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 data really insane for Rodinal
-
A
- Thread starter berrybrian
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Compur 3 Shutter
- Started by ivan35mm
-
For Sale Manfrotto 502AH Pro Video Head
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale Canon AF35ML
- Started by Chan Tran
-
For Sale Nikon Lite.Touch AF
- Started by Chan Tran
-
For Sale Chamonix 5x7 Kit
- Started by Yabbo
Forum statistics
What dilution are you referring to? The 20 minutes development time I saw for FP4+ and Tri-X was for 1+100 dilution.
That sounds reasonable. I develop FP4+ in Rodinal 1:50 for 11 mins 45 secs at 68F. I shoot it at an EI of 100.
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.
Digital Truth is far from truth. Don't trust it.
I didn't see any times on Digital Truth that looked like 20+ mins for the usual dilutions of 1+25 or 1+50 but did see like Alex that time for 1+100
What we don't know and won't know until he tells us is: either where on Digital Truth the OP found 20+mins for the 1+25 and 1+50 dilutions or whether he saw the 1+100 time for the later dilution but had overlooked that it was a 1+100 time
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?
pentaxuser
What we don't know and won't know until he tells us is: either where on Digital Truth the OP found 20+mins for the 1+25 and 1+50 dilutions or whether he saw the 1+100 time for the later dilution but had overlooked that it was a 1+100 time
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?
pentaxuser
Digital Truth collates both film-makers' data and times submitted by users. Discrepancy between them is likely to happen sometimes.
I see there is an email address on the Dev Chart front page, so you could make your complaint there, where it might do some good.
I see there is an email address on the Dev Chart front page, so you could make your complaint there, where it might do some good.
I'm thinking it should be renamed to "Digital Opinions YMMV". I have used it as a starting point and sometimes it was okay other times not so much. Better than nothing.
Specifically to Rodinal, there are many alternative facts due to the transferring of some original AGFA data which used a Contrast Index or Gamma of .62 instead of a Kodak standard of .56.
Why is it call digital when all it posts is Analog Information?
Why is it call digital when all it posts is Analog Information?
This is worth restating. We need another "Massive Dev Chart is worthless" thread as much as we need another "What do you think about stand development" thread.
Filmdev.org is a good site to look at to see certain film & developer combinations, since people upload example photos to look at.
filmdev.org
filmdev.org
FilmDev | 153 recipes found that contained the phrase 'Kodak Tri-x 400 rodinal'
Develop your own black and white film then link the results to your photos on Flickr
FilmDev | 76 recipes found that contained the phrase 'Ilford FP4+ rodinal'
Develop your own black and white film then link the results to your photos on Flickr
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.
I agree. Because we don't know how the photos were digitally manipulated post development, I find filmdev much less reliable than the Massive Dev Chart.
There would be a simple solution to make Massive Dev Chart more reliable: have a different color code for manufacturer's recommended development times — film and chemistry manufacturers — and for user-submitted development times. That would eliminate part of the confusion.
Even better, add for user-submitted times a star rating system by other users. One to five stars, as elsewhere, with the number of other users who have tried the recommended time and rated it.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 3,589
- Format
- Medium Format
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?
Last edited:
A couple of years ago, I noticed implausable / contradictory times on the Massive Development, and I sent an email to sales@digitaltruth.com. The replies I got from Jon Mided, Managing Director of Digitaltruth Photo Ltd. were helpful and informative. The outlier data was corrected.
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.
No secret, no AI. Just plain curves.
For poops and small hilarities, here's an example:
Passable scan. Unprintable negative.
Last edited:
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.
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
No offense. Passable, exactly. Some of us would have binned it.
If you want a great scan, you need to expose and develop well. No free lunch, in spite of what the wet printers like to tell themselves and other people (yours is a pretty common view). Sorry.
Last edited:
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.
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...
MattKing
Moderator
This oft-shared image is from a negative that, to the initial viewer, looks to be incredibly thin:
That is from a scan.
A darkroom print is also very satisfying, but at least slightly different in effect.
The fact that the negative works well with both presentation methods, despite its relative lack of density, is probably due to the fact that the subject is itself responsive to both viewing by reflected light and viewing by transmitted light.
I visualize the issue this way: there is a range of acceptability for film. That range applies to both exposure and development. The characteristics of subjects and of presentation media also span ranges. And the two different means of extracting an image from a negative - optical printing and scanning - have slightly different areas of strength.
If the ranges are overlapping, then one has multiple ways of achieving good-great results. If one or both of the ranges is just outside the central target, one of the two methods of extraction is often more effective.
I agree with @koraks when he posts that scanning is often the better method of making good on a negative that is too thin. And I think that optical darkroom printing is often more effective with negatives that are a bit too thick.
Emphasis on "a bit" in both cases.
I don't know that the negative that made the above image is incorrect. I think that it is just well suited to the light and the subject.
This also oft-shared image is of a very different subject, but it is on the same roll and was taken from nearly the same position, so the lighting conditions were the same.
It too is fairly thin, and it too prints and scans well.
That is from a scan.
A darkroom print is also very satisfying, but at least slightly different in effect.
The fact that the negative works well with both presentation methods, despite its relative lack of density, is probably due to the fact that the subject is itself responsive to both viewing by reflected light and viewing by transmitted light.
I visualize the issue this way: there is a range of acceptability for film. That range applies to both exposure and development. The characteristics of subjects and of presentation media also span ranges. And the two different means of extracting an image from a negative - optical printing and scanning - have slightly different areas of strength.
If the ranges are overlapping, then one has multiple ways of achieving good-great results. If one or both of the ranges is just outside the central target, one of the two methods of extraction is often more effective.
I agree with @koraks when he posts that scanning is often the better method of making good on a negative that is too thin. And I think that optical darkroom printing is often more effective with negatives that are a bit too thick.
Emphasis on "a bit" in both cases.
I don't know that the negative that made the above image is incorrect. I think that it is just well suited to the light and the subject.
This also oft-shared image is of a very different subject, but it is on the same roll and was taken from nearly the same position, so the lighting conditions were the same.
It too is fairly thin, and it too prints and scans well.
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
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |