Atomal 49/Atomal F - Is this the "New" Atomal FF?
Thought I'd pay the Adox site a visit after quite a while, and was surprised to see Atomal F advertised.
I have used Atomal FF since I started B&W photography and absolutely loved the results I got on all film types.
One lucky APUGer grabbed the last batch I had (I'm not using it quite so fast since moving to BKK), and I was resigned to never seeing it again.
Is this the same as Atomal FF? (I did note only the one F in its name.)
Anybody tested it and able to report their findings/results?
If it's as good as the original, I'd be happy to part with some $$ to snap some up.
Mirco form Fotoimpex sells chemicals produced in Calbe using the Adox label. Mircor wrote (in German)
"Jahrelang haben wir ATOMAL F als A49 verkauft.... Zu seinem 75igsten Geburtstag haben wir ATOMAL seinen ursprünglichen Namen zurückgegeben. Good bye A49, hello ATOMAL 49 !"
(For many years we sold Atomal F as A49.... To its 75th birthday we gave the devloper it's name back. Good bye A49, hello ATOMAL 49 !)
Atomal 49 ist the former A49, which has some connections to the old Atomal F from the sixties. Ulbricht sold the Agfa label in 1964 to Agfa Leverkusen, so that all chemicals need to be renamed. Atomal changed to A49, Rodinal to R09 and so on.
In the seventies or early eightieth the developer was reformulated. The developing substance hydroxyethylaminophenol (HEAP) was replaced by diethylphenylendiamine. This formula is still used in the new Atomal FF.
So it's the "new" version of the "old" version of Atomal FF! Great. Makes me very happy to know I can get my hands on some of this again - I really missed having it around over the past few years!
Looking forward to getting my hands on some to try out first hand!
So now you've got me interested Ozphoto -- exactly what do you find so great about Atomal FF -- including films, developing times, etc, that you like in it ?
I think this statement says everything. If you liked the original Agfa Atomal you may not be satisfied with the new formulation.
Originally Posted by piu58
Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 05-17-2011 at 03:06 PM. Click to view previous post history.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.
~Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I thought the old versions of Calbe A49 used PPD as the developing agent.
No Atomal and MAy & Baker Promicrol both used N-(beta-hydroxyethyl)-o-aminophenol sulphate this was used industrially in the Eastern block for manufacturing something else (non photographic) and that stopped in the 90's. It's no longer economic as a developing agent.
Originally Posted by Michael R 1974
As well as being a developer Atomal was also Agfa's trade name for the developing agent N-(beta-hydroxyethyl)-o-aminophenol sulphate
Atomal F and Calbe A49now use a PPD derivative CD-3, I have the formula somewhere. All the Calbe formulae were Agfa/Orwo so follow the Agfa numbering which was 9 for Rodinal and 49 for Atomal, neither have been officially published.
Last edited by Ian Grant; 05-17-2011 at 03:44 PM. Click to view previous post history.
It's consistency regardless of the film I shot; I could guarantee a lovely tonal range, good grain structure and overall ease of printing.
Originally Posted by TriXfan
And replenishing it was a huge money saver - a 5L mix lasted me for(almost)ever. I just kept copious notes of the number of films I developed and the type, and added replenisher accordingly. (From memory 12ml per 35mm and 14ml per 120.)
Developing times were not so different from D76, and as I shot almost exclusively Agfapan, once I had the times right, developing from roll to roll was a breeze.
But, I also shot Kodak, Ilford and Fuji during those days as well from 100ISO - 3200ISO and the development times were very similar, as were the results.
Incredibly, I even pushed 100ISO to 3200ISO and ok - it was pretty grainy, and higher in contrast, but it provided some great night sports shots that I otherwise would have had to pass on. (Got some great tennis shots from some of those 80s legends, since retired.)
I had pushed 400 - 800 on a several occasions prior to my 100-3200 jaunt, so I knew it could do the job, I just didn't know if those negs would be suitable in the end. It was a test of sorts - if it worked, great, if not no harm, no foul; but the results showed I *could* push it if I ever needed to, (although it would obviously be better if I grabbed some TMax 3200) and get myself out of a tight spot.
I've used D76 since Atomal's demise, and whilst I get good results, they aren't quite the same as what I was getting from my beloved Atomal.
I would like to try out some other developers as well, just to see what results I can garner with the mix of film/developer I choose. . . . .
Can you able to provide dev times for ILFord Delta 100 and ILFord Pan F with stock, 1+1 and 1+2 concentration of Atomal 49?
Originally Posted by ozphoto
OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
Rolleicord Va: Humble.
Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.
ATM49 use CD-1, not CD-3
Originally Posted by Ian Grant