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
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.
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
It too is fairly thin, and it too prints and scans well.
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.
If you want a great scan, you need to expose and develop well.
I stand by that assessment. That was the gist of my message.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.
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.Some of us would have binned it.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.But the question as I see it is another: do you like Rodinal qualities?
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.
Are those not the same thing?
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?