Dilute rodinal 1:100, what volume needed?

[Galaxens President]

I've decided to try some very dilute rodinal development of Efke KB25 and had intended to use my stainless kinderman 1 roll tank taking approximately 225ml of kemistry. For a 1:100 dilution that means 2.25ml of rodinal concentrate. Is this sufficient for a one shot development of a single roll or will the developer become exhausted?

Should I try to find a larger tank and use a larger volume when using 1:100 concentration? I heard some people even use 1:200.

Since I have an accurate syringe (I think its called in english) to measure concentrates to an accuracy of 0.1ml so I don't think the measurement of such a small quantity is a big problem, but I am unsure of how large a volume of 1:100 dilute rodinal is needed for a single 135 roll of film.

Any help appreciated

Best
Richard

 

[skillian]

I've developed hundreds of rolls of film using 1:100 Rodinal and (semi) stand development. I recommend using twice the volume of developer that you would normally use. For example, if you're using a 2 roll tank, I would develop 1 roll but fill the tank as if you were developing 2 rolls. To try this method, presoak your film and then agitate for about 10 seconds at the beginning. Let it sit undisturbed for 30 minutes, agitate very slowly for 15 seconds and then let it sit for another 30 minutes for a total of 1 hour of development. I've found that this approach produces very sharp, fully developed negatives.

 

[timeUnit]

I've used 1+200 and stand development on Tri-X 120. That is 2.5 ml developer. The negs were denser at the edge facing the bottom of the tank, and had some fogging. Development time was around 2 hours. No good, I'd say. Scott's suggestion is definetely a good one.

Right now I'm developing a Efke R50 roll in 500 ml water + 3 ml Rodinal, about 1+200. I've done three inversions at 35 minutes, and plan to let it sit for a total of 70 minutes. We'll see if it works...

 

[Galaxens President]

Thank you very much for your advice. I am running it with the double volume, following Scott's procedure. I'll report on the outcome. Unfortunately I haven't tried this film before so I cannot really compare the grain, but it will be interesting to see the densities and the edge effect.

 

[timeUnit]

Well, I chickened out and added another 20 minutes, totalling 90 minutes. Negs look... interesting. A little thin. Might be the exposure. I just can't understand the efKe 50 film. Most of the time when I shoot I get what I expect. With efke I never know. I'll scan and show later on.

 

[david b]

I would go with what Scott said. He and I do this in the same way.

 

[df cardwell]

1+100 is more than adequate for full development.

The uneven density with 120 film in standing development can be eliminated simply by agitating every 5th minute. There is no -practical- detriment to the benefits of semi stand development. ( You can probably reduce this to every 15th minute but you should test it first ).

Presoaking with Rodinal has no benefit whatsoever, but it doesn't really hurt.

If your negs lack density... develop longer: there is little contrast change.

good luck

 

[Galaxens President]

My negs are still at the rinse but the results seems promising judging from the last few frames of the roll that I've looked at. Perhaps they are slightly contrasty, but there seem to be some shadow detail (I exposed the roll 1/3 stop over). What is most exiting is to see whether there is any significant edge effect or not (hard to judge from the negs directly I guess). We'll see if I get to scan some example tonight.

 

[Gim]

I've developed hundreds of rolls of film using 1:100 Rodinal and (semi) stand development. I recommend using twice the volume of developer that you would normally use. For example, if you're using a 2 roll tank, I would develop 1 roll but fill the tank as if you were developing 2 rolls. To try this method, presoak your film and then agitate for about 10 seconds at the beginning. Let it sit undisturbed for 30 minutes, agitate very slowly for 15 seconds and then let it sit for another 30 minutes for a total of 1 hour of development. I've found that this approach produces very sharp, fully developed negatives.

Scott
How many ml of Rodinal concentrate do you use per roll.
Thanks, Jim

 

[skillian]

Jim,

My tank holds 1000 ml so I use 10 ml of Rodinal.

I've actually never had uneven development - not a single time, and I only agitate once at the start and once at the midway point for the total of an hour. I've recommended this approach to 3 or 4 other folks I know and they've had the same experience. All of the enlargements on my Website were made this way (not that you can tell anything from scans). It's super easy since I can drink a beer and eat a sandwhich in the 30 minutes between agitations!

 

[timeUnit]

Scott,

do you use this technique for all you films? How about N+ or N- development, is that something you do?

 

[avandesande]

I have been very pleased with the results by following df cardwell's advice.

 

[cperez]

I recently followed Cardwell's advise on developing in Rodinal 100:1 in a slightly modified manner:

4x5 Kodak TMax100, EI - 100, Rodinal 100:1, Jobo 2125 with 1400ml of liquid, 20C/68F, for 27mins with five second agitation at 7, 14, and 21minutes.​

The results are quite fine. Processed in this manner there is a subtle but useful increase in development of the shadow details, while retaining the highlight values.

Makes me re-evaluate why 5 second agitation every 30 seconds is the standard practice.

1+100 is more than adequate for full development.

The uneven density with 120 film in standing development can be eliminated simply by agitating every 5th minute...

If your negs lack density... develop longer: there is little contrast change.

 

[Galaxens President]

The recipe Scott gave was great. I got an average gradient of gamma=0.58 between zone I and zone VIII. Zone I density was 0.15 but I used EI 20 so I guess it should be about spot on normal and a proper EI would be the nominal iso, i.e. my personal IE=25.

The edge effect seems to be there judging from the negatives on the light table. Unfortunately my daugther is asleep where I have my scanner so there'll be no photos posted today.

Thanks again for the great advice. Anyone done something similar with Xtol ((semi-) stand development)?

Kind regards
/ Richard

 

[skillian]

Glad to hear that it worked for you. I only use this technique for my 120 stuff and I bracket rather than messing with N or N+ development. My negs for enlargning are generally a bit underexposed and overdeveloped, but that's just my preference. Most of my work is 8x10 contact prints and I do something entirely different with that film & development.

 

[zenrhino]

I have been very pleased with the results by following df cardwell's advice.

Hear, hear. Ever since taking his "1:50, 30 sec in the beginning, 5 ag every 5 min, adjust dev length as needed but start with the 1:25 PLUS the 1:50 time" advice, I have not once had thin (nor overly dense) negs. And the effect that having a good neg has on printing has actually made printing a joy instead of a chore.

 

[avandesande]

95% of my negatives are printable on grade 2 or 3 and I meter with a crummy old weston meter.

 

[JeffD]

I always get confused. A roll of 120 film is equal to how many sheets of 4x5? I have a combi tank, and was wondering if 10ml of rodinal to make 1000ml of solution is enough to develop the 6 sheets that go in the holder of the combi tank.

Also, does anyone know from experience if 1 sheet in this dilution, in this tank, would develop significantly differently from having 6 sheets in the tank at once?

 

[Galaxens President]

The last two examples are close ups of the full size scan to show the edge effects on the edge of a dark and a bright area, respectively. The second example is a scaled down version of the photo from which the close ups were taken. The edge effect is there. I lack the experience to say whether it is smaller or larger than what should be expected but it gives some improvement of the perceived sharpness, similar to the application of an unsharp mask.

The first example is a motif which better matches the normal development (the light is uneven, it is not the development that have caused the brighter left side of the photo).

No postprocessing or digital sharpening has been applied to the close ups. The full crop images have been sharpened. (sorry for posting scanned negs instead of prints)