B&W film developement: want good edge effects but less grain (Rodinal vs. HC-110 issu

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I posted this on photo.net and got a couple answers but would be hopeful to hear some ideas or suggestions from some people here. Thank you.

First let me start by saying I develop my B&W negs for scanning. I have been mostly using either HC-110 or Rodinal for my development. I like the Rodinal for the most part with FP-4 and Fuji Acros especially since it gives such good edge effects and sharpness, albeit a little bit grainy. For faster films I use, like Neopan 400 or Tri-X, Rodinal produces much too much grain in the negs for scanning but I get great sharpness and nicer contrast. I will sometimes use the HC-110 to get less apparent grain for all these films but oftentimes it just seems too flat without much sharpness or edge effects---the difference just leaves me with negs that are too often just blah. I went from dilution B to dilution H with the HC- 110 to extend the development time and using less agitition to try to build up more edge effect and hopefully more sharpness. This has worked but mostly with more contrasty lighting scenes and still seems to lack needed snap.

Any suggestions? Perhaps even longer development time with HC-110 to increase edge effect? Any suggestions how to keep good edge effects but somehow diminish the more grainy effect I'm getting from Rodinal? I'd like to stay with one of these two developers as I have a lot of each on hand and like their long shelf life and ease of use (one shot, no powders to mix) but wold entertain other developer suggestions if that what it will take.

 

[df cardwell]

What kind of scanner ? DPI ? Scanning Software ?

.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

What kind of scanner ? DPI ? Scanning Software ?

.

Nikon LS-4000, usually scan at 2800 or 4000, using Vuescan.

 

[discotex]

Long time lurker first time poster

I print rather than scan but hopefully this helps.. For slow film I use FP4 (EI 64) and APX100 (EI 64) with Rodinal 1+25.

For a faster film I have found Tri-X (EI 250) with Patterson Aculux2 1+9 gives me similar results. I prefer the Rodinal/APX combo but often I need the extra speed of the Tri-X.

..Matt

 

[df cardwell]

Nikon LS-4000, usually scan at 2800 or 4000, using Vuescan.

OK, with your Nikon, or my Minolta, or any of the high quality-but-not-prepress quality machines, you can't image the grain of Tri-X in Rodinal, or FX39, or any acutance or semi acutance developer.

Generally, Vuescan works better in everyway than the maker's software, and it focuses with greater accuracy. Silverfast, however, lets you manual focus in a convenient way that is a major improvement of Vuescan, but you still can't quite resolve the grain clearly. This is an issue of anti-aliasing, or ( more or less ) the scanner knows the grain is there, can't really see it, and records it as faintly imagined smudges.

In other words, you need Silverfast to get the most from your ( or my ) scanner, and even then you don't have the performance to scan traditional,400 speed film.

Going to TMY or Delta 400 would help: a little smaller grain, and thereby a step further from the end-of-resolution 'cliff' of the scanner. I have no practical experience with the Ilford film, and a lot with TMY. Xtol 1:1 will give you a speed gain of nearly a full stop over HC-110, as well as more acutance. TMY yields a wonderfully long straight line, which at a normal gamma will let you scan a VERY long scale. Aculux 2 gives a bit less speed, although a full 400, and a slightly higher density, although an equally long scale. Aculux will give you a higher acutance than Xtol.

TMY has much higher resolution AND acutance than Tri X, which will help.

I don't believe you will benefit from 'acutance effects', however, because the scanner can't see them.

Rodinal, 1+50, with agitation once every minute, or every fifth minute does very well with TMY.

So, recapping, to get a more acute image from your scanner, first, change software. Then, switch film and developer.

good luck

.

 

[Gerald Koch]

The best developing agent to produce edge effects is Metol followed by p-aminophenol. HC-110 uses a Phenidone derivative and will not produce the same results. Any developer which produces good edge effects is going to emphasize grain. There is no way of getting around this.

 

[Donald Qualls]

FWIW, I'm very happy with my negatives in HC-110 at Dilution G, agitation reduced to every 3rd minute, and then add 50% to development time over "standard" agitation to return to normal contrast. However, at this dilution, you can reduce agitation all the way to full stand development with good results (though I don't like the resulting edge effects on small film, they aren't obtrusive with larger negatives that will be enlarged less).

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Thanks for all the suggestions and idea folks.

 

[JonPorter]

Donald, what size tanks do you develop your rollfilm in, especially 35mm? I've used as little as 3ml of HC-110 concentrate in a 16oz tank, and it works, but I suspect it might be too little solution for long-term consistent results.

 

[hogarth1x]

I develop some Tri-X for scanning. I did some work with HC-100, in dilutions from B to H. I wasn't happy with the results, and my research into the topic (I too was looking for a compromise between grain and acutance) led me to XTOL. I ended up comparing HC-110H to XTOL 1:3.

What I found was that the XTOL gave a little smaller grain, and a little better grain stucture (the grain looked a little "nicer" to me; I don't know how to better describe it). It seemed just a tad sharper. But the HC-110 gave a little better local contrast. Basically, they were very similar.

The kicker was that the XTOL gave me about 2/3 stop more film speed (EI of 200 with HC-110H, and 320 with XTOL 1:3). That's why I stay with the XTOL.

I'm thinking that for what you say you want, a compromise between Rodinol and HC-110, a developer like Acutol might be a better solution. Clearly, YMMV.

 

[hogarth1x]

Sorry - forgot to add that I was drum scanning so I got a pretty good look at the grain structure.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Donald, what size tanks do you develop your rollfilm in, especially 35mm? I've used as little as 3ml of HC-110 concentrate in a 16oz tank, and it works, but I suspect it might be too little solution for long-term consistent results.

With 35 mm, I use Dilution E, which requires exactly 3 ml for 240 ml of working solution in a stainless tank. The recommendation from Kodak is for a minimum of 3 ml concentrate per 8x10 equivalent (135-36 or 120 roll), which is why I don't use Dilution G for 35 mm. I do use Dilution G for 120 in stainless (15 ounces needed to cover the film, I use 4 ml syrup in 16 ounces, near enough to 480 ml, for ease of measurement), but even I am not willing to develop for the times that would be needed in an unofficial 1:159 dilution using 3 ml syrup in 16 ounces; I figure with my 3 minute agitation cycle, that would require about 26 minutes for TMY at EI 400 (compared to the 19 minutes I give in Dilution G), and it might well be longer than that if the pH drops due to overdilution (or it might not work at all for the same reason).

 

[Gerald Koch]

With 35 mm, I use Dilution E, which requires exactly 3 ml for 240 ml of working solution in a stainless tank..

According to the Covington Innovations HC-110 site Dilution E uses 5 ml of concentrate. I think this is a typo and you meant Dilution F (1+79).

This is what I use dilution E and consider it to be 1+49 so that Rodinal and HC-110 dilutions are the same. The difference between 1+47 and 1+49 is negligible.

 

[Earl Dunbar]

Rich: Several of the posts here refer to speed for a particular developer. But I don't think you ever stated how you were rating the Tri-X for the Rodinal or HC-110 protocols you've used. With the HC-110, I'm wondering if your lack of snap might not be related to exposure. I used to rate it at 200, but that was the old Tri-X. Haven't tried the newer emulsion in HC-110.

Earl

 

[Donald Qualls]

According to the Covington Innovations HC-110 site Dilution E uses 5 ml of concentrate. I think this is a typo and you meant Dilution F (1+79).

Eeek, you're correct, Gerald. For some reason, I'd have sworn I recalled at some point that E and F were reversed from the order of increasing dilution, but 1:79 is in fact what I've been using for 35 mm in stainless or 2x120 in a 220 reel in my Paterson.