Using RO9 special/ Studional as it was intended.

Negatives are FP4+ and Fomapan 100

I have had the opportunity to use RO9s/Studional as it was intended. Multiple development from the same batch of developer (1 litre will do 12 films). This is a new departure for me, I prefer the single use type. I was a little apprehensive with this decision but gathered four 120 format films together so I could put to the test the assertion that you can develop any number of film on the same day it was diluted without having to add a compensation factor for each film involved, as you do with other developers. This was something I had not heard of before.

Made using a Zero multi format pinhole camera.

 The two makes of film were FP4+ and Fomapan 100 in both cases at box speed. It just so happens that the dilution for these films is 1- 25 with a big time difference - four minutes for the FP4+ and ten for the foma 100.

As mentioned before in another article the developer has a syrup consistency to it as you pour it out. At this point I must add a warning because of the concentrated nature of RO9 special/Studional you need to take precautions when pouring it out to make up the working solution. I have found out to my cost that if you get it on your hands it has a nasty bite. Something I have not experienced when mixing up other developers.

Made using Bronica SQAi.

 With the developer made up the first film to be treated was the FP4+. I was curious to know how well the short process time would work. This will be the quickest I have ever produced the latent image. The actual time suggested was three and half minutes - you need to be careful of short times when it comes to processing film, so I upped it four minutes. Not a lot I know but it could mean the difference between a reasonable set of images and a good set. I can report that it was a good set of negatives with good density across the whole film. The next film out of the processing tank was the Fomapan 100 processed at the suggested time of ten minutes. Again a good set of negatives in fact when held up against the FP4+ film they looked Identical in density. To cut this short the third and fourth films were the same in look as their predecessors. I was not expecting such good results.

Made using a Bronica SQAi.

  The method I used was made up of my trusted inversion procedure and a returning of what was left of the 600 mls of developer back to the storage bottle. Let me explain, when you pour the developer out of the tank there is a a certain amount of fluid lost to this action. It is only a small amount but can be enough to stop the top edge of the film being fully immersed. With this in mind I poured the developer back into the litre bottle and then poured it out again into the measuring cylinder before each film processed. I could have just topped up the difference. This is me erring on the side of caution. This action may have rejuvenated any depletion that had occurred but I suspect that this is not the case with this developer.

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%

 
Related posts:

RO9 special developer
One month on

A case of the wrong paper?

FG 1.  Ilford Multigrade RC developed in
Ilford multigrade developer

I was in the darkroom the other day doing some printing, when I noticed I had produced a print that did not match the test strip. This lead to a bit of head scratching. Then it occurred to me that the paper that was left from the last session in the test strip box was a different make. I had assumed it was Ilford, a logical thought, as it is the paper I use often.

I usually cut the paper I'm going to use into test strips at the beginning of each session. Only in this case I looked in the box and saw there were strips ready to go and just got on with printing. By strips I mean 8 x 10 paper cut in half.

FG 2.  Foma variant RC developed in
Multigrade 

I know that different makes of paper have different characteristics and levels of contrast. But I was not expecting such a big difference.

Lets set the scene: the negative is a 120 format Fomapan ISO 100. I had set the enlarger to F 11 and grade 2.5 - a good place to start due to the negatives contrast. The test strip indicated a 7 seconds exposure would provide an acceptable first print.

When I pulled the paper from the soup it did not look right even with the red light on. It lacked contrast almost flat in appearance. (fig 1 Ilford paper). I opened a box of Foma and exposed it at the same settings (fig 2 Fomatone), again it looks soft with a cooler tone to it. Finally I put a sheet of Kentmere (fig 3 ) in the easel and exposed it at the same setting. Found it! - this matched the test strip. What a difference! - it suggests a grade or two more contrast! 

FG 3.  Kentmere RC
 developed in Multigrade

I was surprised at the contrast between the Kentmere and the others was so striking. The paper developer I used was Ilfords Multigrade it has been in the processor for about a month. I note the time it takes for the first sign of the print to show - in this case 15 seconds - this gives me an idea of how exhausted the developer is. Also as the developer exhausts so the prints show signs of warmth. Once it reaches 30 seconds I tend to add fresh developer or change it.

 I did not intend to compare these papers - I was side tracked by my test strip. What I would suggest is that if your negatives are a bit on the soft side that maybe if you use Kentmere paper it may boost their contrast giving them more punch or should I say presence. I am not suggesting that you should change to Kentmere paper instead of setting the appropriate grade for the negative you are working with. It is something to keep in mind for those very thin and or flat negatives that do not respond very well when you cannot find a grade that works.