Agfa APX100 Development in Rodinal

zsas said:

Hey Avi - when you mention the twirl method, are you referring to the GAF anscomatic:

Humm, I am not sure how one translates inversions to twirls, this kind of tank predates me and I am not sure if there are times that Agfa published back in the day for the GAF tanks.

Anyone got any tips?

Click to expand...

Folks,

Thank you so much for your suggestions.

Sorry that this is turning a bit sour.

Andy...yes...those are the very tanks and I believe I got them from you as a gift!

Avi

Leigh B said:

If you'll go back and read the original post, you'll find:
1) this is a very important roll, and
2) the OP does not want to experiment.

Any recommendation from anyone here that deviates from the manufacturer's recommendations is experimentation, and thus worthless in this context.

The Agfa recommendations do work. If you got unsatisfactory results there's a problem with your process.
I expect too much agitation. That's a common problem when using Rodinal.

But whatever it might be, the subject is totally OT in the context of this thread.

- Leigh

Click to expand...

I have to side with Leigh here.....I think it makes sense to stick with manufacturer recommendations for the very first roll and THEN experiment (based on all your suggestions) to get negatives that suite my taste.

zsas said:

well then, what agitation schema do you recommend then? As I posted above, Avi uses twirl, I know that because I gave Avi the GAF tanks you see above, so with that said, what is the manufacturer's recommendation for the GAF tank above? I doubt you know and hence dismissing him to the manufactures recommendations is just dismissing Avi's question entirely, think you need to read his question closer

Click to expand...

Hi Andy,

Thanks.

I have used twirl agitation for all my 120 films so far. And I don't think the translation from inversion to agitation is all that bad.

Nevertheless, I have acquired inversion tanks as well, so to completely standardize the process, I think I can do that for this roll.

Avi

Leigh B said:

If you'll go back and read the original post, you'll find:
1) this is a very important roll, and
2) the OP does not want to experiment.

Any recommendation from anyone here that deviates from the manufacturer's recommendations is experimentation, and thus worthless in this context.

The Agfa recommendations do work. If you got unsatisfactory results there's a problem with your process.
I expect too much agitation. That's a common problem when using Rodinal.

But whatever it might be, the subject is totally OT in the context of this thread.

- Leigh

Click to expand...

You are correct that this is the OP's first roll, absolutely. I apologize for losing my empathy for a moment, and going outside the context of the original question.

But, you made some accusations that I could not let stand, simply because you dismissed personal testing in favor of just doing what it says on the package, and I disagree with you profoundly. To do your own testing is possibly the most important aspect of getting the technical side of film based photography to gel 100%. That is not sour grapes and revenge like feelings, but a very good suggestion to improve your photography.
I assure you I have no problems with my process. I know exactly what I'm doing. But I probably have only shot 2-300 rolls of APX 100, so what do I know? It isn't even a film I've used a lot comparatively.

The real lesson to be learned here is to never use film you haven't tried before for important shots. Always, always, always use a well known film if the outcome is important. Or better yet, one that's tuned into your work flow.

And, to get back on topic, I agree that for the very first roll shot, use the manufacturer's recommended time.

- Thomas

Hi Thomas,

I certainly agree with you about testing. It's the cornerstone of any serious photographer's darkroom process.

I was trying to point out that it was not appropriate in this particular situation for this particular roll of film.

Sorry if I failed to make that distinction clear.

- Leigh

If this roll of film is that valuable, I would give serious consideration to shooting another roll of film under similar conditions. For the most part, Rodinal dilutions are used for the control of contrast and are normally used:

1:25 is used for low contrast situations such as you have described in your initial post, "for Rainy/overcast" days, etc.

1:50 and 1:75 is normally used for normal days

1:75 and 1:100 are used on very bright contrasty days, the more you use this developer the better your going to love it.

But there is more to consider:

Will you'll be using, be a color diffusion or a condenser enlarger or are you going to have the negatives scanned?

Not scanning, then what contrast index will you be developing to .56 through .65?

This list of variables can go on and on and on.

If I were in your position I would get hold of another roll of APX-100 and develop it, 1:25 dilution for 8 minutes (10ml of developer/roll regardless of dilution), constant agitation for the first 30 sec. or so and then 5 sec. every min.

If I couldn't get hold of another roll I would consider the above which I'm sure will work and produce adequate neg's.

Regards.

Bob

yankeesnapper said:

If this roll of film is that valuable, I would give serious consideration to shooting another roll of film under similar conditions. For the most part, Rodinal dilutions are used for the control of contrast and are normally used:

1:25 is used for low contrast situations such as you have described in your initial post, "for Rainy/overcast" days, etc.

1:50 and 1:75 is normally used for normal days

1:75 and 1:100 are used on very bright contrasty days, the more you use this developer the better your going to love it.


Bob

Click to expand...

Bob...this is great to know. Many thanks.

It was (for me) the perfect set of conditions. I was shooting in the cemetery and the conditions were overcast.......

Avi

Leigh B said:

Hi Thomas,

I certainly agree with you about testing. It's the cornerstone of any serious photographer's darkroom process.

I was trying to point out that it was not appropriate in this particular situation for this particular roll of film.

Sorry if I failed to make that distinction clear.

- Leigh

Click to expand...

Written language can be so difficult.

Glad we can move on.

- Thomas

Just so there is no further confusion and to hopefully help someone not making mistakes in the future, I would like to point out a couple of things. This is directed to the OP and not Mr. Leigh, as I have no interest in arguments.

Here is Agfa's data sheet: http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/agfa_tech/FPD1e.pdf

As clearly stated there, development times are guides only. Much more importantly, if anyone cares to read, the 17 minutes quoted is for an average gradient of .65. Surprise! Now, if one looks at the sheets that I have attached, such development will produce good negatives for an SBR of 5 or so, meaning a flat, low contrasts scene. Good news for Avi there. Now, they claim a speed of 160, and I got 50 for the same average gradient. Go figure. In closing, had Avi shot this important roll in a high contrast situation and simply followed manufacturer recommendations to the letter, his roll would have been cooked to oblivion. That is without one single hint of a doubt. PLEASE, do not take this as MY gospel. Spend a day at the beach, snow, or a bright sunny day and test yourself. It's not about "I am a know it all and Agfa doesn't know anything". it is about taking manufacturer recommendations and 1) understanding them, and 2) take it as a guideline and extrapolate what needs to be done on a personal basis. That's all there is to it. Their word is not indisputable gospel, nor is intended to be. They don't know how you meter, your tanks, your agitation patterns, your water, and most importantly your paper/paper developer combination or if you simply scan. Knowledge is NOT power. Applied knowledge is.

And, may I add a couple more references:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

And, times for Rollei Retro 100 (same as APX100): 'For negatives of MEDIUM CONTRAST..1O MINUTES" Surprise!

Dead Link Removed

so maximus...what you are saying is the recommended times would work for me? Sorry...but I have a lot of catching up to do when it comes to film. I am a fairly recent convert.

Many many thanks to everyone here. You guys are clearly why film photography still exists today and I sincerely hope that will the case for years to come.

Avi

also....the EI (according to the datasheet) for Rodinal 1+50 17 mins at 20C is 160. I shot it at 100, so maybe I need to reduce the development time?

Agfa's published times were (unless otherwise specified) for a gamma of 0.65.

Maybe they did that to keep film speed specs up, or maybe they just liked higher contrast than most people like and find easy to print.

john_s said:

Agfa's published times were (unless otherwise specified) for a gamma of 0.65.

Maybe they did that to keep film speed specs up, or maybe they just liked higher contrast than most people like and find easy to print.

Click to expand...

APX100, my favorite film, with HP5 and TMAX3200.

APX100 is indeed contrasty and I read somewhere that the dream combo is rating it at 50 and developing in Rodinal 1:50 but I don't remember the times anymore.
I did just that for my last trip to Paris for 20 rolls. I still haven't printed them but I can tell you the negatives are less contrasty and absolutely GoRgEoUs!

psychoanalyst_god said:

also....the EI (according to the datasheet) for Rodinal 1+50 17 mins at 20C is 160. I shot it at 100, so maybe I need to reduce the development time?

Click to expand...

Hi Avi,

Don't worry about that. At around 15-16 minutes, with 5 inversions at beginning and 3 every 30 seconds, you should just about get 100. I don't know how you have metered for the scenes but if it was rainy/overcast, you were probably at subject brightness range (SBR) of 5 1/2 to 6. With Agfa's recommended agitation you should probably develop for 13-14 minutes. If you go by my tests and agitation, 15-16 minutes should get you the same results, with easy to print negatives.

This is APX100 in very overcast/flat condition, developed as above for 15 minutes and printed on Slavich grade 3 with zero dodging or burning.

No need to apologize for asking for help. That's what this community is for.

Let us know how it goes and best of luck!

Max

john_s said:

Agfa's published times were (unless otherwise specified) for a gamma of 0.65.

Maybe they did that to keep film speed specs up, or maybe they just liked higher contrast than most people like and find easy to print.

Click to expand...

A lot depends on how you print. With a diffusion enlarger, such as a Leitz Focomat V35, you can get away with a high gamma for normal printing, but with a condenser enlarger that will be a lot more difficult.

Don't forget to start your process with the paper and developer. It isn't until you know what they're capable of that all other decisions can be made. Different lenses have different contrast, lighting conditions, and film choice determines how to expose and subsequently process the film.

Most people end up doing it the other way around and try to wrestle with the paper to fit inconsistent negatives, and frankly it doesn't work very well.

werra said:

Hm, I use 13 minutes with 1+50. Absolutely sure shot would be 8 minutes with 1+25. Constant agitation first 30 seconds, then 2 inversions after every minute (at 1:30, 2:30 etc).

Click to expand...

I checked my APX100 data and I also used Rodinal 1+50 at 20C for 13minutes with inversion agitation. First 30 secs twirled, then cap on a inversion for next 30 secs then four inversions in 10 secs every minute. It worked for me - but I used a condenser enlarger and I do like a slightly higher contrast then "standard".
If you're going to scan the negs or like a less contrasty image then perhaps reduce the time a little.

I like the suggestion to go shoot another roll and process that before you tackle the precious one. Shoot it at the same ISO on subjects with similar tones that don't matter and when you process it, cut it in two or more pieces and develop each one for a different time, Say 9mins, 10mins, 11 mins 12 mins 13 mins.
Cutting approximately 6 pieces, each of 2 frames from a 120 roll would give you plenty of real information. Don't worry about getting the cuts in the right place - just guess where to start and cut the same length each time. Even if you cut through the middle of a frame you'll have a comparison with the other side of the image in the other piece of film you develop.

I liked 1:100 for 18mins with agitation every 2nd minute. Funny how you remember useless information... I haven't used any Rodinal for many years!

I finally got my shots developed. The advice all of you provided was absolutely invaluable.

Here are the images: http://www.flickr.com/photos/smiling_buddha/sets/72157629604893675/

I would appreciate your feedback on the shots, so that I can learn and improve. I am not in the Zone system yet, but I can begin to appreciate where it might be very very useful.

Thanks.

Avi

Looks alright to me although contrast is a bit higher vs typical low contrast APX negs. Nothing crazy though.

Hi Avi,

They look fine to me. Great tonal range, as is typical with this film/developer combination.

- Leigh

clayne said:

Looks alright to me although contrast is a bit higher vs typical low contrast APX negs. Nothing crazy though.

Click to expand...

I should have mentioned here. I am scanning the negs and straight off the scanner the images have fairly poor contrast, but I noticed that these negs are able to handle significant amping of the contrast in PS (as with Kodak Ektar color films). So that probably explains why the contrast is on the higher side.

Avi

Leigh B said:

Hi Avi,

They look fine to me. Great tonal range, as is typical with this film/developer combination.

- Leigh

Click to expand...

Thanks Leigh.

Avi

psychoanalyst_god said:

I should have mentioned here. I am scanning the negs and straight off the scanner the images have fairly poor contrast, but I noticed that these negs are able to handle significant amping of the contrast in PS (as with Kodak Ektar color films). So that probably explains why the contrast is on the higher side.

Avi

Click to expand...

I'd go with something in between then. For instance, if you used a "high contrast" curve, instead maybe "medium" contrast might work better - and just to protect my ass against the DPUG police, if you were printing, perhaps G3 rather than G4. Either way, maybe it's the sky which is throwing me off.

Remember that a naturally well-contrasted scene will usually only need moderate contrast. Needed to amp up the contrast should be avoided unless the negs are super-flat (which sometimes APX is).

Avi - the roll looks great, sure like the one Into the Mist, for a roll shot in the dreary winter, it's mood is spot on! Glad you got some good advice here, never tried Rodinal, but it worked for you well. Where on earth do you find APX 100 in 120? The bay or somewhere similar?

zsas said:

Avi - the roll looks great, sure like the one Into the Mist, for a roll shot in the dreary winter, it's mood is spot on! Glad you got some good advice here, never tried Rodinal, but it worked for you well. Where on earth do you find APX 100 in 120? The bay or somewhere similar?

Click to expand...

Andy,

"Into the Mist" is actually 4x5 Fompan developed in Rodinal....I like that combination too.

APX100...I actually bought it off a member here on APUG. Very very difficult to come by. It does show up on the bay but they go for fairly high prices (maybe $15/roll...)

Avi