Good news about Rodinal

Highlights of the The Leica Fotografie survey results, conducted in
1967:

Adox KB14 (DIN 14/ASA 20):
Rodinal gave the lowest speed (DIN 17), Neofin Blue and Diafine gave
the highest (DIN 20 and 21). No difference in graininess or sharpness
among the developers was reported, perhaps because this film was so
fine-grained to begin with.

Agfa Isopan IFF (DIN 15/ASA 25)
Rodinal gave the lowest speed (DIN 15), Neofin Blue and Diafine gave
the highest (DIN 18 and 17). No difference in graininess among the
developers was reported, but Neofin Blue gave higher sharpness

Kodak Panatomic-X (DIN 16/ ASA 32)
Rodinal gave the lowest speed (DIN 20) no higher than Microdol-X;
Neofin Blue and Diafine gave the highest (DIN 22 and 23). No difference
in sharpness among the developers was reported, but Rodinal, D-76, and
Diafine and gave marginally worse graininess than Microdol-X, Acufine,
or Neofin Blue.

Adox KB17 (DIN 17, ASA 50)
Results simillar to Adox KB14.

Agfa Isopan IF:
Results similar to Isopan IFF. Rodinal produced lowest speed.

Perutz 17 (DIN 17, ASA 50)
Rodinal produced lowest speed, graininess highest in group, along with
D-76 and Diafine.

Ilford Pan-F (DIN 17, ASA 50)
Results for Rodinal in the middle of the pack.

Perutz 21 (DIN 21, ASA 100)
Rodinal produced highest graininess along with two others, middle-of
the pack speed.

lford FP3 (DIN 22, ASA 100)
Lowest speed, middle of the pack graininess.

Kodak Plus-X (DIN 22, ASA 125)
Rodinal gave lowest speed, worst grininess.

Agfa Isopan Ultra (DIN 27, ASA 400)

Rodinal gave lowest speed, no differences in graininss reported.
Perutz 27 (DIN 27, ASA 400)

Rodinal gave lowest speed along with several others, worst grain along
with several others, lower sharpness (alone).

Ilford HP4 (DIN 27, ASA 400)
Rodinal gave lowest sharpness, lowest speed, and worst grain (along
with several others)

The reults of this test showed that Rodinal did not excel with any
film. Most developers gave better speed, finer grain, better sharpness,
or all three. At its best, it did no better than average.

The ONLY benefit Rodinal gives is appearent longevity.




nailer wrote:
On 10 Jan 2006 10:47:05 -0800, "UC"
wrote:

#
#Mike wrote:
#
# I happen to know things that people who have not bothered to do
the
# research don't know. That's why I use what I use, because I know
better
# than those who get their information from hearsay.
#
#
# In my 3 years of developing, I've used Xtol, D76, HC110, Microphen,
DD-X,
# Rodinal, and probably a few more. Rodinal is one of my favorites
and
# I don't care what you think. Photography is for MY satisfaction
and NOT
# YOURS.
#
# What will you do if your precious Acutol is taken off the market?
#
#Rodinal is measurably inferior to almost every other developer, so I
#don't care what you think...
#
#Its popularity is due to photgraphers' stupidity...


1. what are the criteria of quality, you consider important and
Rodinal is missing?

2. who and when conducted such tests and where the results were
published after peers revue?

3. how will you prove stupidity of Rodinal users?

Highlights of the The Leica Fotografie survey results, conducted in
1967:

Adox KB14 (DIN 14/ASA 20):
Rodinal gave the lowest speed (DIN 17), Neofin Blue and Diafine gave
the highest (DIN 20 and 21). No difference in graininess or sharpness
among the developers was reported, perhaps because this film was so
fine-grained to begin with.

Agfa Isopan IFF (DIN 15/ASA 25)
Rodinal gave the lowest speed (DIN 15), Neofin Blue and Diafine gave
the highest (DIN 18 and 17). No difference in graininess among the
developers was reported, but Neofin Blue gave higher sharpness

Kodak Panatomic-X (DIN 16/ ASA 32)
Rodinal gave the lowest speed (DIN 20) no higher than Microdol-X;
Neofin Blue and Diafine gave the highest (DIN 22 and 23). No difference
in sharpness among the developers was reported, but Rodinal, D-76, and
Diafine and gave marginally worse graininess than Microdol-X, Acufine,
or Neofin Blue.

Adox KB17 (DIN 17, ASA 50)
Results simillar to Adox KB14.

Agfa Isopan IF:
Results similar to Isopan IFF. Rodinal produced lowest speed.

Perutz 17 (DIN 17, ASA 50)
Rodinal produced lowest speed, graininess highest in group, along with
D-76 and Diafine.

Ilford Pan-F (DIN 17, ASA 50)
Results for Rodinal in the middle of the pack.

Perutz 21 (DIN 21, ASA 100)
Rodinal produced highest graininess along with two others, middle-of
the pack speed.

lford FP3 (DIN 22, ASA 100)
Lowest speed, middle of the pack graininess.

Kodak Plus-X (DIN 22, ASA 125)
Rodinal gave lowest speed, worst graininess.

Agfa Isopan Ultra (DIN 27, ASA 400)
Rodinal gave lowest speed, no differences in graininss reported.

Perutz 27 (DIN 27, ASA 400)
Rodinal gave lowest speed along with several others, worst grain along
with several others, lower sharpness (alone).

Ilford HP4 (DIN 27, ASA 400)
Rodinal gave lowest sharpness, lowest speed, and worst grain (along
with several others)

Kodak Tri-X Pan (DIN 27, ASA 400)
Rodinal alone gave lower sharpness, the same speed as several others,
worst graininess along with several others.

The reults of this test showed that Rodinal did not excel with any
film, and gave especially
poor results with the faster films. Any of the other developers gave
better speed, finer grain, better sharpness, or all three. At its best,
Rodinal did no better than average.

The ONLY benefit Rodinal gives is appearent longevity.


nailer wrote:
On 10 Jan 2006 10:47:05 -0800, "UC"
wrote:

#
#Mike wrote:
#
# I happen to know things that people who have not bothered to do
the
# research don't know. That's why I use what I use, because I know
better
# than those who get their information from hearsay.
#
#
# In my 3 years of developing, I've used Xtol, D76, HC110, Microphen,
DD-X,
# Rodinal, and probably a few more. Rodinal is one of my favorites
and
# I don't care what you think. Photography is for MY satisfaction
and NOT
# YOURS.
#
# What will you do if your precious Acutol is taken off the market?
#
#Rodinal is measurably inferior to almost every other developer, so I
#don't care what you think...
#
#Its popularity is due to photgraphers' stupidity...


1. what are the criteria of quality, you consider important and
Rodinal is missing?

2. who and when conducted such tests and where the results were
published after peers revue?

3. how will you prove stupidity of Rodinal users?

I should mention that the Paterson developers were not included in the
test.

Among the developers tested with slow films, Neofin Blue excelled.

Among the developers tested with fast films, none excelled, but D-76,
Acufine, Atomal, Ultrafin, and Microphen all produced the better
results as a group.

No surprises there...


UC wrote:
Highlights of the The Leica Fotografie survey results, conducted in
1967:

Adox KB14 (DIN 14/ASA 20):
Rodinal gave the lowest speed (DIN 17), Neofin Blue and Diafine gave
the highest (DIN 20 and 21). No difference in graininess or sharpness
among the developers was reported, perhaps because this film was so
fine-grained to begin with.

Agfa Isopan IFF (DIN 15/ASA 25)
Rodinal gave the lowest speed (DIN 15), Neofin Blue and Diafine gave
the highest (DIN 18 and 17). No difference in graininess among the
developers was reported, but Neofin Blue gave higher sharpness

Kodak Panatomic-X (DIN 16/ ASA 32)
Rodinal gave the lowest speed (DIN 20) no higher than Microdol-X;
Neofin Blue and Diafine gave the highest (DIN 22 and 23). No difference
in sharpness among the developers was reported, but Rodinal, D-76, and
Diafine and gave marginally worse graininess than Microdol-X, Acufine,
or Neofin Blue.

Adox KB17 (DIN 17, ASA 50)
Results simillar to Adox KB14.

Agfa Isopan IF:
Results similar to Isopan IFF. Rodinal produced lowest speed.

Perutz 17 (DIN 17, ASA 50)
Rodinal produced lowest speed, graininess highest in group, along with
D-76 and Diafine.

Ilford Pan-F (DIN 17, ASA 50)
Results for Rodinal in the middle of the pack.

Perutz 21 (DIN 21, ASA 100)
Rodinal produced highest graininess along with two others, middle-of
the pack speed.

lford FP3 (DIN 22, ASA 100)
Lowest speed, middle of the pack graininess.

Kodak Plus-X (DIN 22, ASA 125)
Rodinal gave lowest speed, worst graininess.

Agfa Isopan Ultra (DIN 27, ASA 400)
Rodinal gave lowest speed, no differences in graininss reported.

Perutz 27 (DIN 27, ASA 400)
Rodinal gave lowest speed along with several others, worst grain along
with several others, lower sharpness (alone).

Ilford HP4 (DIN 27, ASA 400)
Rodinal gave lowest sharpness, lowest speed, and worst grain (along
with several others)

Kodak Tri-X Pan (DIN 27, ASA 400)
Rodinal alone gave lower sharpness, the same speed as several others,
worst graininess along with several others.

The reults of this test showed that Rodinal did not excel with any
film, and gave especially
poor results with the faster films. Any of the other developers gave
better speed, finer grain, better sharpness, or all three. At its best,
Rodinal did no better than average.

The ONLY benefit Rodinal gives is appearent longevity.


nailer wrote:
On 10 Jan 2006 10:47:05 -0800, "UC"
wrote:

#
#Mike wrote:
#
# I happen to know things that people who have not bothered to do
the
# research don't know. That's why I use what I use, because I know
better
# than those who get their information from hearsay.
#
#
# In my 3 years of developing, I've used Xtol, D76, HC110, Microphen,
DD-X,
# Rodinal, and probably a few more. Rodinal is one of my favorites
and
# I don't care what you think. Photography is for MY satisfaction
and NOT
# YOURS.
#
# What will you do if your precious Acutol is taken off the market?
#
#Rodinal is measurably inferior to almost every other developer, so I
#don't care what you think...
#
#Its popularity is due to photgraphers' stupidity...


1. what are the criteria of quality, you consider important and
Rodinal is missing?

2. who and when conducted such tests and where the results were
published after peers revue?

3. how will you prove stupidity of Rodinal users?

nailer wrote:

in what aspect Rodinal is bad?
does it have some good properties?
if not, why do you think so?

On 9 Jan 2006 08:22:37 -0800, "UC" wrote:


snip troll...

I am not sure if you are aware of the fact, but for some reason you
appear to be sending in your recent postings *twice*, the second shortly
after the first. This degrades the signal-to-noise ratio somewhat. I
suggest you examine your newsreader settings or behaviour so as to avoid
this.
My regards, F.C. Trevor Gale.

UC wrote:
Rodinal is one of the worst developers made. Its popularity is baffling
to any rational person.


wrote:

A reliable member of another online forum has posted
an email reply he received from an official at A&O; it
clearly states that *Rodinal production will continue.*

Anyone interested can email me for a link...

"Excelsior, you fathead!"
-Chris-

Since they cannot be edited, it creates a poblem when I have to make a
correction or addition. I delete the previous one whenever I do that.

F.C. Trevor Gale wrote:
I am not sure if you are aware of the fact, but for some reason you
appear to be sending in your recent postings *twice*, the second shortly
after the first. This degrades the signal-to-noise ratio somewhat. I
suggest you examine your newsreader settings or behaviour so as to avoid
this.
My regards, F.C. Trevor Gale.

UC wrote:
Rodinal is one of the worst developers made. Its popularity is baffling
to any rational person.


wrote:

A reliable member of another online forum has posted
an email reply he received from an official at A&O; it
clearly states that *Rodinal production will continue.*

Anyone interested can email me for a link...

"Excelsior, you fathead!"
-Chris-

I'll be glad to send anyone who wantsthem scans of the Leica
Fotografie article.


Tom Phillips wrote:
nailer wrote:

in what aspect Rodinal is bad?
does it have some good properties?
if not, why do you think so?

On 9 Jan 2006 08:22:37 -0800, "UC" wrote:


snip troll...

Sorry. When my posts failed to appear after some time I posted
again, since I thought this important news. I deleted what I could...

Christopher Platt