That is not the understanding that one gets from their catalog entry. They don't even try the fiction that the formulas are similar. Forgive me but I think companies are entitled to protection of their tradenames. AFAIK the two developers have never had the same formula. I do agree that some people may erroneously equate them. Perhaps this is an opportunity for PF to educate its customers.
My understanding is the "real" Neofin Blau contained Catechol. I could be wrong about that but as far as know it is not, nor has it ever been the same formula as the particular Beutler formula most people equate to Neofin Blau.
What I would like to know is which developer, Rodinal or Neofin Blau uses the speed better.
I think georg16nik left a subtle suggestion in his text. I used to use Rodinal a lot for my 4x5 negatives but changed over to FX-39. I was not satisfied with the speed of Rodinal although the other properties are great. I have always considered using Neofin Blau but then again one should not jump from developer to another.
Andreas, Tetenal Neofin Blue uses the speed better. Pan F+ in Neofin Blue is ISO50 and You can tweak it for more, while Pan F+ in Rodinal best results are @ISO25, at least in my opinion.
Paterson FX-39 is perfect for modern emulsions, so why bother if it works.?.
Agfa APX 100 and Neofin Blau (formerly Rot) has been my favorite combination for years in 35mm. Good speed, slight contrast reduction with small grain. Have used Rodinal as well. Works very well too - bit grainier and 1/3 f-number less speed.
An example here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jojjek/...ream/lightbox/ Mr rusty: Your Neofin Red vials will be just fine.
OK, so I have decided to give Tetenal Neofin blue a shot (no pun intended)! I am planning to buy the kit with 5 bottles of 30ml concentrate each. But the directions are thoroughly confusing. The instruction pamphlet is a nightmare and the massive dev chart makes things worse for this developer by mentioning 'stock' (i.e. no dilution). I googled for some help and I couldn't find some definitive answer. Hopefully someone here can help.
I plan to use it for developing one 120 roll at a time in a Paterson tank that takes 500 ml of soup. Do I use one full bottle of this developer, dilute it to make 500ml soup and reuse it once to develop two rolls of 120? or maybe load two 120s in a reel and develop both in that 500ml soup?
My understanding is the "real" Neofin Blau contained Catechol.
I have read the same thing both for NB and HC-110. But these rumors never seem to be substantiated. However from the time that MSDS's became available neither developer seems to have contained catechol. However it is true that at one time HC-110 Replensher did contain catechol as listed on its MSDS. Jerry
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.
So here is a question for those who have used both Rodinal and Neofine Blue: what can I expect in differences between the two developers on films like Ilford Pan F+ 50, Fuji Acros 100 and Agfa APX 100?
From my experience with both developers and the mentioned films with Tetenal Neofin Blue you will get
- a bit better contour sharpness
- a bit finer grain
- higher resolution
- higher speed (1/3 - 2/3 stops,depending on the film)
- a compensating effect; not so dense highlights
compared to Rodinal.
The formular of Neofin Blue has been modified over the years and also been adopted to the progress in newer emulsions.
Due to the current MSDS is contains Metol, Hydrochinon and Phenidone: