Anyone using Rodinal for fast 35mm film?

I've been making largish sized 35mm prints the last 2 days, and the one neg that was developed in Rodinal has caught me up short. I had dismissed that developer for 35mm large prints due to grain (I like it at 1:25 for all size films), but maybe I'm wrong.

The negs that I printed from Mic-X and D76/TD16 developers were all shot w/ what I would call good lenses. A Leica R 90 Elmarit, a Canon FD S.C. 135 2.5, and a Nikkor H 50 2. Those are not bad lenses. They were shot w/ Tri-X, or Arista EDU Ultra 100. But the Rodinal neg, which was shot w/ a lowly Retina Ia w/ a 50 3.5 Xenar on Arista Premium 400 film (Tri-X), blows the others out the window in terms of sharpness and detail. No, the tonality is not the same, but I like it a lot.

Now either the Xenar is better than I thought (and the other shots from that camera w/ non Rodinal developers do not bear that out), or its the developer. The prints are full frame on 11x14 paper by the way, and the Rodinal print, while you can see the grain, is a darned attractive print! The other prints looked fine to me until I made the last print of the Rodinal neg. Now they look not necessarily muddy, but in comparison, they don't have that "pop" that the Rodinal print has. They're all hanging together on the wall right now, and my eye goes right to the Retina image. Curses.

Other photogs have asked me how do you get that grain...

1:100 stand 20c 60 minutes water to just cover top reel invert a few times after adding developer leave till kitchen timer rings.
I probably get less grain but better for toe speed than your 1:25.
Because I use 5 and 8 x tanks I can't easily give individual times per film...

The graininess of a print can give the illusion of sharpness. Acutance developers actually produce more grain than say D-76. It all depends on the print size and the viewing distance.

I often develop Fomapan 400 in Rodinal/RO9 at 1/50. also sometimes HP5+ in Rodinal 1/50, for me it is my main developer, I find the Acutance effect, the ''Edge'' effect give me sharper looking negatives, and I like the grain, and yes, the Xenon lens is very good indeed, god enough for Rolleicords and I believe some Rolleiflex's,

Yes. Rodinal for Premium Arista 400, found 2+75 works best for me.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

It also depends on subject matter. Big open areas of uniform tones may look less pleasing. But a face up close can look incredible with the extra sharpness and slight increase of grain.

Tri-X and Rodinal is a classic combination that looks really great, especially when printed.

Also, I don't find Rodinal to be as grainy as some people make it out to be. It is only slightly more grainy than D76 1+1.

It doesn't look that grainy to me either. The scans do, but that's probably the result of the scanner accentuating the grain. Grain on a 11x14 print is really not noticeable until you get real close. And I think Thomas is right. Subject matter is probably going to dictate whether its a good idea or not, especially at 1:25, but if you hold the agitations down to a minimum, even that dilution works well for me. A lot of sky in the shot might not work.

Exposure probably has a lot to do w/ it too. Some of the other negs on the roll had "less than optimal" exposure (I blew the metering), and there is a lot of grain on those negs. Whatever the reason, it has me lurking on the auction site looking for another little Retina. It may only have the appearance of sharpness as Gerald pointed out, but appearances are everything w/ optical stuff. If it looks sharp it is sharp to my eyes. The tonality is very different than D76. Crisp might be a good word for it.

momus said:

It doesn't look that grainy to me either. The scans do, but that's probably the result of the scanner accentuating the grain. Grain on a 11x14 print is really not noticeable until you get real close. And I think Thomas is right. Subject matter is probably going to dictate whether its a good idea or not, especially at 1:25, but if you hold the agitations down to a minimum, even that dilution works well for me. A lot of sky in the shot might not work.

Exposure probably has a lot to do w/ it too. Some of the other negs on the roll had "less than optimal" exposure (I blew the metering), and there is a lot of grain on those negs. Whatever the reason, it has me lurking on the auction site looking for another little Retina. It may only have the appearance of sharpness as Gerald pointed out, but appearances are everything w/ optical stuff. If it looks sharp it is sharp to my eyes. The tonality is very different than D76. Crisp might be a good word for it.

Click to expand...

My sympathies on the gas the III s is a pukka system camera... He he he.
I use a canon ltm 35mm /2 or Cosina ltm /2.5 HP5+ cine, 5222, Fomapan400, Tx, Tmax, Delta400, etc., ...
I've not noticed a big difference between Microphen stock or 1:100 Rodinal, in grain or speed.

Noel

Ah, just since the late seventies have I used Rodinal, with FP4, Tri-X and Tmax 400. Always 1+25. The majority is 135mm film, then also 4.5X6 - 6X6 and 6X7. I never used any other developer. My preference goes to FP4 for shots in the day and Tmax 400 for shots in less light and the dark. The only combination I remember not liking was HP5 with Rodinal, but this was something I never backed up by really checking it out.

I print a lot of sizes, 24X30cm (9X11) up to 50X60cm (20X24) and use Focomat IC, IIC and a Durst L1000. All condensor enlargers.

Grain comes out larger when you use harder contrast paper or filters. I often prefer a print with more contrast, so my prints from when we had graded papers often have a bit more grain. Simply because we did not have the half step contrast possibility. It is why I like multigrade filters: you can really find "your grain".

With printing I do test strips and it is the grain I look at most, next to the right exposure. Often the grain will tell me if I am where I want to be.

Since enlarging equipment became so cheap about 10 years ago, I have gotten different lenses because they give different contrast. Now I switch lenses for that reason (but not only that reason). The later Focotar-2 lenses (both the 50 and the 100mm) are great for images with little contrast. The older Focotars for high contrasted images. A Rodagon G 50 for large prints with images that have little contrast. All this is also about grain, it never is not about that.

How you develop is vital for the grain.

Grain on the screen is another thing. I am not very good at Photoshop and often tend to do too much sharpening. When I work with a digital printer for even larger sizes or color, I am always amazed at how subtle his changes are. Anyway, it is useless to show examples on the screen. Should anyone want to see some 20X24 prints, send me a pm. You may live near places where they are.

Rodinal is my primary developer (mostly 1:50). For the most part, I use it for slower speed films, but I've always liked it with Tri-X too. For a couple of trips to Scotland in the 90's, my two cameras where a couple of Pentax K1000s and a Pentax 6X7. I used Tri-X for the 35mm, Plus-X mostly for the P67, and some of best enlargements are from the 35mm negs. A lot grainier, of course, but still very sharp.

ive been using rodinal to push my HP5+ to 1600, mainly because its the only developer i have and havent had a chance to pick up some ilfotec-hc

Rodinal has high "acutance"... which is different from "sharpness".... as acutance comes from the "edge effect".... i.e. (long story short) a better disposition of grain, a more neat aggregation and borders of silver particles and rodinal is one developer which gives more acutance, while finegrain developers, often obtain less grain smoothing the borders of silver.....