• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Comparing grains, Rodinal & Xtol

MsLing

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2023
Messages
158
Location
Guangzhou China
Format
Multi Format
So a brainwave I caught, and it drove me to compare grains that various developer produced. I chose 10x objective and a eyepiece camera which IDK its magnification factor. Maybe 15x I guess. Sheets I selected were both Foma Retro 320 Soft, yes only two sheets in same case so that I can control variables well. One sheet was developed by Rollei R09, a variant of Rodinal. Dilution 1+300, 24C, 180min, agitate 10s every 60min. Another was result of Xtol stock. Developer temp was 21C, agitate 10s per min.


This is R09.

And this is Xtol.

Obviously, R09, though diluted in such a crazy ratio, still made sharper and larger grains, they are violent under microscope. Xtol's seems much finer, I think high solvent cause the fact.

BTW, I also made some shoots check whether my Epson is sharp and focused well or not. It's not bad, right? And I shouldn't use Retro 320 if I'd like to achieve higher resolution.


This photo was shot with microscope.
 
MsLing said:
BTW, I also made some shoots check whether my Epson is sharp and focused well or not. It's not bad, right?
Click to expand...

Hard to tell; it's a 4x5 sheet we're looking at, so even a somewhat fuzzy scan at this size would still look sharp. But at this size it certainly looks just fine!

The difference in grain is pretty big, isn't it? I noticed something similar the other day when I was scanning some Fomapan 400 negatives processed in different developers.

510 Pyro


Pyrocat HD

For the grain comparison, did you select areas of equal density on both negatives? I admit the comparison I posted is sloppy in this respect. Grain renders very differently depending on density - and the way it's observed (photographed, scanned, enlarged) also makes a big difference. It's quite a tricky subject if you think about it. Overall, your observation of course rings true - R09 stand developed for a couple of hours will give much coarser grain than XTOL.
 
koraks said:
For the grain comparison, did you select areas of equal density on both negatives?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, my densitometer passed away last year, then I used my spotmeter to find two area that were both 90lux. Highlight with red arrow.

 
Wonder what the grain would if you compared R9 at 1"25 to 1:300? As I print 4X5 only up to 11X14 for past several years I've been using DK50 and Acufine for increased sharpness, gain is good with 4X5.
 
Nothing surprising here. I don't mind how Rodinal and its clones renders grain size, but what I do find objectionable is how it makes grain clumpy, with uneven blobs of varying density in areas of continuous tone.
 
Rodinal was invented in the 1890's. Back then most any film format produced a large enough negative that grain was not really considered. Most ordinary people would not have owned a camera at all, or owned a Kodak "you push the button, we do the rest". Actually Rodinal is still perfectly acceptable stuff on large format photography to this day..
 
You can reduce grain in Rodinal by using a higher concentration like 1+25. The dilute 1+300 you used actually accentuates grain. Although it's never a low-grain developer, with some slow films it has minimal grain (Agfa Scala 50 aka HR-50 for example, also Kodak Technical Pan).

In 35mm and at 400 speed, I rarely use Rodinal. Not only for grain but also film speed. But I don't mind its grain in medium format or higher.
 
I absolutely love Rodinal on 100 ISO 120 film, exposed and developed correctly. With Foma 100 in 6x6 I use nothing else than the humble Fomadon R09 1:50, regularly inverted (I like to do once per minute). The straight curve of Foma 100 in Rodinal 1:50 is something to behold. I think someone had shown plots of it on here some time ago.

Even Acros II looks gorgeous in it - which reminds me I need to buy a couple of rolls for the Spring sun.

Nothing clumpy or or uneven whatsoever about Rodinal, unless I've tortured the negative with atrocities like 'stand' or 'semistand' development. Underexposure and/or overdevelopment are the death of Rodinal.
 
Last edited:
I would expect XTOL, replenished XTOL and all forms of Pyro to produce small grained negatives based on what I have experienced and read.
 
Rodinal is not sharper than Xtol/ D-76 etc, but much grainier - that much has been repeatedly shown from high quality microdensitometry over the years. What hasn't seemed to have made much of a splash with people (outside of industry materials) is that pH and sharpness seem to follow essentially a bell shaped distribution - peaking at about a ph of 10, but with D-76 and Rodinal essentially sitting parallel. At that point, it rapidly starts to become clear why (despite them easily having the means to do so) none of the big western manufacturers post-WW2 chose to make a direct Rodinal equivalent - especially if you are tasked to make a developer that is as capable at 30x enlargements as at 4x.
 

and if used with modern films, such as, Tmax, or FP4+, it is surprisingly fine-grained and not much different from D76 1+1 in my tests.
 
Paul Howell said:
Wonder what the grain would if you compared R9 at 1"25 to 1:300? As I print 4X5 only up to 11X14 for past several years I've been using DK50 and Acufine for increased sharpness, gain is good with 4X5.
Click to expand...

I'll try next time. I always use high diluting ratio that higher than 1:100 to make film curve easy to be printed without densitometer.
 
MsLing said:
Obviously, R09, though diluted in such a crazy ratio, still made sharper and larger grains, they are violent under microscope. Xtol's seems much finer, I think high solvent cause the fact.

This photo was shot with microscope.
Click to expand...

I am checking my film and BW developer test results regularly with 12x loupe and a microscope. Differences are of course always more obvious and easier to identify at high(er) enlargements.

General results:
- Stand development with Rodinal is not recommended: Grain is coarser, resolution lower (due to swelling) compared to standard development. Also you get very uneven development with big density differences across the negative (easy measurable with a densitometer). And additionally the danger of bromide stripes (esp. with 35mm film).
To tame high contrast with Rodinal the best method is to use 1+75 or 1+100 dilution and one turn / agitation every 60 seconds. By that you'll get the contrast tamed to the wanted level, but you avoid all the problems and quality reductions of stand development mentioned above.

- The higher the dilution, the coarser generally the grain. You see that with XTOL, D-76, ID-11, HC-110 and Rodinal.

- Based on objective and scientific parameters, Rodinal is not sharper than e.g. XTOL 1+1. That is very clearly seen under a microscope. But at low and low-medium enlargement factors Rodinal offers with certain films a very good subjective sharpness impression. That is why quite a lot of photographers like using Rodinal, especially for 120 and LF.
 
Still the rodinal is the best and I adore the grain.

Try lith printing negatives developed with Rodinal.
 
RalphLambrecht said:
and if used with modern films, such as, Tmax, or FP4+, it is surprisingly fine-grained and not much different from D76 1+1 in my tests.
Click to expand...
What dilution and time? I tried 35mm FP4 Plus in Rodinal once and got quite grainy negatives compared with D76 1+1.
 
Thanks for tis kind of comparison: Rodinal versus XTol.

I have never tried the XTol so far - however hundreds of film during my school days mainly Agfa Isopan film - later Tri-X film, also. - My conclusion ingeneral is: Rodinal comes handy when you want to have a film developed instantly - HOWEVER: Rodinal is NO fine grain developer !! - Particularly NOT for "fast" film such as Tri-X , et.al.

My father and I always used 1:50 dilution not exceeding 20°C temperature. - In Germany there is someone called Uwe Pilz who said Rodinal works particularly well in the low temperature range, e.g. 14 to 18°C - if you can managed that. Uwe has a German website where you can read a lot of good advice!

Jan-Peter
 
As I don't speak or read German, I copied the text and pasted it into a WORD document so I could use WORD's translation prowess. I was very amused when the (long) German word "Zweibadentwicklung" (two bath developer) was translated by WORD as "two bathroom developer"! If anyone has the details on this new technique, I'm interested.....
 

I use one bedroom and one bathroom to enlarge and print.
 
The bed- and bathroom development excited my wife just this moment - we might also try it tonight! - Just recently I developed thre Polypan 50 35mm-films in Ilford ID-11, 1+3, 21° and 24 mins. -They came out of the bedroom - and was perfectly developed!

Jan-Peter

Lak of Constance
 

And a bottle from the 1890's, despite some accumulated crud at the bottom, will work just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register