Digital Truth recommends a time for Tri-X and Fp4+ in Rodinal that is in the range of 20+ minutes. This is lunacy. If a conventional gamma between .65 and .70 is your goal, the time will be a lot like 9 minutes @20 degrees centigrade.
What dilution are you referring to? The 20 minutes development time I saw for FP4+ and Tri-X was for 1+100 dilution.
Digital Truth recommends a time for Tri-X and Fp4+ in Rodinal that is in the range of 20+ minutes. This is lunacy. If a conventional gamma between .65 and .70 is your goal, the time will be a lot like 9 minutes @20 degrees centigrade. The times recommended by the charts on digital truth will give you negatives like armor plate. This opinion is backed up by hundreds of rolls of 120 that print just like Tri-X in D76 or ID11, when you have used 7 or 8 minutes as normal.
Digital Truth recommends a time for Tri-X and Fp4+ in Rodinal that is in the range of 20+ minutes. This is lunacy. If a conventional gamma between .65 and .70 is your goal, the time will be a lot like 9 minutes @20 degrees centigrade. The times recommended by the charts on digital truth will give you negatives like armor plate. This opinion is backed up by hundreds of rolls of 120 that print just like Tri-X in D76 or ID11, when you have used 7 or 8 minutes as normal.
Until he does reply all we are doíng in terms of solving his issue or in fact not solving his issue is wasting our time, isn't it?
Filmdev.org is a good site to look at to see certain film & developer combinations, since people upload example photos to look at.
I've enjoyed browsing it from time to time. However, just like the Massive Dev Chart, it's user-contributed and the 'recipes' you find are only as good as the assessment of the people who post them. That some of them include photos, is not necessarily all that helpful. In the vast majority of cases, they are scans from negatives. This doesn't tell me much whether the negatives would be suitable for how I'd like to print them. I've taken excellent scans from negatives so thin that they barely print well on grade 5, if at all. In fact, on the very first page of the TriX recipes I hit upon an example of precisely that, which I think is misleading.
This doesn't tell me much whether the negatives would be suitable for how I'd like to print them. I've taken excellent scans from negatives so thin that they barely print well on grade 5, if at all. In fact, on the very first page of the TriX recipes I hit upon an example of precisely that, which I think is misleading.
What's your secret? AI wizardry in PS?
Question. I am still using my cache of original discontinued Agfa Rodinal (still have two unopened bottles remaining). Because I haven’t had the need or curiosity to investigate the various Rodinal replacements, my question is: are there variations in dilution, time, and temp that differ between the my Agfa Rodinal and what is available today? Also, could difference in contemporary film characteristics play a part?
What I can tell is that the newest incarnations of Rodinal are NOT what the good ol' Agfa Rodinal was. Neither in terms of keeping qualities, the newests spoil much faster.
Passable scan. Unprintable negative.
Are you referring to the Adox version or some other version? If it is the Adox version which it says is the same as the last version of the Rodinal made by Agfa at Leverkusen What is the evidence you have that about its lack of longevity?
Thanks
pentaxuser
Are you referring to the Adox version or some other version? If it is the Adox version which it says is the same as the last version of the Rodinal made by Agfa at Leverkusen What is the evidence you have that about its lack of longevity?
Thanks
pentaxuser
Yes the Adox version. It definetly doesn't last like the last run of genuine Agfa Rodinal. Personal experience.
The other Rodinal clones last even less...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?