Still on Rollei ATP film

I start a new post about this film.

I've tried my first roll, exposed at 25 ISO, taking pictures of
mountain landscape, with few snow and clouds on sky.

I've tried Delagi #8 developer, 15 mins at 20 degrees, exactly the
same used with Kodak TP film. The result is a quite weak negative,
completely different from TP one. So I can conclude, by now, that
Rollei ATP does not seem to be the subsitute of TP. I would like to
try with POTA developer, but after Delagi this seems a lost of time.

Looking for technical sheets of Rollei ATP I see another developer,
Docufine LC. From MSDS I find:

hydroquinone 3 %
sodium hydroxide 1 %
sodium carbonate 8 %

for a total amount of solids of 12 %

But at point no. 9 of MSDS it is written that the solids content is 23
%, very different from 12 % found before. So, where is the trick? Are
there non dangerous components that increase the solids amount but
essential for developer?

On Mar 23, 6:11 pm, piterengel wrote:
I start a new post about this film.

I've tried my first roll, exposed at 25 ISO, taking pictures of
mountain landscape, with few snow and clouds on sky.

I've tried Delagi #8 developer, 15 mins at 20 degrees, exactly the
same used with Kodak TP film. The result is a quite weak negative,
completely different from TP one. So I can conclude, by now, that
Rollei ATP does not seem to be the subsitute of TP. I would like to
try with POTA developer, but after Delagi this seems a lost of time.

Looking for technical sheets of Rollei ATP I see another developer,
Docufine LC. From MSDS I find:

hydroquinone 3 %
sodium hydroxide 1 %
sodium carbonate 8 %

for a total amount of solids of 12 %

But at point no. 9 of MSDS it is written that the solids content is 23
%, very different from 12 % found before. So, where is the trick? Are
there non dangerous components that increase the solids amount but
essential for developer?

A precisation.

Data form MSDS are taken form english version of it (date:
31.05.2006). Looking on the german version (date: 23.07.2003) of the
same product I see:

phenidone (a derivative of it) 1-2 %
potassium 2,5-diidroxybenzensulponate 1-2 %
diethylene glycol 10 %

So the mistery is darker...

"piterengel" wrote in message
...
I start a new post about this film.

I've tried my first roll, exposed at 25 ISO, taking
pictures of
mountain landscape, with few snow and clouds on sky.

I've tried Delagi #8 developer, 15 mins at 20 degrees,
exactly the
same used with Kodak TP film. The result is a quite weak
negative,
completely different from TP one. So I can conclude, by
now, that
Rollei ATP does not seem to be the subsitute of TP. I
would like to
try with POTA developer, but after Delagi this seems a
lost of time.

Looking for technical sheets of Rollei ATP I see another
developer,
Docufine LC. From MSDS I find:

hydroquinone 3 %
sodium hydroxide 1 %
sodium carbonate 8 %

for a total amount of solids of 12 %

But at point no. 9 of MSDS it is written that the solids
content is 23
%, very different from 12 % found before. So, where is the
trick? Are
there non dangerous components that increase the solids
amount but
essential for developer?


MSDS are legal not technical documents. They often
obscure the contents of whatever they are written for as
much as expose them. Many ingredients do not have to be
listed if they are present in very small amounts. For
instance, Kodak HC-110 contains a Phenidone derivative but
its not included in the MSDS.
I don't remember what is in Delagi No.8 but I am very
skeptical that the Rollei film is much like Tech Pan other
than being a very slow fine grain film. Technical Pan was
not a microfilm although it could be used for document
copying. Some high contrast microfilms can be used as extra
fine grain pictorial films with special developers but there
was something special about Tech Pan which plain microfilm
does not seem to posses.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

On Mar 23, 7:51 pm, "Richard Knoppow" wrote:
"piterengel" wrote in message

...



I start a new post about this film.

I've tried my first roll, exposed at 25 ISO, taking
pictures of
mountain landscape, with few snow and clouds on sky.

I've tried Delagi #8 developer, 15 mins at 20 degrees,
exactly the
same used with Kodak TP film. The result is a quite weak
negative,
completely different from TP one. So I can conclude, by
now, that
Rollei ATP does not seem to be the subsitute of TP. I
would like to
try with POTA developer, but after Delagi this seems a
lost of time.

Looking for technical sheets of Rollei ATP I see another
developer,
Docufine LC. From MSDS I find:

hydroquinone 3 %
sodium hydroxide 1 %
sodium carbonate 8 %

for a total amount of solids of 12 %

But at point no. 9 of MSDS it is written that the solids
content is 23
%, very different from 12 % found before. So, where is the
trick? Are
there non dangerous components that increase the solids
amount but
essential for developer?

MSDS are legal not technical documents. They often
obscure the contents of whatever they are written for as
much as expose them. Many ingredients do not have to be
listed if they are present in very small amounts. For
instance, Kodak HC-110 contains a Phenidone derivative but
its not included in the MSDS.
I don't remember what is in Delagi No.8 but I am very
skeptical that the Rollei film is much like Tech Pan other
than being a very slow fine grain film. Technical Pan was
not a microfilm although it could be used for document
copying. Some high contrast microfilms can be used as extra
fine grain pictorial films with special developers but there
was something special about Tech Pan which plain microfilm
does not seem to posses.

--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA


Delagi #8 is a modified POTA (from Anchell's book):

Sodium sulphite 25 g
Phenidone 1.4 g
Borax 2 g
benzotriazole 0.2 % 15 ml

for 1 liter

I completely agree with Mr. Knoppow: Rollei ATP is NOT the same of TP.
And I was not able by now to find another film like that.

Anyway, about MSDS, the principal matter, in my opinion, is that the
two sources (the english version and the german one) give two
completely different kind of developer, the first based on HQ and the
second on phenidone. I think the truth is the addition of the two, a
PQ developer. Surely I'll try this solution, as I'll be back to work
where I've all chemicals. But first I'll try a very diluited rodinal
solution, 1+300 for example, with a semi-static procedure. I'll let
know results.