. They then spend a substantial part of their lives making that author's life as miserable as possible, instead of letting him get on with his work, much less getting on with their own. I have noticed before that the impulse to create one's own work is not really compatible with the impulse to criticize other people's work. That's probably one reason why Ian hasn't written a book about photochem.
Bill, I have the FDC beside me. On pages 57 & 117 the mention of Schneour is very ambiguous because you don't say who he is and his name only ever crops up in relation to you & Rodinal. Gerald Koch, who's opinions I respect is the source of the second quote which is here on APUG.
If Elie Schneour has definitive data on Rodinal where is it ? I could have done spectrographic analysis on Rodinal & other developers lf but in fact it's quite difficult to determine what's in a compouded developer. I had two Varian AA Spectrometers in the lab I ran, and access to other instruments as we worked closely with 2 or 3 other labs specialising in different testing methods, however as Ron (PE) could confirm some elements or salts are difficult to detect and measure. Getting a full analysis done is extremely expensive.
I'd request you don't turn threads like this on APUG into the ill tempered and bitter threads that you've taken part in so many times before on various forums.
I don't doubt that the formula published by Agfa themselves in Andresen's book is the closest formula to Rodinal that Agfa has ever published. (Which is the formula in the FDC). Other people may have been closer to the mark.
Ian, you are correct about cost to an extent and correct about difficulty to an extent. At EK, analysis of any processing solution or emulsion (or coating for that matter) was routine and a snap. I got back analyses on all of my processing solutions before and after use if they were experimental. In fact, such analyses are essential for determining how to work out seasoning and balance (see my post on steady state).
As an additional factor here, analysis is essential for patent infringement work and thus all competitor products are analyzed in great detail. This extensive work reduces the cost to being minimal.
Another factor with Rodinal would be the tests show what's in the developer once matured, rather than the chemistry used to make it.
So the early Andresen published formula and both R09 & modern Rodinal would show Sulphite while in fact the first uses Metabisulphite and wouldn't test for the full hydroxide content that would need to be added.
Again it would be almost impossible to determine what form the p-Aminophenol was in when added.
Sorry, Gerald has got it wrong - - and anyone who wants to know who Dr Shneour is has only to look him up on Google. Ian, are you looking for facts in Internet posts? You'll find they're few and far between, because few people will actually spend an hour or two thinking, researching, and drafting before they post. At that point, you have to wonder - - for what? As you'll see from the previous thread cited, on which Dr Shneour permitted me to quote him, it's all been said and done before! Why repeat it every five years? In any case, whatever he may have learned when he analyzed the developer would only have been true for that iteration of it. He remains the only person I know who actually has done the work. You can talk all you like about the difficulty, ambiguity, expense etc. and how much equipment you may once have had and no longer do, but Shneour is the only guy I know who actually did it. HE DID IT !!! I wish you people would actually do things!!! Patrick comes in for a lot of flak, but I so admire that he actually keeps his hand in.
For the record, I suggested to Ed Zim back in 2003 and in an email this morning, that these questions can be answered once for all - - by him - - by the simple expedient of his looking up the right people and talking to them. Six years have elapsed, and no action. I also suggested that what attracts people to these cyclical discussions of Rodinal is precisely that they don't know. That's the allure. In the meantime, were anyone from Agfa reading this - - I'm sure they aren't - - they'd be dying of laughter. I don't think you guys really want to know about Rodinal. It's the not knowing, the 'cloud of unknowing' - - that gets you. I can sympathize - - I can empathize - - up to a point. I feel your pain!
Then where is Dr Elie Sheours data ? There's nothing inthe thread you quoted. You never answer question.
Something smells very fishy here :D
If Dr Elie Shneour is THE expert on Rodinal (which for all we known he might well be) then surely he would have known & told Troop that the formula in the FDC was actually one published by Andresen & Agfa themselves at the start of the 20th C.
It's rather like the "Authentic" formula for Edwal Super 20, and a few others.
>Then where is Dr Elie Sheours data ?
You'll have to ask him for that, Ian. Nicely. And don't show him this thread, or he won't talk to you. Also fyi, he doesn't like people who can't spell his name.
You know folks, what gets me through a day of having to deal with the Ian Grants of this world is that I remember the civility and respect that I was accorded by people like Henn, Haist, TH James, Crawley, HD Russell, Mason, Dickerson, Zawadzki, etc. What a contrast! Such nice people! And what a lot of work they did! It's the wannabes, or I guess, really, the woulda-coulda-beens, that give you all the trouble in this world.
>Something smells very fishy here
If I've told you once, I've told you a hundred times, Ian, not to eat herring for breakfast!
Hey Kirk, what did you predict even more name dropping :D
We've got you sussed Bill you attack as a means of defence .