PDA

View Full Version : Fomopan 100/R09 disaster



barnacle
3-Sep-2017, 12:45
Here's an odd one: I haven't used fomopan before but having a couple of boxes from last year, and going on holiday in a couple of weeks, I decided to try half a dozen test exposures (+1, 0 -1 stop) with a couple of lenses to see how it went.

Exposed, cooked it in R09 (2 min wash, 9 mins 50:1 development, 2 mins wash, 4 mins fix) - and got absolutely nothing on any of the six sheets. Not under exposed, but nothing. Nada, zip, zilch. Absolutely clear film.

The only sensible thing I can come up with is that the R09 has oxidised: it was from a 120cc bottle of concentrate, of which about half had been used (successfully) towards the end of last year.

Any other thoughts? I suppose it could be a bad batch of film (someone forgot the emulsion?) but they remembered the anti-halation dye. One thing: when I have used R09 with my usual Adox CHS, the first wash produces a deep blue product, but the used developer comes out red. In this case, the first wash was bright green, but so was the used developer...

Next approach will be with a fresh bottle of dev, perhaps just on an sheet exposed to daylight. It *ought* to go black...

Any help appreciated, thanks.

Neil

Michael Clark
3-Sep-2017, 12:48
Try a clip test with the remaining old R09 and see if anything happens.

koraks
3-Sep-2017, 14:28
I've never had issues with any fomapan film in any format not giving an image at all, so the situation seems fairly unique. Since you got a green color to the wash water, you must have used sheet film, as smaller format fomapan doesn't have an antihalation dye incorporated in it. Furthermore, when I use rodinal, the developer tends to come out quite brown, even without a prewash. Rodinal/R09 tends to oxidize quite vehemently during development, making the color of the used developer distinctly darker than when it goes into the development tank. With remaining antihalation dye added to the developer, the color is usually brown/green with fomapan sheet films and definitely less pure green than from a pure water prewash with antihalation dye dissolved in it. Did you note this distinct difference in color? If the color was more or less the same, something weird is certainly going on.

Either way, I'd just give it a try with another (proven usable) developer. Also check if you didn't load the film backwards, although I'd expect a faint image even if you somehow made a mistake in this respect in your test.

For cross reference, I'd develop a strip of fully exposed roll film of any kind for a known-good time in this batch of R09 so you can get an idea if the developer is still viable. A few test frames on a film you're very familiar it in this developer would of course be even better.

rjbuzzclick
3-Sep-2017, 17:33
Any chance you accidentally put the film in the fixer first before the developer?

Leigh
3-Sep-2017, 17:45
Any chance you accidentally put the film in the fixer first before the developer?
That's what I would expect.

There should be edge imprints even if the film was not exposed at all in-camera.
I'm __assuming__ fomapan has edge imprints. I've never shot it.

Similarly, I've never used R09, but I have used hundreds of gallons of real Rodinal.
It NEVER goes bad in the bottle... full, half-empty, just a trace left, 20 years old... does not matter at all.
We've had reports of 50-year-old Rodinal working properly.

- Leigh

tim48v
3-Sep-2017, 19:59
Fomapan does not have edge imprints. (In fact, Fomapan 100 and Fomapan 400 both have the same notch code!)

If the developer was completely exhausted, I doubt any imprints would show up.

I've also shot a lot of Foma; never had an issue like this.

Toyo
3-Sep-2017, 20:57
Here's an odd one: I haven't used fomopan before but having a couple of boxes from last year, and going on holiday in a couple of weeks, I decided to try half a dozen test exposures (+1, 0 -1 stop) with a couple of lenses to see how it went.

Exposed, cooked it in R09 (2 min wash, 9 mins 50:1 development, 2 mins wash, 4 mins fix) - and got absolutely nothing on any of the six sheets. Not under exposed, but nothing. Nada, zip, zilch. Absolutely clear film.

The only sensible thing I can come up with is that the R09 has oxidised: it was from a 120cc bottle of concentrate, of which about half had been used (successfully) towards the end of last year.

Any other thoughts? I suppose it could be a bad batch of film (someone forgot the emulsion?) but they remembered the anti-halation dye. One thing: when I have used R09 with my usual Adox CHS, the first wash produces a deep blue product, but the used developer comes out red. In this case, the first wash was bright green, but so was the used developer...

Next approach will be with a fresh bottle of dev, perhaps just on an sheet exposed to daylight. It *ought* to go black...

Any help appreciated, thanks.

Neil

That is my usual Fomapan 100 in RO9 recipe as well, and I have not had a problem with it.
Like the others, I am wondering if the fixer went in first.
Sorry Neil - I have no other ideas
Tom

barnacle
3-Sep-2017, 22:47
Thanks for all the ideas, guys. I think, though, I can eliminate most of them:

1) film was in the right way round (it was sheet, yes).
2) the green in the used dev was as close as I can remember to the (more intense) green from the initial wash - just 'thinner'. No hint of red at all.
3) I don't measure the fixer until the post-dev rinse is in progress precisely to avoid that risk.
4) I always use the same coloured jugs for the same process steps, and the dev jug is washed and cleaned and not used after that stage.

I'll do another test tonight with fresh developer and another sheet of film, fully exposed.

Neil

koraks
4-Sep-2017, 00:48
Neil, if the developer didn't come out a bit brownish, something probably went wrong mixing the developer or its a very rare case of rodinal going bad.

Be sure to use a different film to test your developer to exclude the incredibly remote chance of this batch of film being the problem.

martinf5
4-Sep-2017, 03:21
If there's absolutely nothing on film sheets I'de first check the lens shutter.

barnacle
4-Sep-2017, 05:26
If there's absolutely nothing on film sheets I'de first check the lens shutter.

Two lenses, two shutters. Both of which opened for composition; seems unlikely.

Neil

martinf5
4-Sep-2017, 07:06
you're absolutely right, that would be really strange

sepiareverb
4-Sep-2017, 07:28
Possible the concentrate never went in the developer tray, so your "developer" was just water?

barnacle
4-Sep-2017, 10:16
I'm kinda wondering that myself, but given two jugs, one of which definitely had 20g of R09 in a litre of water, and the other had a litre of water, well, even if they went in in the wrong order there ought to be *some * sort of trace.

I should get a chance to do further tests tonight.

Neil

Leigh
4-Sep-2017, 12:01
...one of which definitely had 20g of R09...
Grams is a measurement unit used with solids, not liquids.

Were you dissolving solids in a jug of water?

- Leigh

barnacle
4-Sep-2017, 13:13
Heh. In the absence of small graduated measures, I use grams for fluids. I appreciate the density is unlikely to be exactly 1.0, but it is at least consistent.

Anyway: the answer is... the developer.

Two sheets of film; one xray that I happened to have in a dark slide, and one of the suspect fomopan. Both exposed close to house lights, cut in half. One half of each developed in the suspect R09, one half in R09 from an opened-tonight bottle.

169273

On the left, the new; on the right, the old. The prosecution rests, m'lud.

Neil

(interestingly, there was in this case the red tint I expected when the *old* dev was drained, much less from the *new*. The green was less obvious, but with only half a sheet instead of six in the tank, that's not a surprise.)

Leigh
4-Sep-2017, 15:40
Very good, Neil.

At least we can blame the old stuff, as usual.

But that "old stuff" was not Rodinal, it was R09.

- Leigh

koraks
5-Sep-2017, 00:23
Good, we can all sleep again tonight ;)
Or...not those of us that still have half-full bottles of rodinal sitting around; we may never rest easy anymore!

tonyowen
5-Sep-2017, 04:49
, the first wash was bright green, but so was the used developer
Just to clarify one thing - my wash from Fomopam 100 is always bright green.

regards
Tony

Leigh
5-Sep-2017, 09:20
those of us that still have half-full bottles of rodinal sitting around; we may never rest easy anymore!
The "old stuff" that was bad was NOT Rodinal, it was R09.

- Leigh

barnacle
5-Sep-2017, 11:23
Quite.

R09 =/= Rodinol

I've found a few threads on the interwebs that indicate this is a known problem with R09 - which does not apply to Rodinol. The threads I have found suggest that six months is a practical maximum for a part-filled bottle, and that testing with the diluted solution is a practical solution.

Fortunately I have in my cupboard another three small bottles (120ml) still sealed, as well as the one I opened yesterday. But if the developer works well with Fomopan - as might reasonably be expected - then I'm likely to use it again. But in the small bottles :)

At least the lesson was learned *before* I came back with a couple of boxes of exposed negs to brew.

Neil

koraks
5-Sep-2017, 20:52
Ah, I ever knew r09 had limited keeping properties compared to adonal/rodinal/Rodinol! Lesson learned...

plaubel
6-Sep-2017, 01:47
But it's a wrong lesson, Koraks, as "Foma forgets to bring the glob to the film" is a wrong idea.

All the "new" stuff has limited keeping properties compared to the original stuff.
As far as I know from an Ex Tetenal worker, it all comes out of the same barrels, produced from Tetenal.
I don't believe in wonderful formulas and the 25th improvement of the Rodinal substitute, but I know that this developer is great.
By the way, you could buy barrels of Tetenals soup and you could sell it as Koradinal or Korakinol :-)
Of course, you could order some extra drops creating your special formula, but for making a developer keeping longer, you will need expensive adds which are the most expensive component in each developer.

For a longer-life-attitude, I refill my fresh developers into smaller bottles.
Since I give my developers RO9, RHC ( which is an excellent paper developer), XTOL an extra shot of Butan/Propan before reclosing the bottle, I never have had problems with missing emulsion or bad developers during periods of one year.

I buy RO9 in a 3000ml kanister, and if I am in fear concerning further stability of the developer, I use it highly concentrated (1 plus 10) as a one-way- paper developer until the bottle is empty.

I have found that creating blank film or muddy prints is always a disaster out of my hands.

Ritchie

koraks
6-Sep-2017, 07:47
Well, the lesson I take from this is certainly not that foma somehow forgot some crucial step in their process ;)
I was skeptical about the difference between the various rodinal variants, but it seems some are a little lower on developer and higher on hydroxide (activator), while others are the other way around. The difference seems to be within a few percent, but maybe this affects its keeping properties in half empty bottles. I also know that Adonal in a nearly empty bottle easily survived a year of sitting around without apparent loss of activity. Frankly, I'm still a bit surprised at the loss of activity in a half full bottle of R09 over the course of just a few months - it seems to be a rare occurrence, but who am I to say that it can't happen? The evidence seems pretty convincing. And perhaps it does have to do with slight variations on formulation, even though it still seems to me that the different names are more of are marketing and trade name protection issue than a technical one. I just can't argue with someone's convincingly reported experiences, that's all!

Leigh
6-Sep-2017, 10:38
I also know that Adonal in a nearly empty bottle easily survived a year of sitting around without apparent loss of activity.Adonal is real Rodinal.

The odd name is the result of a trademark problem.
Somebody (not the manufacturer) trademarked the Rodinal name here in the US.

- Leigh

barnacle
6-Sep-2017, 12:06
Here's a sensible approach to packaging: available at a limited number of shops in the UK:

http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/images/products/large/3770.jpg

Search for 'Rodinal softpack'.

Neil

plaubel
6-Sep-2017, 12:36
Adonal is real Rodinal.



20 years ago Agfa Germany gave up and made a kind of "SALES"-action.
Some fomulars changed the owner; the recipe of Rodinal has gone 50/50 to Mr Bödecker and to Mr Otto Mahn (Maco), so they went to Tetenal giving the order to produce something like Rodinal.
Please tell me one reason for saying Mahn " make it mostly unoriginal and totally different, especially shortliving!"

Here in Germany today and from government/law it is nearly impossible to produce chemical products, except yo do exactly this since decades.
If you start up with a new product, it has to be somehow healthy, more than being poison.
A friend of mine who has sold this Rodinal-thing for Maco Company told me that they have had to substitute some components, and I have absolutely no reason not to believe him.

Compard company bottled barrelwhise this new Rodinal for you, and me, until Matthias's dead not so long ago.
I know that his wife continues the business but I haven't any contact to her and so have nothing new to say.

Ritchie