Adox Adonal for HP5+ at 1600?

-chrille- · Jun 7, 2023

I am going to develop HP5+ shot at 1600 in Adox Adonal. I usually use Ilford LC-29 soo this is going to be the first time with Adonal which, if I am understand it correctly, is close to original Rodinol formula.

Can you recommend a suitable dilution and dev. time for HP5+ at 1600, please? I would like a grainy and ”dirty” look. Subjects on the film are all low contrast scenes. A boost in contrast is desirable.

Fatih Ayoglu · Jun 7, 2023

I have used 12 mins for 1+25 and 24 mins for 1+50 successfully, both at 20C and Rodinal recommended agitation method.

pentaxuser · Jun 7, 2023

Fatih Ayoglu said:
I have used 12 mins for 1+25 and 24 mins for 1+50 successfully, both at 20C and Rodinal recommended agitation method.

If it's a boost in contrast that you require then maybe the time for 1+25 given by Fatih is the one to try. Generally from what I have heard 1+25 gives the bigger boost to contrast

If you intend to develop a 36 frame film then it might be worthwhile to cut the film into three and develop the first strip at 1+25 the second at 1+50 and the third at 1+100 using stand development at say 60 mins. Personally I would be tempted to increase the agitation for stand development to the first 30 secs at slow and gentle agitation then two agitations at 30 mins or even one agitation at 15, 30 and 45 mins to avoid any possibility of bromide drag. All three strips of negatives should be fine and will make OK prints but one strip may be better for what you want

Let us know what you decide and then if at least one or some of the negatives are OK and not private then show us how they were

Thanks

pentaxuser

M-88 · Jun 8, 2023

Well, only time I used Rodinal for push processing, it was done via stand development at 1+100 dilution. It reduces contrast, but that doesn't really bothered me because contrast could be adjusted in the darkroom. 30 seconds of initial agitation, 15 seconds of agitation at 30 minute mark. Grain was of course all over the place, couldn't have been otherwise with a traditional ("cubic"?) grain film dipped in Rodinal.

But if OP wants a lot of "dirt" and "grain" in photos, then perhaps 1+25 is better suited, with plenty of agitation.

Another thing I have on my mind is Delta 3200 shot and developed at 1600. Whenever I shot and developed this film, it always ended up grainier than HP5+ shot/developed at 1600, even in D-76.

Patrick Robert James · Jun 8, 2023

You'll want to use 1+25. Skip the stand development. Just don't ever do it. At 1+25 with extended development you will get some grainy negs. Ilford has a recommended time of 8m for 800, so Fatih's time is a good starting point compared to other developing times they recommend. They of course don't have a recommended time for 1600 but that would be expected.

lycka till

-chrille- · Jun 10, 2023

Thank you all. I will try 1+25 and 12min at 20°C.

-chrille- · Aug 1, 2023

The reconstrution of my darkroom is completed and I had time developing a roll of HP5+ shoot at 1600 in Adonal. The film is drying right now but at first peek I am really pleased with the result.

I used the formula stated above. 1:25, 12min at 20°C. Agitation 10 sec every minute.

Will follow up with some more results over time and some sample frames.

cerber0s · Aug 1, 2023

I haven’t tried HP5, but this was done with Agfaphoto APX 400 using stand development in Rodinal 1:200.

titrisol · Aug 1, 2023

You'll get very beautiful grain, as long as you are ready for it.
1+25 is going to be your best shot and the time proposed sounds ok, you can extend it by an extra 1-2 min with no problems

beepix · Aug 1, 2023

Checked the Massive Development Chart (at digitaltruth.com) and was surprised not to find Adox or Adonol listed. If you have info I believe they would like to have it added to the chart.

JPD · Aug 1, 2023

beepix said:
Checked the Massive Development Chart (at digitaltruth.com) and was surprised not to find Adox or Adonol listed. If you have info I believe they would like to have it added to the chart.

Adonal is Rodinal, just with another name for trademark reasons.

agentlossing · Aug 2, 2023

I used 12 min with 1:25, and it came out well enough for me. Quite contrasty. I scan my negatives and add a little extra contrast if warranted, so this probably has a curve applied.

-chrille- · Aug 3, 2023

Second roll of HP5+ at 1600 developed in Adonal 1:25 for 12 min with good result

albireo · Aug 4, 2023

cerber0s said:
I haven’t tried HP5, but this was done with Agfaphoto APX 400 using stand development in Rodinal 1:200.

View attachment 345446

Fantastic photography, but this bears some of the signatures of stand developed, scanned negatives: uneven density across the frame (the density gradient towards the bottom of the frame) and overdevelopment-derived noise in the highlights. I haven't seen the negative but I would hazard it's slightly underexposed and very overdeveloped.

Unless the effects above are something you're specifically interested in, I'd encourage you to try simple Rodinal 1:50, properly agitated: slow inversions for the first minute, followed by 3 raps of the tank. Then, 1 or 2 inversions at the beginning of every following minute. It's not a lot of work and you will get much better (as in, 'technically' much better: controllable, reproducible, even) results than this.

cerber0s · Aug 4, 2023

albireo said:
Fantastic photography, but this bears some of the signatures of stand developed, scanned negatives: uneven density across the frame (the density gradient towards the bottom of the frame) and overdevelopment-derived noise in the highlights. I haven't seen the negative but I would hazard it's slightly underexposed and very overdeveloped.

Unless the effects above are something you're specifically interested in, I'd encourage you to try simple Rodinal 1:50, properly agitated: slow inversions for the first minute, followed by 3 raps of the tank. Then, 1 or 2 inversions at the beginning of every following minute. It's not a lot of work and you will get much better (as in, 'technically' much better: controllable, reproducible, even) results than this.

Thanks. The negative is underexposed, but I’m not sure I think it’s overdeveloped?

albireo · Aug 4, 2023

cerber0s said:
Thanks. The negative is underexposed, but I’m not sure I think it’s overdeveloped?

View attachment 345684

In general it's not, but I do notice an increase in density towards the bottom of the frames 14,14A,15.

Do you remember how this roll was sitting in the tank? If the bottom side was at the bottom of the tank while the tank was in its resting position during development, then perhaps that increased density is linked to developer gradients that formed due to lack of agitation.

cerber0s · Aug 4, 2023

albireo said:
In general it's not, but I do notice an increase in density towards the bottom of the frames 14,14A,15, in all three frames you show.

Do you remember how this roll was sitting in the tank? If the bottom side was at the bottom of the tank while the tank was in its resting position during development, then perhaps that increased density is linked to developer gradients that formed due to lack of agitation.

No, I have no idea how it sat in the tank

I can check the rest of the roll when I get back home, to see if it’s consistent. I’ve found that I get better results with Rodinal 1:50, with slightly less agitation, and slightly longer time than what’s specified. Whenever I agitate as you describe I seem to get larger and uglier grain.

koraks · Aug 4, 2023

albireo said:
I do notice an increase in density towards the bottom of the frames 14,14A,15, in all three frames you show.

Probably due to the geography of the face. You're seeing probably just a little more light on the upper curve of the cheek where the cheekbone protrudes. With a dominant light source that's a little higher than eye-level, it's to be expected that that area of the face will be lit more strongly.

I don't see uneven development in those frames. I do see significant underexposure.

agentlossing said:
Quite contrasty.

Well, yeah. A bit what you'd expect from a 400-speed film underexposed by 2 stops in a developer that doesn't favor shadow detail. Lots of open space with no detail at all. If that's OK for you, then go for it. It's not a tonality I personally prefer in my negatives. If I want harsh images, I can always achieve that in digital post or the printing process. If it's (not) in the negative, there's no choice.

albireo · Aug 4, 2023

For @cerber0s - for what it's worth here's an example of mine with Agfaphoto APX 400 and Rodinal 1+50, regularly inverted as described in my previous post.

Here's a quick (and poor) phone shot of the negative against the window. As you see, it's similar to your samples in that it shows significant underexposure (in the left 1/5th and right 1/5th of the image). Development time I'm happy with - highlight density has been tuned to match my workflow. You'll also note a faint trace of excess photoflo running horizontally across the frame, but I detect no horizontal development gradient

Here's one interpretation of the negative, with no unwanted scanner software intervention. Flat linear raw scan in Vuescan. Only edits were gamma correction and setting of the black point to taste.

albireo · Aug 4, 2023

koraks said:
I don't see uneven development in those frames.

I do see a hint of gradient in those negatives - whether to do with development or not, not 100% sure.

koraks · Aug 4, 2023

I see what you mean, but I think it's a fluke, really. Note that it's absent from the top roll. I think it has something to do with the photograph of the film strip more than development.

I do agree though that stand development is tricky. Sometimes you get away with it, often not so much. I've never had that much luck with it.

cerber0s · Aug 4, 2023

albireo said:
For @cerber0s - for what it's worth here's an example of mine with Agfaphoto APX 400 and Rodinal 1+50, regularly inverted as described in my previous post.

Here's a quick (and poor) phone shot of the negative against the window. As you see, it's similar to your samples in that it shows significant underexposure (in the left 1/5th and right 1/5th of the image). Development time I'm happy with - highlight density has been tuned to match my workflow. You'll also note a faint trace of excess photoflo running horizontally across the frame, but I detect no horizontal development gradient

Here's one interpretation of the negative, with no unwanted scanner software intervention. Flat linear raw scan in Vuescan. Only edits were gamma correction and setting of the black point to taste.

That’s a really nice photo!

This one was with Rodinal 1:50 for 30 minutes. Agitation continuously for the first 30 seconds, the 2 inversions every 10 minutes. Now, I thought I had APX 400 in the camera, so that’s what I developed for, but it turned out to be Fomapan 400.

albireo · Aug 4, 2023

cerber0s said:
That’s a really nice photo!

This one was with Rodinal 1:50 for 30 minutes. Agitation continuously for the first 30 seconds, the 2 inversions every 10 minutes.

View attachment 345685

I love Foma 400 in Rodinal. Here it is in 35mm in Rodinal 1:50 8 minutes 30 seconds, continuous inversions 1st min, then 1 inversion at the start of every minute

titrisol · Aug 4, 2023

cerber0s said:
Thanks. The negative is underexposed, but I’m not sure I think it’s overdeveloped?

View attachment 345684

Overdeloped would have very dark hihghlights (the flower e.g.)
These are well developed with good details. If you placed those negs on top of a book and you could see black letters through the darkest areas.

cerber0s · Aug 4, 2023

albireo said:
I love Foma 400 in Rodinal. Here it is in 35mm in Rodinal 1:50 8 minutes 30 seconds, continuous inversions 1st min, then 1 inversion at the start of every minute

That looks great!

Adox Adonal for HP5+ at 1600?

-chrille-

Fatih Ayoglu

pentaxuser

M-88

Patrick Robert James

-chrille-

-chrille-

cerber0s

titrisol

beepix

JPD

agentlossing

-chrille-

albireo

cerber0s

albireo

cerber0s

koraks

Moderator

albireo

albireo

koraks

Moderator

cerber0s

albireo

titrisol

cerber0s

Adox Adonal for HP5+ at 1600?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency