RO9 special/studional six months from dulition.

Fomapan 200 test negatives.

I'm now six months down the line with this litre of RO9s/Studional and nine completed developments to date. With it now being three months on from it's suggested 'best before' time I started this processing session with the last seven frames from my out of date Fomapan 200, to check that the developer was still viable.

 The Fomapan was in the developer for eight minutes this included the 20% compensation for developers age. For me anyway this developer was now in completely unknown territory and the 20% adjustment was under review again. Although the last time I used the developer the urge to increase was very strong, I considered it again and dismissed the idea very quickly this time. Remembering what I had said last time.

Agfa APX 100 negatives

As soon as the film had been fixed I pulled it out of the developing tank to check. On first look it looked like it had not worked but on closer inspection there was a very good looking negative peering back at me. Great! Now I can get on with the others.

including the 20% and a roll of Fomapan 400 which stopped me in my tracks for a while as I had no suggested development times for it. Ah! What to do? I was processing this for someone else. Don't panic Mr Mannering. I checked through the Massive dev charts 400 ISO film times for Studional with dilutions of 1+15. It was saying that between four and eight minutes. Which is quite a leeway to pair down. I then looked at the Agfa and Rollei times for 400 ISO film to try and shrink the time difference. This helped a lot, it was suggesting five and a half minutes as an average. So me being me rounded it up to six and added 20% which worked out at a bit over seven minutes.

 I intended to develop for seven minutes and ended up doing eight I was interrupted loosing track of the time. It is possible that the mix up has made for a better developed set of negatives which may have worked in my favour this time. Which leaves a dilemma for the next roll - what time should I use?

Fomapan 400 negatives

All in all this out of date developer has proved its self to be a good performer, out of the three newly processed film the Fomapan 200 is disappointing in that the negatives are a bit thin. Some of this is to do with bad exposure and not the development. On closer inspection of this last length of film it looks as though the surface has been contaminated with sweaty finger marks, some scratches and a lot of dust marks on the negatives. Not surprising really seeing that the film has been cut into sections on three other occasions.

It turns out that the Agfa APX 100 has been over developed. I have also noted that the negatives are a bit more grainy than they should be. This could be the down side of using the RO9s outside the three month best before date.

So what now? The developer is good for another three film but I think it will be discarded for a new batch. The reason for using this developer in the first place is because of it's finer grain. If I want it coarse looking I'll use RO9.

Redeveloping the negative.

You will at some point in your developing career, come across a negative(s) that has so much contrast that no matter what you do, you cannot get a decent print. There is a method you can use to retrieve the situation by redeveloping the negative(s).

To start with you will need to make up a solution of halogenizing bleach as follows:

• 10 grams of Potassium permanganate.
• 10 grams of Potassium Bromide.
• 1 litre of cool water.
• Stir this until all is dissolved in the water.

This can be carried out in a normally lit area so you can see the change in the negative. It takes about 5-7 minutes for the black silver on the film to be converted to a yellowish precipitate. You can remove the film from the bleach when the strongest high lights have gone a pale grey and wash well in running water. Now place in a soft compensating developer. When the highlights return to a greyish yellow remove the film and place in an acid stop bath for 30 seconds. Then fix, wash and dry as you would normally. This should produce a softer easier negative to print.

It is probably better to use a farmers reducer which subtracts the density from a

processed negative.They come ready mixed, you only add the right amount of water. This process can be repeated as many times as needed to get the right density; it's not a one shot approach. Allowing you to do a test print at each stage. There are three to types:

• Kodak R-4a is best used for over exposed negatives and is easy to control. Acts on shadows first, then mid-range and then highlights. Mainly used for clearing fog from film and reducing prints.
• Kodak R-4b is best for over developed negatives; it removes equal amounts of deposited silver from the highlight and shadow areas.
• Kodak R-15 This is a super reducer, striping the highlights and not the shadows. For seriously over developed negatives and is the most difficult to control.

This is just a basic outline on the subject and will require further reading.

RO9 and the lens less camera.

All the photo's side by side

Over the last few months it looks like I have gone RO9s mad. I have! it is the new toy in my developing arsenal. I'm enjoying the quality of the negatives and not having to make up developer every time I want to process a film. It is still new enough for me to think I have forgotten to do something as I pour the liquid in the developing tank. With all this effort being spent on this developer it has made me think about its brother RO9 and it's attributes in connection with pinhole photography.

Image from PMK Pyro developed negative printed
on Ilford multi grade RC gloss.

Let me explain: RO9 is described as having a number of qualities, the main one here being, high acutance producing a very sharp looking image - a bit like sharpening a digital file in Photoshop. The idea that this developer may do this to the processed negatives has been a splinter in my mind for sometime, that I have been compelled to dust off my Zero pinhole camera to find out if it does make a difference.

Image from RO9 developed negative.
Printed on Kentmere RC gloss

I always feel very relaxed after I have spent time making images with this camera, I should use it more often. Anyway I loaded it with Fomapan 100 set to a 6x6 negative size.

 With the twelve images made it was into the darkroom to process the film. It was developed in the RO9 for thirteen minutes. The density of the negatives was as expected. With the new crisp looking negatives hanging up to dry what should I compare them with? After searching back in my archive of negatives it looks like the only other developer I have used when making images with the Zero is PMK Pyro. This developer is not known for it's sharpness but at least I did not follow the method through by using an afterbath. Which can add a further softening of the image by adding tone.

Zero pinhole set to 6x6 120 negative size

My comparison was never going to be very scientific. It was always going to be a case of would I be able to see a difference with the naked eye. You may feel that the comparison is unfair and to a certain extent you are right. To counter this I will compare the RO9 negatives with those produced with a lensed camera. If the RO9 is a sharpening developer it should be noticeable.

Image made using a camera lens.
35 mm Agfa APX 100 developed ID11

When looking down the focus finder at the different developed negatives the difference in grain structure jumps out at you. The PMK Pyro neg's are so smooth it is difficult to bring the the grain into sharp focus. Where as the RO9 grain looks like boulders. So does this defined structure indicate that the negatives will be sharper?

I enlarged the negatives to fill the 9 x 12 Kentmere RC gloss paper, instead of the smaller 6X6 square format of the negative. I wanted to see if the grain would be more exaggerated by doing this. To my surprise they lack the graininess I was expecting. In fact they are very smooth and defined.

RO9 developed negative printed
on Kentmere RC gloss

Conclusion:

With all the photographs laid out side by side is there a visual difference in sharpness? The straight answer is Yes but not enough to say if you want sharper lens-less images use Ro9. When you compare the PMK negatives with the RO9 ones there is slightly better definition to the edges of the subject giving you the sense that the pictures are sharper. It does not take away that distinct soft focus you get with pinhole cameras. If you then put a lensed print beside the RO9 developed picture you can see that it is very soft in the pinhole tradition. It shows that when using RO9 there is a sharpened quality to the photographs.

PMK Pyro developed image printed on Fomaspeed
Variant 131

  

Instant Photographs.

When I heard about the demise of Polaroid. I was saddened, to think that at one time I had a Polaroid camera in my car all the the time, along with a dozen packs of film (the peal apart type). In those days if I only made 50 images in a week I classed it as a slow period. With Polaroids announcement I had the sudden urge to make a few pictures before it disappeared. Sadly I could not find my camera, then remembered that I had given it away.  

About ten or so years ago we acquired an Instax 200 instant camera that has sat in my camera cupboard. It would still be sitting there gathering dust if it had not been for a marketing email from Lomography stating the camera and film were available again.

Some weeks later I was in town, so I dodged into my local Snappy snaps to see if they had the film in stock. They did, so I purchased a box - not a cheap venture now a days!

The camera has been boxed all this time and is brand new to look at apart from a broken battery cover. To my surprise there was still a film in it. I put batteries in it, took a picture and out popped an oblong card. Then waited to see if an image would appear, Alas after a good five minutes just a slight change in colour. It was worth a try.

It was some months before I had the opportunity to use the new film in the camera. Then fortune smiled and what a cracking day it was. At the time, it was a leap in the dark as I have never used this camera before. I lost a couple of frames to bad composition and to under development which can be adjusted in the camera settings. It did not take long to catch on. As you can see from the pictures.

The panoramic view the cameras produces has a distinct look to them.

 

Black developer!?

I have gone back to using 35mm film, in so doing I have resurrected an old and long running project of portraits. I have never been backward in coming forward to ask people I meet if I can take their picture. When asking my chosen subject I'm polite and friendly with a little charm. It is not often that I receive a straight rejection. I've noticed that it tends to stop people for a moment, at which point I tell them it's a film camera. It appears that this is a reason for them to say yes when chatting with them.

This new interest in lugging my Nikon F5 around with me has also reunited me with a long time favorite film Agfa APX 100. I cannot remember exactly the last time I used this film but I do know it was back in the days when I regularly used ether ID11 or PMK Pyro. I still have both these developers on the shelf in powder form. Which led to a bit of a  dilemma once the new roll of
APX was ready for developing. Should I make up a new batch of these old friends to keep the look of the negatives the same or go with the current ones???.

                                                        

I chose to go with RO9 partly because I wanted to see what sort of negative it would produce with the APX.                                                                      

Agfa APX  negatives developed with
RO9 special.

Before starting I made up a litre of fresh stop, fix and 300 mls of developer. I processed the film for the suggested thirteen minutes. The time counted down, as I poured out the developer, I was shocked to see this black liquid fill the measuring cylinder what the Hell! My first thought was that all the emulsion had come off, stupid I know but it always interests me what thoughts come into your head when things take you unaware. Needless to say that when I looked at the negs after they were fixed, all was OK. The negatives are nicely toned. I am not sure yet how grainy they are as Ro9 tend to be more grain than ID11.

It's just another colour to add to an increasing list of used developers.

How well will RO9 Special/ Studional perform a month on from dilution.

Nikkormat FT2 camera

 The developer has been diluted for two months, it's time to see if there has been any degradation of the solution over those months. It was not my intention to put the developer on the spot by using an out of date film and then to pick a make of film that I find difficult to get good results with but the die had been cast by the fact that a film had been loaded into my FT3 some time ago and then promptly forgotten about.

 

Developer  has changed colour

So what happened? To start with as I poured the developer into the graduate it was a gorgeous turquoise in colour. This is the second time I have used this batch of Studional so I have not a clue what this colour represents, it was clear when it was fresh. For all I know this could mean that it is dead and buried and the best thing to do is pour it away. RIP. I carried on anyway no point stopping now. I need to know what the colour represents. Good or bad?

 

This batch of developer had been diluted 1+15 but according to the data sheet it should be 1+30 for Fomapan 200 processed for 12 minutes plus 20% increase for the age, as the table indicates. Seeing as I have not taken any notice of the indications this will not work I throw caution completely to the wind and cut the development time in half and add 20% which I ignored developing for eight minutes. What the hell!

 

Contact print Fomapan 200.

So what did you think happened? Well! Yes, you are wrong. I am astounded these are some of the best negatives I have made with Fomapan 200 they are crisp and punchy or should I say they have a very good tonal separation, producing some rich blacks as the photographs that illustrate this post show.

8 X 10 print on  Ilford RC gloss

I should throw caution to the wind more often if the results are going to come good like this!

Spiraling trouble?

Putting this lot back together was fun.

Y eh! right, there is no way I'm going to start separating a plastic spiral once the film had been processed. I was of that mind set until I started to use medium format film. In the old days I would gently unpick the 35mm film from the spool unwinding it slowly so as not to damage it. Then I was confronted with having to reset the spiral so it would take 120 film and because this film has a larger surface it is very easy to damage as I have found out.

Looking back I have to say what was all the fuss about. I think it is a lot to do with the unknown. If I take it apart will I ever get it back together? I will, just takes a bit of time. In my case the first time was easy I just gripped both sides of the spiral and twisted till it went click. Then gently pulled it apart until it reached the top slot and twisted it back the other way. Done! There that was not so bad. Huh! Not quite as clever as you thought, when it came to doing it again! I couldn't get it to go back together again no matter what I tried. It took ages to get those slots to meet up the right way and then they were backwards. Just before exasperation set in I put them down. Made a cup of tea and chilled. What makes it more maddening is when I went back to the spiral it went straight together with out a hitch.

Now a days it is second nature, don't be fooled it does not always go right first time.

Contaminated by wetting agent?

Developed in RO9 but it is not the developer.

When something unexpected happens while you are processing your negatives, it takes a bit of time to get your head round it. This happened while I was processing a number of rolls of film in R09 and using it's special brother.

 The problem has shown it's self by producing very blotchy negatives affecting two rolls of the six film developed. When this happens in a run of developing it is difficult to work out what circumstances are different enough to point a finger at.

Please bear in mind that the elimination process was written after I discovered the culprit.

Fomapan 100 negatives developed in RO9

Process of elimination:

1. So where to start? It is fortunate that the negatives involved were not the ones processed in the RO9 special. The RO9 developed one's were. This made the investigation more straight forward in that I have a better understanding of how RO9 works.
2. Was it the developer? It was made up seconds before it was used in the usual way.
3. What about Stop and Fix? Both were freshly made up minuets before use. So it cannot be one of the three main players? As they are all fresh.
4. OK what about the method? No difference there either I used my usual inversion sequence.
5. Processing tanks? Well I did press a tank into use that I have not used in a long time because of the quantity of film that needed to be developed.
6. Could that be the answer?
7. Did it affect one make of film in particular? No it did not, again this could have been a fortunate coincidence in that a roll of FP4+ and Fomapan 100 show the same affect. If it had only happened to one make it could have been construed as a manufacturing fault.
8. Water? It was fresh and clean and there had not been any notices to say there was a problem with the drinking water.
9. That leaves wetting agent? Hold on now that points to something I noticed when I was using PMK Pyro some years ago, I had a roll of film with the same sort of pattern. I put it down to the developer which I have

   

   Film FP4+ developed in PMK Pyro

   not used since. Thinking back to that time I had noticed that every time I opened the dev tank to pour out the developer there were a lot of bubbles in the top. That looked soapy and diminished with each step of the process which would suggest developer. I did speak to a number of other photographers at the time who suggested it was a developer fault. Although I stopped using the developer substituting it for ID11 and the problem disappeared was not convinced at the time. I changed how the kit was washed after each processing session. After a while I also stopped adding wetting agent to the tank. Using a different tank with it already added. Dunking the reel in by it's self and then soaking the reel in a bucket of water with a good resin afterwards.

Looking back I think when I pressed the other developing tank into use I mistakenly picked up the one I had been using for wetting agent. The resulting blotchy pattern is the result of its contamination.

This print was made from the same contaminated
Negatives. note no blotchy marks.

Conclusion:

Having eliminated all the other possibilities and no matter how silly it may sound the wetting agent is the culprit in this case. It has this time affected nearly all the frames on each film, when it happened some years ago (after checking the negatives) only certain frames showed signs of being blotchy. Which would indicate a weak contamination of the film process. This is only the second time I have had this problem in all the years I have been developing film. It just goes to show that something as innocuous as soap can cause so much trouble if it is not washed away conclusively after every processing session when added to the developing tank. My suggestion is to put wetting agent in a separate container and add the reel and film to it and not the other way round.

This picture shows that the blotches are prominent
In the sky but not the foreground.

When printing the affected negatives you cannot see the blotches when looking down the focus finder. Even though the contact prints show it quite clearly.

All the photographs that appear with this article were printed from the dodgy neg's. As I mentioned not all suffered the soapy demise. 

RO 9 Special developer.

Recently, I had an unexpected back log of film to process It can be difficult to find the time to do them especially when it is more than a couple of rolls. Anyway a gap opened up so I dived into the darkroom to load two of the rolls ready for development. As I reached for the RO9 my attention was attracted to a couple of bottles of developer standing behind it. RO9 Special and Studional which as it turns out are one and the same along with Rodinal Special. While I was boxing up the first couple of film I had a rush of blood to the head and decided to give the RO9 Special a try. There was method in my madness.

At the time of my decision I had no background knowledge of this developer apart from how it was marketed and the information on the side of the bottle which is sparse to say the least. The blurb stated that RO9s was the finer bread brother of RO9 which was what attracted me to it in the first place. Part of my madness had been influenced by a cassette of HP5+ I had been given to process.

120  FP4+ Negs Developed in RO9s

In stead of jumping in at the deep end with both feet, I thought it prudent to check the very short developing times printed on the side of the bottle by processing a roll of 120 FP4+. Because I have a tendency to slightly under expose my negatives the suggested time of three and a half minutes at a dilution of 1 to 15 was increased to four. I used my standard agitation method of twelve inversions for the first thirty seconds and then four every minute. As there was no indication to the contrary. As soon as the fix was poured out of the tank I checked to see if they had developed properly. From what I could see they looked perfect. I had not intended to do a grain comparison for this film, it was purely to see if the times on the bottle worked in my favour.

The info on the side of the bottle for HP5+ suggested four minutes at 1+15 - I processed the film for five; as it turns out it was a good move. I think the negatives would have been a bit thin otherwise.

I have now researched process times and developer information for RO9s Something I should have done first with a visit Digital truths Dev chart for more times. They tell you to look at Studional.

HP5+ Negs developed in RO9s

 

Something else I had not been aware of was once the developer had been made up you could use it again. I had a suspicion it could be used again because the concentrate had a syrupy look when I poured it out. In fact you can process up to twelve rolls of mixed formats per litre. The most interesting thing about this developer is that there is no time compensation if you do more than one roll of film on the same day. You only add a compensation factor the longer the working developer in stored. Up to three months.

Developer Data:

RO9 Special/Rodinal Special and Studional.

Characteristics: Fine grain sharp negatives with good contrast. Once diluted can be stored for multiple use. Short process times.

Mixing instructions: Dilute concentrate with water 1+15

Number of Film per Dilution: 10-12 35mm or 120 format per Litre.

Temperature: Is best kept between 18 C and 24C with + or – adjustments as needed to the length of the development time.

Agitation: Tilt the tank for the first minute continuously and then once every minute. You should avoid developing times under three minutes.

Shelf Life: Concentrate should last 2 years in original bottle with no air gap. Once Diluted it should last 3 months without air gap in it's own container.

Time increases for multiple use: To keep speed yield and contrast consistent the diluted developer should be kept in brim full tightly capped bottles if this is achieved the following will apply:

Idle time between two batches	Development lengthened by
few hours (but development none *on same day)	None *
1 – 3 days	5.00%
4 – 8 days	10.00%
1 – 2 weeks	15.00%
over 2 weeks	20.00%

* with Atomal FF: + 10 %.

The extra times given above do not change if several films are simultaneously processed in one batch.

Suggested development times for use with RO9 special, Rodinal Special and Studional:

Film type	Time *	Speed
Agfapan APX 100	4 min	ISO 100/21°
Agfapan APX 400	6 min	ISO 400/27°
Fuji Neopan 400 Prof.	3 min	ISO 320/26°
Fuji Neopan 1600 Prof.	3 min	ISO 800/30°
Ilford PAN-F Plus	3 min	ISO 50/18°
llford FP 4 Plus	3.5 min	ISO 100/21°
Ilford HP 5 Plus	4 min	ISO 400/27°
Ilford Delta 100	3.5 min	ISO 160/23°
Ilford Delta 400	4.5 min	ISO 400/27°
Ilford Delta 3200	6 min	ISO 1250/32°
Ilford SFX 200	4 min	ISO 125/22°
Kodak Plus-X	5 min	ISO 125/22°
Kodak Tri-X	3.5 min	ISO 400/27°
Kodak T-MAX 100	5 min	ISO 80/20°
Kodak T-MAX 400	5 min	ISO 400/27°
Kodak T-MAX p3200	6 min	ISO 1250/32°
Kodak Recording 2475	6 min	ISO 640/29°

• Small tank or tray processing at 20 °C.
• Information above supplied by Agfa.

Almost forgot the reason for the rush of blood to the head if you had not already guessed it was to do with the 35 mm HP5+ I find that this films emulsion tends to produce rather grainy negatives with standard RO9. As I intend to enlarge these negatives to 9 x12 the finer developer should make the prints less grainy. I am pleased to say the strategy worked, the negatives have a much finer grain than the standard RO9. The proof of the pudding will be in the printing of the FP4+ and HP5+ negatives. I will share more prints in another post.

9 x 12  photograph from 35mm HP5+ negatives developed in RO9 special

Green Developer?

 ID11 used with Fomapan

In the normal run of things the colour of your developer as you pour it out at the end of the developing period is nothing out of the ordinary. You just get on with the next stage of the process. That is until it comes out emerald green!. What was just another film processing session has just thrown up a number of questions of doubt, or has it? This is possibly the first time for quite a while that you have taken any notice of what colour the used developer was supposed to be. So what changed? Your film make?

Basically what you are seeing, if you have not used a pre-soak, is the anti-curl and/or the antihalation coatings, washing off in the developer. It has no affect on the developing process which is the first thought most of us have when presented with something out of the ordinary. Different developers can present varying colours depending on which film manufacturer you use.

RO9 used with Fomapan

Why add these dyes?

The halation dye is added to the back of the film base to stop reflections coming off the backing (Acetate or Polyester) into the emulsion, causing exposure affects, usually visible to the eye as halos around areas of brightness. Sometimes the halation coating is sandwiched between the film base and the emulsion or added to the film base itself giving it a slight tone. This in no way alters the way the film acts with the printing process.

So which film developer combination gives you this wonderful Green?

Fomapan is responsible for the green tinting of the used developer. The developers I have used - ID11 and RO9 have produced this colour, so suspect that this film may affect other developers. Although Foma produces the most striking colour, other makes also add a tint to varying degrees to the developer during the process.

120 Film paper backing symbols.

When I started to use a zero multi format pinhole camera for the first time, I had a brief moment of panic because I could not remember what the symbols on the backing paper indicated before the frame number. I had also forgotten that the whole family of 120 formats were represented. I had not used the little red window on the back of a camera since my childhood. Fortunately for me it did not take long for it to come back.

Makes of film shown FP4+, Fomapan, Adox.
Beginning of film. (start)

Remember that the frame number also indicates the center of the film you are about to expose so it is important to get this in the middle of the red window. If you repeatedly over run this by the time you get to the end of the film you will only have part of a frame left.

End of film (Finish)

With this in mind the following pictures show you what to expect with different makes of 120 film - not just for winding on but for winding off before you remove the film from the camera. Not sure why you would need to know this when your coming to the end of the film? logic dictates that you just keep winding until you feel the backing freeing it's self from the spool.




The top line of symbols are for cameras that use 6 x 4.5 negatives. The middle is for 6x6 negatives. The bottom for 6 x 7  and 6 x 9 negatives.