Experimenting with Agfa APX 400 and Rodinal

[pentaxuser]

O no worries, his eyelashes aren't typical male ones

If I was to make a print (digital) of the full scan, it would print to about 25x16 inches with no loss in quality. The crop would print to 14x11 inches.

Thanks, from a 35mm negative developed in Rodinal those sizes are very impressive.

pentaxuser

 

[cerber0s]

although at 1:200 the developer may have exhausted itself well before you reach the 90 minute mark

The latest test roll came out slightly less underdeveloped than the previous one, but the results still suggest that you are right. I have one more thing to try though

 

[cerber0s]

Here’s a comparison between the 60 minute roll and the 90 minute roll. The 90 minute roll looks a bit better to my untrained eyes.

 

[MattKing]

Here’s a comparison between the 60 minute roll and the 90 minute roll. The 90 minute roll looks a bit better to my untrained eyes.

View attachment 343851

The 60 minute time is definitely better!
After a bit of digital tom-foolery, and arbitrarily making some choices:

 

[cerber0s]

The 60 minute time is definitely better!
After a bit of digital tom-foolery, and arbitrarily making some choices:
View attachment 343855

That is very weird. The 90 minute ones scanned much better than the 60 minute ones. I had to do quite a lot of exposure and contrast compensation in the scan software for the 60 minute strip. I did none at all for the 90 minute strip.

 

[cerber0s]

And another. These do seem a bit grainier than the 60-minute ones though.

 

[MattKing]

A good negative doesn't look to the eye like a "pretty" print. The process of printing a negative inherently boosts the contrast of the result. So films and developers are designed to produce negatives that look low contrast to the unaided eye.
If those higher than ideal contrast 90 minute negatives are scanning easily, it means your scanning is set up to decrease contrast.
In case you haven't seen this:
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/assessing-negatives-4682
That link isn't perfect, but it provides a decent reference.

 

[cerber0s]

A good negative doesn't look to the eye like a "pretty" print. The process of printing a negative inherently boosts the contrast of the result. So films and developers are designed to produce negatives that look low contrast to the unaided eye.
If those higher than ideal contrast 90 minute negatives are scanning easily, it means your scanning is set up to decrease contrast.
In case you haven't seen this:
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/assessing-negatives-4682
That link isn't perfect, but it provides a decent reference.

So it wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect the same kind of results when printing? If I knew what I was doing

 

[pentaxuser]

I am confused here. Which strip is the 90 minute one. There looks to be a difference in the only 2 negs that are the of the same picture of your son. In that strip, the lower one 15 is better than 14 in terms of highlights, namely on the face and looks to be the one with the greater time in the developer but are both on the same strip so presumably were developed for the same time? Hence my confusion

No confusion with the second set of pictures of the flower and tyre. If these are the 90 minute ones then certainly if these are straight scans they appear to be better for printing as well

Neither do I understand what Matt is referring to in terms of which were subject to digital tom-foolery nor what the arbitary choices but that is for Matt to comment on.

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

I have now just seen Matt's explanation and it appears that you are subject to the "hidden hand" of the scanning software over which you have no direct control as to what it does so my sympathies

You'll only know which development time is better from trying to darkroom print or so it appears from Matt's post. His money is on the negatives with lesser development and I having no knowledge of scanning cannot contradict him. All I can say is that to my eye the flower and tyre look OK to me as scans and likewise I prefer the negative of your son's face with the darker highlights which become the brighter highlights when reversed

If darkroom printing is not what you want to do then scanning seems to be working fine to my eye but that's only me. What counts is what you think

pentaxuser

 

[npl]

I only ever used XTOL with APX 400 (aka Rollei RPX 400, aka Kentmere 400 ..), and have always found it grainy and flat. Prints from a negative developped in XTOL stock for 9min at 20°c/68°F (RPX datasheet time) needed a grade 3.5 if I remember correctly.

Have you tried the "official" times for rodinal ? both the Agfaphoto APX 400 and the rollei APX 400 datasheets gives the following time and agitation method : for rodinal 1:50, 21min at 20°c, 60s initial agitation, then 5s inversion every 30s :

https://www.rolleianalog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/RPX400_Data-Sheet_EN_R210701.pdf

https://www.robisa.es/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/APX400_Product-Information_GB_.pdf

The kentmere datasheet doesn't list rodinal. 21min seem awfully long, but could be worth a shot..

 

[cerber0s]

I am confused here. Which strip is the 90 minute one.

Sorry for the confusion the top strip is the 90 minute one. Both faces are on the 60 minute strip, same exposure only seconds apart. There were fast clouds, so the light might have changed a bit in between.

 

[cerber0s]

I have now just seen Matt's explanation and it appears that you are subject to the "hidden hand" of the scanning software over which you have no direct control as to what it does so my sympathies

You'll only know which development time is better from trying to darkroom print or so it appears from Matt's post. His money is on the negatives with lesser development and I having no knowledge of scanning cannot contradict him. All I can say is that to my eye the flower and tyre look OK to me as scans and likewise I prefer the negative of your son's face with the darker highlights which become the brighter highlights when reversed

If darkroom printing is not what you want to do then scanning seems to be working fine to my eye but that's only me. What counts is what you think

pentaxuser

I want to do both, but if they only scan well and don’t print, I’ve missed the mark.

 

[cerber0s]

I only ever used XTOL with APX 400 (aka Rollei RPX 400, aka Kentmere 400 ..), and have always found it grainy and flat. Prints from a negative developped in XTOL stock for 9min at 20°c/68°F (RPX datasheet time) needed a grade 3.5 if I remember correctly.

Have you tried the "official" times for rodinal ? both the Agfaphoto APX 400 and the rollei APX 400 datasheets gives the following time and agitation method : for rodinal 1:50, 21min at 20°c, 60s initial agitation, then 5s inversion every 30s :

https://www.rolleianalog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/RPX400_Data-Sheet_EN_R210701.pdf

https://www.robisa.es/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/APX400_Product-Information_GB_.pdf

The kentmere datasheet doesn't list rodinal. 21min seem awfully long, but could be worth a shot..

I haven’t tried that one, but a bunch of others. So far I think I’ve been getting mostly good results. But if @MattKing is right, and the thinner negatives are properly developed, most of the others are way overdeveloped. I better get a set of filters and do another test print.

 

[K-G]

If it is smaller grain and pushing that you are looking for then you might want to look at this recent video by a presenter called John Finch about the use of Rodinal. His results impressed me but I need to add he is using Ilford FP4 and not APX 400. I have never used Rodinal stand development myself so I cannot add any personal experience



pentaxuser

Thank you for sharing. It looks very interesting.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[madNbad]

Thanks for the link to the John Finch video. I watched all three and may try a couple of rolls of Tri-X stand developed at 200:1.

 

[cerber0s]

OK, last one. I think.

Remember, this is for the sake of experimentation

I did this one today, still same film, same camera, same lens, still pushed two stops. 60 minutes in Rodinal 1:200. The only thing I changed (to test if the developer depleted itself) was that I replaced the developer with a fresh batch of 1:200 after 30 minutes. Notice how incredibly grainy it is, they all came out like this. Compare it to the other ones above.

 

[pentaxuser]

cerber0s I too have often wondered where there is this happy medium for negative development that gives easy scanning and acceptable darkroom prints

Does it exist? All the posts I have seen on Photrio seem to suggest that there may not be this happy medium but is that really the case

It may be time for a discussion on this from those who do both Can the tyre and the flower negs be reproduced as you have managed to do in your reverse scans to make them look as positive prints

Is it as simple as underdeveloping and printing at a higher grade to get the darkroom print to look like either reversed scans of the two negatives of your son or do you have to decide on either greater development and successful darkroom prints or lesser development for a successful scan and accept more and possibly much more difficulties in this case with producing a successful darkroom print?

From my possibly naive point of view it would seem that the magic of scanning in the case of the two negs developed at 90 mins has produced a good print and it is this allegedly over developed negative that others have said creates less problems in the darkroom than the 60 mins developed negative. So that suggests that longer development may be the better route

What is clear to me is that there are several routes to try in the darkroom and trying several may be the way and only way to learn what works best

One of the problems with forums is that collectively we can become "too many cooks" who can as easily spoil the broth as make a superb soup

As it's now the early hours of Sunday morning in Sweden and the U.K and a little piece of humour may be required, have a look at this person getting the best advice from a group of people each of whom has only that person's best interests at heart



pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

You do understand that a film that requires a two stop push is two stops under-exposed? That means 1/4 of the light that the film was optimized for.
Push development helps rescue as much as you can, but under-exposure has a terrible effect on the quality of negatives. All it really does (mostly) is boost contrast for those parts of the image that are under-exposed, but have at least some density in the negative.
And then that contrast boost is made less effective by employing stand development.
Using Rodinal can compound the problem, because it results in less than optimum film "speed".
If you are trying to learn how to expose and both scan and print film, avoid push development, and avoid scan development. And if you are going to use Rodinal, rate your film at a lower EI - at least 1/3 of a stop lower, and accept the fact that Rodinal will give you Rodinal grain.
Once you have had regular success with that, you can consider experimenting with using higher EIs, push development, and stand development. You may find, however, that you will share my reaction - that the results from that combination are not to your liking.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

An interesting article by Pat Gainer, to consider:

 

[cerber0s]

You do understand that a film that requires a two stop push is two stops under-exposed?

Yes, I do understand that

You may find, however, that you will share my reaction - that the results from that combination are not to your liking.

The thing is that I very much liked the results, which is why I’m keen on making them work for printing as well.

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes, I do understand that

The thing is that. very much liked the results, which is why I’m keen on making them work for printing as well.

Yes they looked OK to me as well. Time to choose each of Painless Potter's pieces of advice in terms of darkroom printing one at a time and see how you go?

pentaxuser

PS what's your emoji source? I like the wider smile on it compared to the closest one I can find on Photrio

 

[cerber0s]

Yes they looked OK to me as well. Time to choose each of Painless Potter's pieces of advice in terms of darkroom printing one at a time and see how you go?

pentaxuser

PS what's your emoji source? I like the wider smile on it compared to the closest one I can find on Photrio

I’ll buy a set of grading filters to use with the multigrade papers before I jump to any printing conclusions.

I just used the oldschool : with ).

 

[madNbad]

Instead of pushing it, what if you exposed a roll at ISO 200 and developed it at 200:1 for an hour?

 

[MattKing]

If you are using push development, and/or stand development, you absolutely need to have the ability to adjust the contrast of your prints - get those filters!
Even if you don't use those non-standard techniques, you will often/almost always need to adjust contrast.
Whether you realize it or not, your scans incorporate significant adjustments to contrast. Some may be "under the hood" automatic adjustments imposed by the scanning software, while others are adjustments done by yourself.