Agitated over Rodinal agitation

[Eric Mac]

I just mixed up a batch of generic Rodinal made from generic Tylenol based on one of the threads last night. I am a little overwhelmed by the different agitation methods presented for this product. My current soup is HC110b which I agitate 10 seconds every minute.

The threads seem to indicate to try this stuff at 1:39 and use the 1:25 timings. I am shooting HP5+ at 400.

Besides the stand and semistand methods, the only info I could find looks like 5 seconds every 30 seconds.

What is this stand and semi stand methods and what are their advantages?

Eric

 

[Andy K]

Hi Eric,


The only times I have used stand and semi stand is when I was developing long exposure night shots. The stand and semi stand method means that no fresh developer gets to the highlight areas of the negative, allowing shadow details to develop fully while preventing the highlights from 'blowing out'. See here, here and here for examples of photographs from negs developed using semi-stand. Note how the shadows are developed ok, but the highlights are not blown out.

 

[df cardwell]

There are variables in film development. Conventionally, these are time and temperature.

Liquid developers, like HC-110 and Rodinal add the variable of concentration ( or dilution, if you prefer ).

Before WW2, it was common to view agitation as a variable as well. The 'by-the-book' approach that dominated post war methodology and agitation was generally viewed as a constant: every thirty seconds, or if one was radical and dangerous, once every minute ( because the 'by the book' training of countless photographers in the military required a technical rather than craftsmanlinke approach to photography ).

Over the past 10 years, it has become common to see agitation once again as a creative control. Simply put, compared to a well developed negative with agitation every thirty seconds, reducing agitation to once every fifth minute and extending the length of time, shadows will have a little more density, midtones will be normal, and highlights will have a reuced density.

Rodinal is an ideal candidate for this technique, There are others. Not all developers are good candidates for this. Most films work very well. Some don't seem to care.

Like everything in photography, there is endless speculation, argument and denial. The proof is in the pudding, as the say.

I would suggest agitation your film once per minute just as you develop with HC-110. When you have found a good time for your Rodinal - like developer, try agitation every fifth minute, using 1.4x your 'normal time'. Shoot a test, say with window light portraits, and see the difference.

With Rodinal, as compared to HC-110, you will not see much contrast change over different times: give normal exposure, and simpy develop until you get good shadow detail.

.

 

[MMfoto]

...reducing agitation to once every fifth minute and extending the length of time...

...Rodinal is an ideal candidate for this technique.

DF, what do you mean? What makes Rodinal better than other developers for this use?

 

[df cardwell]

DF, what do you mean? What makes Rodinal better than other developers for this use?

That's a question for some of the APUG photochemists !

Rodinal has been a good fit for this technique for a L O N G time: the earliest mention I have of it in print is from the Agfa Handbook of the early 1920's. But it was used in high dilutions and long developments without agitation before WW1.

It has a single developer agent, and has little sulfite. Glycin has been used in this way as well, in dilute Sodium or Potassium Carbonate developers. Metol, too !

.

 

[Gerald Koch]

Practically, there is not much difference between agitating for 5 sec every 30 sec and 10 sec every minute and they can be used interchangeably.

 

[pentaxuser]

Andy. These are excellent shots which demonstrate your point. The pub shot is IMO a particularly good example. However given that semi-stand has these benefits, isn't this an argument for always using semi-stand, provided that the developer(s) (other than Rodinal,which are they?), lends itself to this method as it appears that some(unspecified) don't.

Presumably those that don't lend themselves to semi-stand have a tendency to blow highlights if shadows are developed proper. In their case, what other techniques are available to replicate the benefits of semi-stand developed negs?

Or is it the case that short exposure daylight negs don't suffer from this problem so the issue of needing the benefits of semi-stand don't arise?

For information what constituted long exposure and what was the film and developer?

Thanks

Pentaxuser

 

[Andy K]

For information what constituted long exposure and what was the film and developer?

If you are referring to my examples they were all shot on medium format (Agfa Isolette 6x6) with HP5+. Exposures were all at f/22 for between 90 and 180 seconds, I don't know exactly because the night I shot these I forgot a watch so had to count elephants. They were developed in Rodinal using semi-stand for 16 minutes (8 minutes with one inversion per minute then left to stand for 8 minutes).

 

[Donald Qualls]

Eric, you blew in and out so fast you might not have seen my reply over on f295.

First, you need to let that Parodinal stand for 72 hours after mixing before you expect normal results from it.

Second, I've been using regular Rodinal times with excellent results; no need to alter dilutions (though I'll admit I've used it only at 1:50 and a couple tests at 1:100).

I intended to attach an image, but it appears I can't until I renew my membership. Should manage that tomorrow. Meantime I'll have to link it from another site:

 

[pentaxuser]

Andy. Thanks for info.

Pentaxuser

 

[Eric Mac]

Patience is a virtue

I tried the concoction about 48 hours after mixing. My test against Hc110 on a couple quick 4x5 had the negatives looking a little thin compared to the Hc110. I'll try again this weekend. Is your experience just going 1:50 and using those times?

Thanks
Eric

PS That F295 is quite a site. I may now have a new aperture to try. ;>)

 

[Donald Qualls]

Correct. In fact, I add 50% to the 1:50 times, but that's to compensate for reducing agitation; I agitate only every 3rd minute, five smooth inversions. That combination (longer development with less agitation) helps boost the shadows a bit, get back to full film speed (since Rodinal is normally considered a mildly speed losing developer, that's welcome) without pushing the contrast up. Of course, like any developer, you'll need to adjust your times to get you negatives the way you like them; there can also be some variations in activity depending on what you used for water (I use distilled for all photographic purposes now, but a lot of folks get good results with tap water).

Yep, pinhole is a whole other way of seeing.