Digital truth data really insane for Rodinal

[pentaxuser]

I don't know what exactly you're replying to because I seem to be ignoring the member who wrote it, but in my personal experience the Adox Rodinal version of Rodinal is wonderful, and last for many years.

I cannot say if it lasts as long as the original, as I've never used the original, but it lasts far longer that the other R09 versions I've used (Fomadon and Compard). My bottle has been opened 5 years ago and there's a little left in it. Stored at room temperature with no special care. It still works perfectly.

Thanks I was unsure what was meant by the newest versions, one of which might have been the Adox version but you have made it clear that this is not one you are referring to

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

The modern Rodinal bottles are very, very different from the glass bottles with rubber stoppers that 1970s vintage Rodinal came in - which most likely were very important for longevity.
And the various versions of Rodinal - R09 et al - are equally authentic as the ADOX version, because Rodinal has had a varied history, with many different versions evolving in many related streams.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

So how long has it lasted for you and what happened when it lost its potency? I am trying to decide what I and others who may need to buy the Adox version sometime in the future if we wish to continue using Rpdinal. The only way we may do this is to ask as many specific questions as possible to get specific answers

Thanks

pentaxuser

I use to squirt a tad of Tetenal Protectant into the bottle when I open it and after each use. With this in mind, the last genuine Agfa Rodinal bottle lasted almost 8 years. The last Adox bottle I used lasted 3 years maximum and I've got thin negatives at the end...
I now have switched to Ilford Ilfosol 3 because its constant availability, there are robust developing datas, it's sharper and finer grained than Rodinal. I don't search for developer longevity anymore.

 

[halfaman]

It too is fairly thin, and it too prints and scans well.

The best darkroom printer I know told me once: "pretty" negatives print bad. The translation is that a negative that looks fantastic directly to the naked eye has too much density and contrast to print well.

 

[qqphot]

I've never been able to obtain a good scan from a poorly exposed and/or developed negative.

What's your secret? AI wizardry in PS? I routinely bin underexposed negatives as I know already they won't scan well.

I've found (with my particular workflow anyway) that I get better scans more easily from negatives that would be thinner and lower in contrast than I'd prefer for darkroom printing. Negatives with a lot of density built up in highlights are much harder for me to get scans I like from, though of course that may just be a skill issue.

 

[koraks]

If you want a great scan, you need to expose and develop well.

My comment re:the utility of scans on the Film Dev website:

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 stand by that assessment. That was the gist of my message.
The image I posted was an extreme example I had handy that resembles many of the scans shown on the TriX recipes page linked to earlier: borderline recognizable, but it'll still trick some viewers into believing it was a good way to expose and process that film. Case in point:

"Ooh, there's images attached, lookie now! So you really CAN use Tri-X at 6400, I must tell all my friends - guys guys, Kodak lied to us all along, TriX is really faster than Delta3200!!"

Some of us would have binned it.

Too much work snipping out a single negative from a strip just to bin it, or crop it out of the index scan. Also, it turned out to be usable as an example. I'm glad I kept it.

I've found (with my particular workflow anyway) that I get better scans more easily from negatives that would be thinner and lower in contrast than I'd prefer for darkroom printing.

I think pretty much everyone who wet prints as well as scans has observed this. Thin negatives generally scan much better than they print. In particular shadow regions can be boosted in contrast in digital post processing far beyond the gamma of grade 5 paper.

 

[grain elevator]

Thin negatives generally scan much better than they print. In particular shadow regions can be boosted in contrast in digital post processing far beyond the gamma of grade 5 paper.

Yes exactly, this is no secret or very controversial. If someone says they can't, they must either understand "thin" to mean no shadow detail at all or they don't know how to work with curves.
Shadows in a negative will have tons of data in a scan that allow for massive curve manipulation, thanks to being highlights in the scan and thus being well resolved in terms of bit rate or how ever one would express that. Effectively being dithered by grain also doesn't hurt. It's opposite from digital photos where shadows allow for the least manipulation (which isn't such a big deal anymore with modern sensors but definitely was some years ago).

 

[albireo]

Don't mean to drag this into another analogue Vs digital debate but people are quite clearly unclear about the difference between a "usable" scan and a scan aiming for optimality. Those of us pursuing a scan as the sole, main output of film photography are interested in exposing and developing for the latter purpose.

I believe the misunderstanding is due to wet printers usually employing scanning just as a quick "proofing tool", an intermediate device to inform a wet print, in which case I'm sure a little tinker with PS curves or levels can work just fine.

 

[grain elevator]

Don't mean to drag this into another analogue Vs digital debate but people are quite clearly unclear about the difference between a "usable" scan and a scan aiming for optimality. Those of us pursuing a scan as the sole, main output of film photography are interested in exposing and developing for the latter purpose.

I believe the misunderstanding is due to wet printers usually employing scanning just as a quick "proofing tool", an intermediate device to inform a wet print, in which case I'm sure a little tinker with PS curves or levels can work just fine.

Of course an optimal negative is an optimal negative (for whatever purpose). Why this even came up is that what is optimal for what purpose may differ, and an accessory point is that scans on the internet may be manipulated in whatever way and tell very little about the negative.

 

[albireo]

Of course an optimal negative is an optimal negative (for whatever purpose). Why this even came up is that what is optimal for what purpose may differ, and an accessory point is that scans on the internet may be manipulated in whatever way and tell very little about the negative.

Which is exactly the case with wet prints. They can tell us very little about the negative, perhaps less than a scan, if a linear scan is performed.

This is in essence a creative process with a few, shaky, difficult to replicate technical underpinnings of some utility to largely different groups of users, who need to learn to coexist.

 

[dpurdy]

A few months ago I decided to start using Rodinal. I had a very old bottle 1 quarter full of Agfa Rodinal that was dark as black coffee. I got the Adox stuff and ran some tests starting with their recommended times, which came pretty close. When I was finished testing and comfortable with my times, I decided out of curiosity to try the old old stuff at the same times and was very surprised that it looked identically processed.

 

[pentaxuser]

I use to squirt a tad of Tetenal Protectant into the bottle when I open it and after each use. With this in mind, the last genuine Agfa Rodinal bottle lasted almost 8 years. The last Adox bottle I used lasted 3 years maximum and I've got thin negatives at the end...
I now have switched to Ilford Ilfosol 3 because its constant availability, there are robust developing datas, it's sharper and finer grained than Rodinal. I don't search for developer longevity anymore.

Thanks I had asked because I do still have a bottle of Rodinal that pre-dates the Agfa closure in 2005 so it is now nearly 20 years old and still working fine. I had also heard from several sources that R09 does not have the same longevity so you can imagine my relief when Adox said it has reproduced the original Rodinal that was identical to the last Agfa version.

Now your experience has cast doubts in my mind that what Adox has said may not be accurate

Of course your particular bottle may have been faulty or I may have been particularly lucky with my bottle of the last of the Agfa product but I doubt this to be the case based on what others have said about the original Rodinal

So I can only hope that it was you who was unlucky with your bottle of Adox Rodinal

I use the word "hope" as the accurate word in this case because given how long Adox has produced its allegedly "identical Rodinal" not enough years have yet passed to enable me to weigh up others' experiences with Adox Rodinal against yours

All I can do is to ask those who like dpurdy above may have bought the Adox Rodinal that is identical to the last Agfa version to say what age is their Rodinal and is it still working as well as when they bought it. Your 3 years of life plus using Protectan and still getting thin negatives at the end of 3 years is truly worrying


pentaxuser

 

[DeletedAcct1]

I don't think that a developer that lasts 3 years is something to worry about, given the cost of Rodinal (it's not cheap neither expensive per roll). If you think about it 3 years would be a record for something like d76 to last for.

That said maybe my bottle was faulty, but that's what I've experienced so far thus it cannot be taken as a general rule, of course.
As if often said and written, YMMV...
But the question as I see it is another: do you like Rodinal qualities?

 

[loccdor]

Neopan 400 exposed at 3200 and developed as 400, and waited 10 years to develop it. You could barely see anything on the film. I didn't think there would be anything on it and I almost threw it out. Sure, the image doesn't have as much quality as it could have had, but it's not unusable, scanned.

 

[JerseyDoug]

But the question as I see it is another: do you like Rodinal qualities?

I agree completely. Whether Rodinal lasts 3 years or 20+ years is unimportant to me. I would still use it if it lasted only 3 months like the old Ilfosol.

When I set up my first darkroom in 1968 my father gave me a half used glass bottle of Rodinal. He had no idea how old it was. When I eventually finished the bottle I tried something else - probably D76 - but I apparently didn't like it because my negatives from less than a year later have the Rodinal look again. Over the years I have tried many different developers but keep coming back to Rodinal. (This is mostly with Tri-X because it is the film I keep coming back to for both 35mm and 120.)

 

[Sirius Glass]

Welcome to Photrio!

On occasion, I too have had problems with specific data listed on Digital Truth. If something appears to be out of line, check those items against other sources.

I prefer Massive Development Chart to Digital Truth, but still with a lot of salt.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

Are those not the same thing?

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Are those not the same thing?

Yes