Antediluvian Agfa Atomal: bizarre development times

[Captain Mainwaring]

Ey up gentlebeings, I have something that’s made me scratch my noggin here. I have a mate who’s a bit of a hoarder, and he’s been kind enough to supply me with a pack of old Agfa Atomal, which I absolutely wouldn’t mind trying out, but as I checked the instructions, I got really puzzled by the unorthodox development times. This is the absolute first time with any developer (and I’ve used quite a few over the years) that the development times specified for lower-ISO films are consistently longer than those of higher-ISO films, as the picture demonstrates. 9.5 min for T-Max 400 and 13 for T-Max 100; 12 min for HP5 and 16 for FP4. Now, I have absolutely no reason to suggest people from Agfa would deliberately mislead the users of their products, but what‘s with lower-ISO film requiring more time in the brine than higher-ISO film? Everyone I’ve asked is just as clueless as I am.

 

[Corn_Zhou]

If you check the massive development chart you will see that it's *Generally* that higer ISO films require longer development film, but not necessarily.
For example, FP4+ in Rodinal 1+25 needs 9mins while HP5+ needs 6mins.
It dependent on both film and developer rather than a golden rule.

 

[Captain Mainwaring]

If you check the massive development chart you will see that it's *Generally* that higer ISO films require longer development film, but not necessarily.
For example, FP4+ in Rodinal 1+25 needs 9mins while HP5+ needs 6mins.
It dependent on both film and developer rather than a golden rule.

Indeed, but this is the first time I encounter longer development times specified consistently for every single lower-ISO film in the table than for the respective higher-ISO films, and I was wondering whether anyone here knew what chemical/combination of chemicals may have this effect (or, rather, impose such a requirement on dev times).

 

[MarkS]

These recommendations are not made up out of thin air. Technicians at Agfa tested those film and developer combinations many, many times in order to publish them; and the times turned out to be what they were. This is true of all the manufacturers- after all they want their customers to make pleasing photos with their materials.

Of course with any new developer, you should run (at least one) exposure/development test to find the result you like.
I agree, it does seem a bit odd, but those times are at least a starting point.

 

[Captain Mainwaring]

These recommendations are not made up out of thin air. Technicians at Agfa tested those film and developer combinations many, many times in order to publish them; and the times turned out to be what they were. This is true of all the manufacturers- after all they want their customers to make pleasing photos with their materials.

Of course with any new developer, you should run (at least one) exposure/development test to find the result you like.
I agree, it does seem a bit odd, but those times are at least a starting point.

I absolutely agree on every account. I was wondering what exactly could be the reason for such dev times. Which component is responsible? In what way? It is stated on the package that it contains aminophenol, and that certainly isn't a component I've encountered in any b/w developer I've used to date (I've gone through quite a few, I mix up my own, and my go-to formula for the last few years was 510-Pyro for pretty much everything). Could this be an effect of aminophenol? The way it interacts with another component? There certainly can be exceptions as with the Rodinal dev times specified above, but I think everyone will agree that the rule of the thumb is the higher the ISO, the longer it takes to develop the film. You leave it in the brine longer to push it, after all. It's just… logical. Clearly, some component of this developer reverses this logic and I want to know why.

The thing is, though, even though I'm interested in giving this archaeological finding a try (in my experience, photochemistry in powdered form lasts forever and then some), I definitely don't feel like sacrificing film or time on extensive tests. I am nonetheless curious about why longer development times are recommended for lower-ISO film (is it the shadows that take longer to develop or the highlights, and why, I'm always interested in why—which component does what). Surely some chemistry head out there knows the answer?

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I absolutely agree on every account. I was wondering what exactly could be the reason for such dev times. Which component is responsible? In what way? It is stated on the package that it contains aminophenol, and that certainly isn't a component I've encountered in any b/w developer I've used to date (I've gone through quite a few, I mix up my own, and my go-to formula for the last few years was 510-Pyro for pretty much everything). Could this be an effect of aminophenol? The way it interacts with another component? There certainly can be exceptions as with the Rodinal dev times specified above, but I think everyone will agree that the rule of the thumb is the higher the ISO, the longer it takes to develop the film. You leave it in the brine longer to push it, after all. It's just… logical. Clearly, some component of this developer reverses this logic and I want to know why.

The thing is, though, even though I'm interested in giving this archaeological finding a try (in my experience, photochemistry in powdered form lasts forever and then some), I definitely don't feel like sacrificing film or time on extensive tests. I am nonetheless curious about why longer development times are recommended for lower-ISO film (is it the shadows that take longer to develop or the highlights, and why, I'm always interested in why—which component does what). Surely some chemistry head out there knows the answer?

These times cannot be right, unless a different dilution is supposed to be used, which they may have forgotten to mention. It could happen! The exception is Fuji Neopan 1600, which did in fact develop very quickly. It was designed to do that.

 

[Captain Mainwaring]

These times cannot be right, unless a different dilution is supposed to be used, which they may have forgotten to mention. It could happen! The exception is Fuji Neopan 1600, which did in fact develop very quickly. It was designed to do that.

Ah, now this is getting interesting The thing is, though, there are no dilutions specified. Stock solution, package makes a liter. "To process a minimum of 10-12 films" without any indication of extended development time for subsequent rolls. It's exactly this—"Agfa technicians knew what they were doing" vs "this cannot be right," innit, but also very much a case of "if this is nevertheless right for whatever reason, I want to know why"!

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Only one way of finding out, go and take some photos and and develop some films according to the times given.

 

[bstark]

Every film on this list except HP5+ has since been upgraded or discontinued, so it's pretty much impossible to test the times for consistency.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The data sheet is probably not later than 1989.

 

[Captain Mainwaring]

Every film on this list except HP5+ has since been upgraded or discontinued, so it's pretty much impossible to test the times for consistency.

As a rather miraculous set of circumstances would have it, I have just purchased 13 rolls of deep-frozen discontinued film on this very site, all of which happens to be in the table with the exception of a roll of Agfa Scala 200, which I've never even heard of, let alone shot, and one of them is a 12-frame that just begs to be the guinea pig in this case, but I digress…

I've done some web crawling and stumbled upon the recipe for this version of Atomal:
Package A:
Oxyethyl-ortho-aminophenol 6g
Pyrocatechin 10g
Hydroquinone 4g

Package B:
Sodium sulfite sicc. 100g
Sodium carbonate sicc. 25g
Potassium bromide 1g
Sodium metaphosphate 1g

(those are supposed to make a litre)

So we have all the usual suspects, a staining developing agent (Pyrocatechin, which automatically makes this doubly interesting to me, as I've been using staining developers for the last five years, first Pyrocat HD and now 510-Pyro which is pure genius in just four components, three of which are developing agents while triethanolamine does everything else, but I digress again), HQ, sulfite/carbonate/bromide/phosphate in the second package, no news there, either, which leaves us with oxyethyl-ortho-aminophenol as the sole possible inducer of the effect in question.

And now, for five googol quatloos: what's oxyethyl-ortho-aminophenol and how may it require longer dev times? Any experience, anyone? One would assume it to be some distant cousin of colour developing agents, judging by the name—CD1, CD2, maybe? Any input?

 

[Dustin McAmera]

Would this be the same recipe as the Atomal 49 that Adox sells now?

ADOX ATOMAL 49 for 10 Films to mix 1000 ml - fotoimpex.com analogue photography

Film Developer ATOMAL 49 is an extra-fine grain, compensating developer which offers both excellent use of film speed and high contrast control. The powder developer ...

www.fotoimpex.com

The MSDS says it has Hydroquinone and 'N,N-Diethyl-1,4-phenylendiammoniumsulfat' (I think you might anglicise that to N,N-Diethyl-1,4-phenylene diammoniumsulphate, but it still means not that much to me).

 

[Lachlan Young]

Would this be the same recipe as the Atomal 49 that Adox sells now?

ADOX ATOMAL 49 for 10 Films to mix 1000 ml - fotoimpex.com analogue photography

Film Developer ATOMAL 49 is an extra-fine grain, compensating developer which offers both excellent use of film speed and high contrast control. The powder developer ...

www.fotoimpex.com

The MSDS says it has Hydroquinone and 'N,N-Diethyl-1,4-phenylendiammoniumsulfat' (I think you might anglicise that to N,N-Diethyl-1,4-phenylene diammoniumsulphate, but it still means not that much to me).

No.

A49 is derived from the Calbe reformulation of Agfa Wolfen Orwo, the one here is Agfa Leverkusen/ Gevaert's reformulation of Atomal F into Atomal FF (which might simply have been a fine-grain PQ - @ADOX Fotoimpex will know).

The Adox/ Calbe formula uses one of the CD subs of PPD in place of the HEAP Sulfate originally used in Atomal and May & Baker's Promicrol. The truth of the matter is (I think) that they were attempting to work around patented/ undisclosed knowledge that Kodak and Ilford benefitted from in terms of Microdol, Microphen, and the specific groups of knowledge about beneficial development effects that existed around those. Once that knowledge was off-patent/ disclosed, custom synthesis may have become rapidly less attractive. If HEAP Sulfate had genuine benefits, you can bet that everyone would have been synthesising it. On the other hand, CD-4 + a specific component could potentially deliver remarkable results, but has never been commercialised.