Adox CMS 20 ii developed in Rodinal 1:500

peterkinchington · Nov 18, 2018

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.

pentaxuser · Nov 18, 2018

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

abruzzi · Nov 18, 2018

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.

peterkinchington · Nov 19, 2018

pentaxuser said:
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

It is a scan at 4000dpi and reduced in size.

peterkinchington · Nov 19, 2018

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.

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

Alan Johnson · Nov 19, 2018

https://frugalphotographer.com/info-formulary-general.htm
If you have the raw chemicals to hand, H&W Control is a lot cheaper.
It gives about EI 10.

peterkinchington · Nov 19, 2018

pentaxuser said:
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

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 · Nov 19, 2018

Alan Johnson said:
https://frugalphotographer.com/info-formulary-general.htm
If you have the raw chemicals to hand, H&W Control is a lot cheaper.
It gives about EI 10.

Hi Alan,
Yes I do have the chemicals - How do you find the HW control performs compared to phenidone only formulations e.g. POTA ?
Thanks Peter

Alan Johnson · Nov 19, 2018

Hello Peter,
I never tried POTA but believe the carbonate in H&W Control may increase the pH giving higher EI , though not as high as the proprietary Adotech.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/modification-of-pota-developer.44088/

pentaxuser · Nov 19, 2018

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.

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

scheimfluger_77 · Nov 19, 2018

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.

pentaxuser · Nov 19, 2018

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

trendland · Nov 19, 2018

peterkinchington said:
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.

Yeah - You did it 1:500 right. I realy don't like general recomandation (often in darkroom) wich say :
You have to follow XYZ....otherwise it will not work.
So the max. dilution to Rodinal is often 1:50 (1:100 max) but several reports sugest 1:200 (stand developing). Wy not with 1:400 ( it will not work ?) I did it several years ago at 4:50 hours in 1:400!

So 1:500 will also work fine (I do not wonder about).

So folks forget standard rules and think different (sometimes) ! Because for finding a New aproach
you allways have to RISC something ! And were is the RISC lower than in bw workflow ?
You don't RISC your job, your wife, your house, your live !
You RISC a roll of Film !
So peterkinchington - you did use Rodinal in 1:500 not to safe money right? You have a special intention for 1:500 (contrast controlling) ! That would mean 1:50 / 1:100 is quite a good rule
(for normal use) and all other dilution is for special use (1:150/1:200/1:300 to higher edge effects).

BTW 1:150/1:300 dilution is relative unusual - but where is the problem from that ?

I have to state finaly (from my experience) you deal with a "dying man" using highest dilution Rodinal. No doctor is able to determine the exact time of death.
But if developing is finished he will be buried one way or the other - so what ?
It is in concern of total developing time. I for example are not realy sure if my stand developing at about 4:50 hours was actualy effektive the last 2 hours........,.but I was in CINEMA and did not care about!

So you felt the same if I understand you correct ? But go ahead from my point with alternate developers!

with regards

PS : Because I didn't need the edge effects Rodinal was just a play for me for having contrast control but other developer did it also in a less grainy way !

View attachment 211446

peterkinchington · Nov 19, 2018

scheimfluger_77 said:
Your results are remarkable, however I wonder if you have the corrrect negative.

Hi Steve, you are correct it is another frame. However the negatives look the same processing wise.
Cheers Peter.

peterkinchington · Nov 19, 2018

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

scheimfluger_77 · Nov 19, 2018

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

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.

scheimfluger_77 · Nov 19, 2018

peterkinchington said:
Hi Steve, you are correct it is another frame. However the negatives look the same processing wise.
Cheers Peter.

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?

peterkinchington · Nov 19, 2018

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.

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

peterkinchington · Nov 19, 2018

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?

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 · Nov 19, 2018

Impressive! I'd probably give it a go in very dilute Pyrocat-HD

peterkinchington · Nov 19, 2018

Andrew O'Neill said:
Impressive! I'd probably give it a go in very dilute Pyrocat-HD

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.

Andrew O'Neill · Nov 19, 2018

peterkinchington said:
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!

Andrew O'Neill · May 1, 2019

A box of Adox CMS 20 II arrived at my door! Going to mix up some POTA and see how she fairs...

Andrew O'Neill · May 1, 2019

My wife said I'd make a good hand model...

kingbuzzie · May 1, 2019

Caffenol works quite well for CMS 20

http://experimentelle-fotografie.blogspot.com/2017/01/hochstauflosungsfilm-adox-cms-20-ii.html
https://filmdev.org/recipe/show/8804

I also use caffenol for copex rapid.

I think I use caffenol lc+c for cms 20.

Adox CMS 20 ii developed in Rodinal 1:500

peterkinchington

pentaxuser

abruzzi

peterkinchington

peterkinchington

Alan Johnson

peterkinchington

peterkinchington

Alan Johnson

pentaxuser

scheimfluger_77

pentaxuser

trendland

peterkinchington

peterkinchington

scheimfluger_77

scheimfluger_77

peterkinchington

peterkinchington

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

peterkinchington

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

kingbuzzie

Adox CMS 20 ii developed in Rodinal 1:500

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency