Converting 1:25 (13min) Rodinal to Semi stand development.

[marciofs]

I shot some Delta 100 at 400. I found out that with Rodinal (1:25) the development time is about 13min. Can you help me to find out how can I make it to semi stand development (time and agitation)?


I found out about the time at ISO400 thanks to this link: http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/8080 (Thank you a million Boncey).

EDITED:

I just read this in other topic:

"Agitation is directly linked to contrast, especially so with Rodinal.
The amount of dilution has little to nothing to do (directly) to the contrast."


What I am looking for is to have less contrast and more shadow details. So if I just reduce agitation time or frequency it may help?

 

[Xmas]

I use this recipe for full stand

http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/9558

Pour it in, invert once and leave it

but only rate at 100 Sorry

 

[Terry Christian]

For stand developing, I use Rodinal at 1:100 for 1 hour, with a series of inversions at the beginning and again halfway through.

 

[R.Gould]

Try Rodinal1/100, pour it in, invert five times. leave it for 30 minutes, invert five times, leave for 30 minutes, should work fine, for stand, semi stand development the iso of the film is not important as over an hour the development is carried to completion, the above is fine for any film, I have tried it on many makes of film, form foma to ilford to kodak, and it has always worked,

 

[NB23]

A few questions:

Why stand? To save time? Rodinal 1:10 for 3 minutes is super quick enough.
You don't appreciate normal contrast?
You aporeciate Low Quality over Good Quality?
You are too poor so saving 0.25$ per roll makes a big difference?
How do you know when exactly the developer exhausts? I mean, why let it stand for a whole hour if it exhausts after 12 minutes? Furthermore, why go through a silly "careful single turn at the 30 minute mark" for nothing?
What if the developer exhausts after 9 minutes instead of 12? Why leave it for 51 extra minutes? Sure, i can do other things while the film is bathing but I don't have time to waste while wasting extra time for nothing, after all.
Why 1:100? Why not 2:100 or 0,75:100? Maybe a real chemist would recomend 1.9:113, who knows?
Also, how do you mix 1:100? Pour the water over Rodinal or do you pour rodinal in the water? This might sound like a silly question but I assure you, I want to keep this religious stand development regime as accurate as possible.

This whole stand fad sounds so cool and mysterious. But before I jump in can an internet expert answer my simple questions??

 

[marciofs]

Try Rodinal1/100, pour it in, invert five times. leave it for 30 minutes, invert five times, leave for 30 minutes, should work fine, for stand, semi stand development the iso of the film is not important as over an hour the development is carried to completion, the above is fine for any film, I have tried it on many makes of film, form foma to ilford to kodak, and it has always worked,

I didn't know that. So in case I push a negative and I don't know the development time I should use, I can just do 1h on 1:100 rodinal?

A few questions:

Why stand? To save time? Rodinal 1:10 for 3 minutes is super quick enough.
You don't appreciate normal contrast?
You aporeciate Low Quality over Good Quality?
You are too poor so saving 0.25$ per roll makes a big difference?
How do you know when exactly the developer exhausts? I mean, why let it stand for a whole hour if it exhausts after 12 minutes? Furthermore, why go through a silly "careful single turn at the 30 minute mark" for nothing?
What if the developer exhausts after 9 minutes instead of 12? Why leave it for 51 extra minutes? Sure, i can do other things while the film is bathing but I don't have time to waste while wasting extra time for nothing, after all.
Why 1:100? Why not 2:100 or 0,75:100? Maybe a real chemist would recomend 1.9:113, who knows?
Also, how do you mix 1:100? Pour the water over Rodinal or do you pour rodinal in the water? This might sound like a silly question but I assure you, I want to keep this religious stand development regime as accurate as possible.

This whole stand fad sounds so cool and mysterious. But before I jump in can an internet expert answer my simple questions??

Why stand? To save time? Rodinal 1:10 for 3 minutes is super quick enough.
You don't appreciate normal contrast?
You aporeciate Low Quality over Good Quality?
You are too poor so saving 0.25$ per roll makes a big difference?

I am looking for less contrast and more shadow details, because I shot a dark wood and I suppose shooting Delta 100 at 400 will make it more contrasty.



How do you know when exactly the developer exhausts? I mean, why let it stand for a whole hour if it exhausts after 12 minutes? Furthermore, why go through a silly "careful single turn at the 30 minute mark" for nothing?
What if the developer exhausts after 9 minutes instead of 12? Why leave it for 51 extra minutes? Sure, i can do other things while the film is bathing but I don't have time to waste while wasting extra time for nothing, after all.
Why 1:100? Why not 2:100 or 0,75:100? Maybe a real chemist would recomend 1.9:113, who knows?

I have no idea.



Also, how do you mix 1:100? Pour the water over Rodinal or do you pour rodinal in the water?

I always drop the water on the developer.



But as I said, I found this quote:
"Agitation is directly linked to contrast, especially so with Rodinal.
The amount of dilution has little to nothing to do (directly) to the contrast."

So if it's true, I would rather have less agitation frequency and shorter time.

Menwhile I found this and I am thinking about to try instead of semi stand development: http://www.martinzimelka.com/homepa...ed_Agitation_Intervals_with_Rodinal_1_25.html

I am just looking for a path to lower the contrast and have shadow details.

 

[NB23]

I am just looking for a path to lower the contrast and have shadow details.

Overexpose your film by half or one full stop, develop normally (normal agitation in order to FULLY replenish the developer touching the emulsion for a thorough development and to avoid streaks, uneven spots , cloudy negs, and so on). Print skilfully in the darkroom. Use lower grade filters, dodge where needed, burn where needed.

That's the magic bullet: A thorough workflow involving knowledge and an impeccable technique.
Letting film to stand in a solution without moving it is Sloppy technique. You won't get nowhere near what I described above but simply letting your film dipped in rodinal Magic 1:100.

 

[marciofs]

Overexpose your film by half or one full stop, develop normally (normal agitation in order to FULLY replenish the developer touching the emulsion for a thorough development and to avoid streaks, uneven spots , cloudy negs, and so on). Print skilfully in the darkroom. Use lower grade filters, dodge where needed, burn where needed.

That's the magic bullet: A thorough workflow involving knowledge and an impeccable technique.
Letting film to stand in a solution without moving it is Sloppy technique. You won't get nowhere near what I described above but simply letting your film dipped in rodinal Magic 1:100.

What you describe is what I normally do, but is not the case the negative I want to develop now.

 

[darkosaric]

For stand developing, I use Rodinal at 1:100 for 1 hour, with a series of inversions at the beginning and again halfway through.

+1

I do this for almost every film.

 

[Xmas]

I don't bother with inversions in middle.

 

[Xmas]

A few questions:

Why stand? To save time? Rodinal 1:10 for 3 minutes is super quick enough.
You don't appreciate normal contrast?
You aporeciate Low Quality over Good Quality?
You are too poor so saving 0.25$ per roll makes a big difference?
How do you know when exactly the developer exhausts? I mean, why let it stand for a whole hour if it exhausts after 12 minutes? Furthermore, why go through a silly "careful single turn at the 30 minute mark" for nothing?
What if the developer exhausts after 9 minutes instead of 12? Why leave it for 51 extra minutes? Sure, i can do other things while the film is bathing but I don't have time to waste while wasting extra time for nothing, after all.
Why 1:100? Why not 2:100 or 0,75:100? Maybe a real chemist would recomend 1.9:113, who knows?
Also, how do you mix 1:100? Pour the water over Rodinal or do you pour rodinal in the water? This might sound like a silly question but I assure you, I want to keep this religious stand development regime as accurate as possible.

This whole stand fad sounds so cool and mysterious. But before I jump in can an internet expert answer my simple questions??

Simple
if I don't have any ID68 stock mixed or
a mix of film types in multi tank.
And there is not a real detectable difference, no sign of world stop turning either.

 

[NB23]

Simple
if I don't have any ID68 stock mixed or
a mix of film types in multi tank.
And there is not a real detectable difference, no sign of world stop turning either.

Oh, I see!

All you had left was an empty bottle of Rodinal but when you poked your eye inside you saw a few drops in there. Damn, you lucky Dog! There were 10 milliliters there, almost dried up. But still, there was enough to make one liter of working solution.

The world didn't stop turning, but almost. You gotta admit.

 

[Gim]

Check old threads for Scott Killian. Showed the whole 1:100 rodinal stand procedure he uses. Beautiful prints. Have not seen much better here.

Jim

 

[NB23]

Check old threads for Scott Killian. Showed the whole 1:100 rodinal stand procedure he uses. Beautiful prints. Have not seen much better here.

Jim

I have no problem believing that. But it must boil down to savant darkroom printing knowlwdge, or to photoshop. If stand was so good, it would be a recommended procedure from all the top mufacturers, no questions asked, only straightforward. Manufacturers, Kodak especially, were very proud about their knowledge and their thick brochures were very thorough regarding darkroom processing. There was not a word about stand development and they were very clear about the importance of inversions and temperatures.

 

[marciofs]

I will try. Thanks.

 

[Rick A]

If you desire lower contrast, reduce development time by 20-25% of your normal time. If you properly meter a scene and shoot half speed, reducing time is the correct procedure, not cock-a-mamie development involving starving a negative and ignoring it. IMHO, stand developing is a chicken scat way of avoiding doing the proper tests to find what actually works.

 

[Terry Christian]

Regardless of the naysayers, stand and semi-stand developing actually work. That said, I too lament how it seems to be some people's only way of using Rodinal. That's a shame, since it is a fantastic developer in its usual 1:25/1:50 usage too. Heck, it even makes a good print developer. Stand developing is a neat technique, but as with any photographic technique, it's a trade-off. A good photographer worth his/her salt will recognize when it will be useful, and also when not to use it.

 

[Xmas]

Oh, I see!

All you had left was an empty bottle of Rodinal but when you poked your eye inside you saw a few drops in there. Damn, you lucky Dog! There were 10 milliliters there, almost dried up. But still, there was enough to make one liter of working solution.

The world didn't stop turning, but almost. You gotta admit.

An 8x 35mm tank takes 2.5 l about but otherwise spot on.
Better photographers than me dropped their film of at pharmacy or lab.
Developing is not going to make a lot of difference.

 

[removedacct1]

Regardless of the naysayers, stand and semi-stand developing actually work. That said, I too lament how it seems to be some people's only way of using Rodinal. That's a shame, since it is a fantastic developer in its usual 1:25/1:50 usage too. Heck, it even makes a good print developer. Stand developing is a neat technique, but as with any photographic technique, it's a trade-off. A good photographer worth his/her salt will recognize when it will be useful, and also when not to use it.

Precisely! Thanks for that sensible remark.

 

[Truzi]

I tried semi-stand with some microfilm, and did not notice any huge difference. Then again, I really don't know what I'm doing, and tried it just to try it (I've a ton of microfilm to play with).
However, I am of the opinion that many who use rodinol stand successfully may be underestimating what their skill brings to the process.

Some day I will do an experiment to compare for my own edification. I need to first be able to expose film in a manner that would actually benefit from it, and be able to screw up development on purpose, before I'd be able to see how it works for me.

 

[marciofs]

Regardless of the naysayers, stand and semi-stand developing actually work. That said, I too lament how it seems to be some people's only way of using Rodinal. That's a shame, since it is a fantastic developer in its usual 1:25/1:50 usage too. Heck, it even makes a good print developer. Stand developing is a neat technique, but as with any photographic technique, it's a trade-off. A good photographer worth his/her salt will recognize when it will be useful, and also when not to use it.

Can we use the same Rodinal we use to develop negatives to print paper?

 

[Terry Christian]

Yes you can. See this vintage advertisement:

 

[MartinP]

Things have gone off track a bit? The OP asked for a way to push Delta100 two stops, and enquired specifically about Rodinal.

Rodinal will lose a little bit of film-speed and extending development will not help that (though it will increase contrast a little bit). Try using a speed-increasing developer to get back a little of the underexposure. For example, the manufacturers data-sheets suggest eight minutes will give you a usable one stop increase in straight Microphen, then you could guess that a further 35% of time might help with the contrast.

The best thing to do would be to shoot a few test frames in the same way as the original mis-used Delta100 and run a developer test to see if the results look ok before doing the roll in question -- actually, do this test whatever developer you end up attempting to use.

 

[marciofs]

Things have gone off track a bit? The OP asked for a way to push Delta100 two stops, and enquired specifically about Rodinal.

Rodinal will lose a little bit of film-speed and extending development will not help that (though it will increase contrast a little bit). Try using a speed-increasing developer to get back a little of the underexposure. For example, the manufacturers data-sheets suggest eight minutes will give you a usable one stop increase in straight Microphen, then you could guess that a further 35% of time might help with the contrast.

The best thing to do would be to shoot a few test frames in the same way as the original mis-used Delta100 and run a developer test to see if the results look ok before doing the roll in question -- actually, do this test whatever developer you end up attempting to use.

Thank you.