Beginning the Journey

MattKing · Jul 20, 2025

You may not be able to discern any meaningful difference between the negatives, unless your approach to less automated procedures is quite random and inconsistent.
I added a relatively simple approach to rotary agitation to my black and white film development regime because it was a relatively simple and quick and conveniently easy to use way to ensure consistency, but I could have accomplished almost the same thing with a more manual approach, and doubt that it makes much if any difference to the results, either way.
The automation will help you avoid mistakes and may make things a bit quicker.

Sirius Glass · Jul 20, 2025

desertnick said:
I was just attempting to incorporate a processor I already own into B&W development, it works wonders with C-41 but my intention is not to deliberately go out of my way to force it into my workflow. Because it offers time compensation, agitation customization and rotational or stand development I figured it may be worth incorporating. At this point, I feel the only way to know for sure is to do both and compare the negatives.

Welcome to Photrio!

desertnick · Jul 23, 2025

A few scans from my first roll developing B&W. Tri-X 400TX and Adox Adonal (Rodinal) 1+25 with rotary processor (-15% dev time).

retina_restoration · Jul 23, 2025

desertnick said:
A few scans from my first roll developing B&W. Tri-X 400TX and Adox Adonal (Rodinal) 1+25 with rotary processor (-15% dev time).

Do you like the results you got?

desertnick · Jul 23, 2025

These scans don’t appear as grainy as the internet might suggest when using Rodinal to develop Tri-X. I’m satisfied with the results so far, but I believe the next step is to print them. Although these scans were taken at box speed, I’ve also taken additional frames at 200, and I’m curious to see which set of negatives will yield a better result with optimal filters. I should have everything I need to make a few test prints by the end of the week.

npl · Jul 23, 2025

The internet often exagerate how grainy rodinal looks. I blame overdeveloping and over-sharpening in scans.

Looks good, should print well.

dcy · Jul 23, 2025

desertnick said:
These scans don’t appear as grainy as the internet might suggest when using Rodinal to develop Tri-X.

I love your photos. I should try Rodinal again. Reddit users had me convinced that Rodinal is crap and my first few development sessions went very badly for reasons that wren't even Rodinal's fault (the film was vastly underexposed). I ended up switching to a new developer (PC-TEA) without really giving Rodinal a fair shake. Still have my bottle of Rodinal. Barely touched.

dcy · Jul 23, 2025

npl said:
The internet often exagerate how grainy rodinal looks. I blame overdeveloping and over-sharpening in scans.

That's an interesting observation. The anti-Rodinal advice I saw came from the r/AnalogCommunity sub-Reddit. My impression is that most people there do scanning and digital processing, and not a lot of purely darkroom work.

Paul Howell · Jul 23, 2025

desertnick said:
A few scans from my first roll developing B&W. Tri-X 400TX and Adox Adonal (Rodinal) 1+25 with rotary processor (-15% dev time).

Looks to be spot on in terms of exposure, with a diffusion light source the contrast will be well controlled and the gain will not be noticeable, with Rodinal good edge sharpness. I like the shot. What paper are you going to use?

MattKing · Jul 23, 2025

Many people who refer to Rodinal as a "grainy" developer have an indelible image of 1970s Tri-X developed in Rodinal in their minds .
It is true though that Rodinal and its cousins do deliver a type of acutance behavior that can make grain appear distinctive.

desertnick · Jul 23, 2025

Paul Howell said:
Looks to be spot on in terms of exposure, with a diffusion light source the contrast will be well controlled and the gain will not be noticeable, with Rodinal good edge sharpness. I like the shot. What paper are you going to use?

I’m not sure. The previous owner had this taped to the enlarger head. I assume these settings can work with most VC papers. I’d like to print on RC for contact sheets and test prints, and on FB for archival prints. I’m open to suggestions.

BHuij · Jul 24, 2025

Hard to go wrong with regular old Ilford Multigrade IMO

Paul Howell · Jul 24, 2025

desertnick said:
I’m not sure. The previous owner had this taped to the enlarger head. I assume these settings can work with most VC papers. I’d like to print on RC for contact sheets and test prints, and on FB for archival prints. I’m open to suggestions.

I use Multitone for contact sheets and first generation work prints, then move on Foma RC and FB for final prints. ILford is a very good paper, I just prefer the tones of Foma.You may want to experiment with split grade printing. It is a bit more work, as you need to make 2 test strips one at max yellow, then a second at max meginta, divide the time for each in half for the final print which is exposed again with max yellow and max meginta. I find the tech useful as it reduces the need for buring and dodging. I think ILford has a pretty good online video.

desertnick · Jul 29, 2025

Update: Things are progressing. I’m still learning this enlarger and reacquainting myself with the printing process. However, I managed to make a test print on some Foma FB that was gifted to me. Exposed for 9 seconds at f/8 and then developed in Adox Neutol for 90 seconds. Unfortunately, the print pictured is wet because I don’t have a way to flatten fiber prints yet. Should I buy an iron?

dcy · Jul 29, 2025

desertnick said:
Update: Things are progressing. I’m still learning this enlarger and reacquainting myself with the printing process. However, I managed to make a test print on some Foma FB that was gifted to me. Exposed for 9 seconds at f/8 and then developed in Adox Neutol for 90 seconds. Unfortunately, the print pictured is wet because I don’t have a way to flatten fiber prints yet. Should I buy an iron?

Take my advice with a grain of salt because I haven't yet developed in FB (but it's in my to-do list). I bought myself a t-shirt press on Amazon. I told myself that I bought it for cyanotypes, which are also difficult to flatten, but I was also encouraged by two YT videos that highly recommended these presses for flattening FB prints:

As I said, I haven't tried it on FB yet, but on cyanotypes this machine is a god send.

GregY · Jul 29, 2025

desertnick said:
Update: Things are progressing. I’m still learning this enlarger and reacquainting myself with the printing process. However, I managed to make a test print on some Foma FB that was gifted to me. Exposed for 9 seconds at f/8 and then developed in Adox Neutol for 90 seconds. Unfortunately, the print pictured is wet because I don’t have a way to flatten fiber prints yet. Should I buy an iron?

No rush... but keep your eye open for a dry mount press. There are ways to get by for the time being.... blotter books, drying on screens and then flattening under glass.... etc. The print BTW looks very nice.

Don_ih · Jul 29, 2025

An iron will work. I have a t-shirt press that does a good job of mounting prints (mounted fb prints, by the way, look better than unmounted ones). I'm sure it could flatten your prints.

I dry my prints on a drum dryer. They come off that pretty flat.

Pieter12 · Jul 29, 2025

TriX in Rodinal. And my experience is warmer temps for printing can give nice rich blacks.

Beginning the Journey

MattKing

Moderator

Sirius Glass

desertnick

retina_restoration

desertnick

npl

dcy

dcy

Paul Howell

MattKing

Moderator

desertnick

Attachments

BHuij

Paul Howell

desertnick

dcy

GregY

Don_ih

Pieter12

Beginning the Journey

Moderator

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency