• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Adox CMS 20 ii developed in Rodinal 1:500

peterkinchington

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 8, 2010
Messages
44
Location
Mooroolbark Australia
Format
Multi Format
I shot off a roll of high resolution cms20 ii film exposed at 10 iso and processed it in rodinal at 1:500 dilution at 17 degrees C for 2hours using stand development. I wanted to see whether I could get a range of tones without using the expensive adotech IV developer. The negatives were very thin and the developer exhausted itself in the highlights giving a brown colour to them. However the negatives exhibited a good tonal range. I have attached a photograph taken with my 100mm macro rokkor at f/8 with flash lighting of a hoverfly on a native (Australian) white frangipani flower.

 
At 1:500 dilution what was the amount of concentrated Rodinal used? Is this a scan of the negative and if so how much post processing was done or is it a scan of the darkroom print which replicates the prints exactly or as closely as possible?Thanks

pentaxuser
 
I’d love to see a photo of the negative, to see what “very thin” is. I haven’t tried CMS II because the cost of the developer. If I could get something usable with developer that I already have, I might give it a try.
 

It is a scan at 4000dpi and reduced in size.
 
abruzzi said:
I’d love to see a photo of the negative, to see what “very thin” is. I haven’t tried CMS II because the cost of the developer. If I could get something usable with developer that I already have, I might give it a try.
Click to expand...
Hi- here is the photo of the negative you asked for it is taken into the cloudy sky with a nikon D500 and 105mm manual micro nikkor and hand held - I hope it meets your requirements.
Cheers Peter
 
1ml concentrated rodinal to 499ml of water. I placed the 35mm roll (36exp) in the 500ml of solution. The post processing was minimal I removed some dust spots and applied a small amount of sharpening.
 
peterkinchington said:
1ml concentrated rodinal to 499ml of water. I placed the 35mm roll (36exp) in the 500ml of solution. The post processing was minimal I removed some dust spots and applied a small amount of sharpening.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I asked the question about dilution because 1ml seems generally to be considered too little although if you are solely a scanner then a thin neg may be OK. As there was little or no post processing and if you are a hybrid worker, then if the positive, as shown, can be turned into a print of matching quality then everything seems to have worked out fine

At 1ml per film, Rodinal must work out to be one of the cheapest developer around

pentaxuser
 
Your results are remarkable, however I wonder if you have the corrrect negative. They look really close but there are some suble differences. The major one for me is the upper left corner/quadrant. The negative has a large space of no density but the print has plenty.
 
A good observation, Steve. Yes the insect has appeared to have moved, based on its wings in relation to the petals. I thought again about 1ml + 500ml and it prompted me to look up an article by Ed Buffaloe on Rodinal. According to him Agfa recommend a minimum of 10ml per film but he says that he found 5ml was sufficient. However Peter is using only a 1/5th of what Ed Buffaloe regards as the safe minimum.

I suppose that even if the neg is not the one from which the positive was scanned, then as long as it looks similar this may not be relevant I'd be very nervous of only 1ml of Rodinal but that's just me

pentaxuser
 
 
Hi Trendland, yes I mainly tried the very dilute 1:500 dilution of rodinal to control contrast and yes my primary goal was probably not just to save money but for convenience as I always have a bottle of rodinal in my darkroom.
Cheers Peter
 
pentaxuser said:
...I suppose that even if the neg is not the one from which the positive was scanned, then as long as it looks similar this may not be relevant I'd be very nervous of only 1ml of Rodinal but that's just me

pentaxuser
Click to expand...
I agree but it is difficult to argue with the results. They may not be perfect but brain beginning to do flips. I wonder how hc-110 would perform.
 
pentaxuser said:
Thanks. I asked the question about dilution because 1ml seems generally to be considered too little although if you are solely a scanner then a thin neg may be OK.
Click to expand...
I used to print "thin" negatives on Agfa Brovira Gr6 paper when I developed Kodak infrared and TMax 100 in Beutler developer and they gave nice results albeit grain was apparent but the sharpness was fantastic. I have attached an image of Kangaroos and a grasstree in bloom taken
with Kodak IR bw film both developed this way.
cheers Peter

 
scheimfluger_77 said:
Thanks for the reply Peter. I wonder if another stop of exposure would help with the ‘thin-ness’. Did you do any agitation at all?
Click to expand...
No agitation except for an inversion in the first minute and rapping the tank to dislodge bubbles and yes an extra stop of exposure may have helped.
Cheers P.
 
Andrew O'Neill said:
Impressive! I'd probably give it a go in very dilute Pyrocat-HD
Click to expand...
Hi Andrew,
I have some Pyrocatechol and sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) I was going to make a simple developer with as used by Ansel Adams to control contrast. I intended to use it with Fomapan 100 4x5in rated at EI 50. I believe that the tanning effect on the gelatin will even show the sun as a disc in photos.
Cheers Peter (Kanga)
P.S. My wife is a Canadian and I've seen a Moose in Kananaskas.
 

I'll be heading for Brisbane in July for my good friend's 50th. Went over in '99 when he got married (he's Australian). At that time, he was in Cairns. Had a blast. Really looking forward to going back. Yup... lots of moose here! Cheers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register