Experimenting with Agfa APX 400 and Rodinal

[cerber0s]

I'm trying out different development times. I tried stand developing in Rodinal 1:100 for 90 minutes with two turns after 45 minutes. The negs were OK, but a little flat. I then tried 11 minutes 30 seconds with a 1:25 dilution and agitation every 30 seconds, those came out nice and contrasty, but a bit grainy. This latest attempt was with a 1:50 dilution for 30 minutes, agitation after 10 minutes, then again after 20 minutes. Most of them came out pretty good, although the light as they were shot was a bit flat.

 

[pentaxuser]

They look fine. Can I ask: 1. What number of agitations did you use at 10 and 20 mins in the case of the 30 mins dev time at 1+50?
2. Is this a 35 mm or 120 neg and what percentage of the negative are looking at in each case?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[cerber0s]

They look fine. Can I ask: 1. What number of agitations did you use at 10 and 20 mins in the case of the 30 mins dev time at 1+50?
2. Is this a 35 mm or 120 neg and what percentage of the negative are looking at in each case?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Just two very gentle turns at 10 minutes, then another two gentle turns at 20 minutes.

This is a 35mm film and you’re looking at close to 100% of the negatives. I’d say 90% where you see the knobs, and maybe 80% of the headstock. They are bothe reduced in size though, the one with the knobs more than the one with the headstock. So I could upload them.

 

[agentlossing]

The grain looks pretty nice. Why does the 1:50 need such a long development time?

 

[cerber0s]

The grain looks pretty nice. Why does the 1:50 need such a long development time?

It doesn’t. It was an experiment to compensate for only doing very little agitation. I was hoping that reduced agitation would also make the grain look smoother, or less prominent. I need to do more tests to determine what causes what.

 

[agentlossing]

It doesn’t. It was an experiment to compensate for only doing very little agitation. I was hoping that reduced agitation would also make the grain look smoother, or less prominent. I need to do more tests to determine what causes what.

Okay, gotcha.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the reply, cerber0s

pentaxuser

 

[markjwyatt]

Agfapan or Agfaphoto APX400 (suspect the latter)? The grain does look nice.

 

[cerber0s]

Agfapan or Agfaphoto APX400 (suspect the latter)? The grain does look nice.

You are correct, Agfaphoto

 

[relistan]

Look pretty good to me. Low agitation or stand development always flatten the contrast a bit. So those techniques work better in high contrast lighting. That all being said, the lighting and dev seem well paired to me.

 

[cerber0s]

Another test. Same film pushed two steps. Developed in Rodinal 1:25 for 35 minutes. Same agitation scheme, two gentle inversions after 10, 20, and 30 minutes. It came out over developed. I'm thinking I should try 40 minutes in 1:50 dilution

Some came out pretty much unusable due to exposure errors (mine). I put an extension tube on the Canon F1 and used the 50mm f1.4 to try some macro shots.

These were the best of the bunch. I kind of liked the harsh contrast in the first one.

 

[cerber0s]

And another. It looks like the film is pretty flexible, and has some potentioal for pushing.

 

[pentaxuser]

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

 

[cerber0s]

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

That is really interesting. Thank you for the video! I might go try that on a test roll right away.

 

[cerber0s]

Again pushed to 1600, this time for 1 hour in Rodinal @ 1:200. They came out slightly under developed, but not beyond rescuing in the scan. There was also some bromide drag. I'm thinking something around 1h 15 minutes with some gentle agitation half way would do the trick.

Still, I like how these came out. Thank you @pentaxuser

 

[cerber0s]

And another

 

[pentaxuser]

Again pushed to 1600, this time for 1 hour in Rodinal @ 1:200. They came out slightly under developed, but not beyond rescuing in the scan. There was also some bromide drag. I'm thinking something around 1h 15 minutes with some gentle agitation half way would do the trick.

Still, I like how these came out. Thank you @pentaxuser

Thanks for your thanks. Yes this seems to be similar to John Finch's findings where a 2 stop change in film speed in his case from 125 to 400 was close to the limit before evidence of problems emerge and your conclusions about making improvements with longer time and agitation half way through make sense to me

Was the shot of the female's face a crop of the negative and if so what percentage of the negative does it represent? Is this still the 35mm version of APX 400? It looks very good for a developer that every time it is mentioned seems to draw a chorus of "its an inherently grainy developer" Certainly in the past, Rodinal seemed to be a "polarising" developer in the sense that respondents seemed to love it or hate it There was no middle ground or much, if any, receptiveness to any thread that suggested a more balanced approach towards it was justified

pentaxuser

 

[cerber0s]

Again pushed to 1600, this time for 1 hour in Rodinal @ 1:200. They came out slightly under developed, but not beyond rescuing in the scan. There was also some bromide drag. I'm thinking something around 1h 15 minutes with some gentle agitation half way would do the trick.

Still, I like how these came out. Thank you @pentaxuser

Thanks for your thanks. Yes this seems to be similar to John Finch's findings where a 2 stop change in film speed in his case from 125 to 400 was close to the limit before evidence of problems emerge and your conclusions about making improvements with longer time and agitation half way through make sense to me

Was the shot of the female's face a crop of the negative and if so what percentage of the negative does it represent? Is this still the 35mm version of APX 400? It looks very good for a developer that every time it is mentioned seems to draw a chorus of "its an inherently grainy developer" Certainly in the past, Rodinal seemed to be a "polarising" developer in the sense that respondents seemed to love it or hate it There was no middle ground or much, if any, receptiveness to any thread that suggested a more balanced approach towards it was justified

pentaxuser

Still the same bulk roll of 35mm APX 400. It's actually my son's eye, but he does have eye lashes that many women envy

These were both close to 100% of the negatives.

Here's a 100% crop of just the eye:

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks cerber0s. My apologies for my unconscious bias as to the person's gender. There was absolutely nothing in the picture to indicate gender but my mid 1960s formative years has planted in my subconscious an assumption that close-ups of eyes were always that of female faces

In your first scan of part of his face including hair and nose been a print what size of print would it be and the same question for the 100% crop as well? Even the crop looks very clear and detailed in terms of the eye

pentaxuser

 

[cerber0s]

Thanks cerber0s. My apologies for my unconscious bias as to the person's gender. There was absolutely nothing in the picture to indicate gender but my mid 1960s formative years has planted in my subconscious an assumption that close-ups of eyes were always that of female faces

In your first scan of part of his face including hair and nose been a print what size of print would it be and the same question for the 100% crop as well? Even the crop looks very clear and detailed in terms of the eye

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.

 

[madNbad]

If you search the forum, I started a thread about developing Tri-X in Rodinal. The best advice was to compensate for the reduced speed when using Rodinal and gentle agitation. I also switched from using a light yellow filter to just a UV. Your results look good, keep experimenting and posting!

Leica M4, Voigtlander 35 1.4 Nokton Classic SC V2, Tri-X @ ISO 200, Rodinal 50:1, 10 minutes a 20C:

 

[faberryman]

I'm trying out different development times. I tried stand developing in Rodinal 1:100 for 90 minutes with two turns after 45 minutes. The negs were OK, but a little flat. I then tried 11 minutes 30 seconds with a 1:25 dilution and agitation every 30 seconds, those came out nice and contrasty, but a bit grainy. This latest attempt was with a 1:50 dilution for 30 minutes, agitation after 10 minutes, then again after 20 minutes. Most of them came out pretty good, although the light as they were shot was a bit flat.

What are you hoping to achieve? The reason I ask is that there are a near infinite number of combinations of dilutions, times, and agitation frequencies you can try. Just trying a couple to see what you get seems a bit hit or miss, particularly if you don't know what you are looking for.

 

[cerber0s]

If you search the forum, I started a thread about developing Tri-X in Rodinal. The best advice was to compensate for the reduced speed when using Rodinal and gentle agitation. I also switched from using a light yellow filter to just a UV. Your results look good, keep experimenting and posting!

Leica M4, Voigtlander 35 1.4 Nokton Classic SC V2, Tri-X @ ISO 200, Rodinal 50:1, 10 minutes a 20C:

That looks real nice!

 

[cerber0s]

What are you hoping to achieve?

World domination. Oh, you meant with developing the n Rodinal. I’m hoping to find a flexible film that isn’t too expensive, and I’m hoping to find a one stop shop developer that lets me use the film at different speeds.

It looks like the Agfaphoto APX 400 is that film. Now I’m trying to find out how to best develop it using Rodinal. Why Rodinal? Because I want something cheap that doesn’t spoil when left in a cabinet for a year or two.

I’ve already seen that Rodinal gives me pleasing results with this film, both at box speed and pushed two steps. Now the question is, can I push it two steps using stand development? The idea is to keep the grain in check, even at ISO 1600. With the film @pentaxuser posted, and my own findings, it looks like it could be possible.

I have another test roll in the bath now. The idea is to go 90 minutes in Rodinal 1:200 with two inversions at 30 and 60 minutes. If this doesn’t work, I’ll pull the plug on developing pushed film in 1:200 dilution.

 

[faberryman]

World domination. Oh, you meant with developing the n Rodinal. I’m hoping to find a flexible film that isn’t too expensive, and I’m hoping to find a one stop shop developer that lets me use the film at different speeds.

It looks like the Agfaphoto APX 400 is that film. Now I’m trying to find out how to best develop it using Rodinal. Why Rodinal? Because I want something cheap that doesn’t spoil when left in a cabinet for a year or two.

I’ve already seen that Rodinal gives me pleasing results with this film, both at box speed and pushed two steps. Now the question is, can I push it two steps using stand development? The idea is to keep the grain in check, even at ISO 1600. With the film @pentaxuser posted, and my own findings, it looks like it could be possible.

I have another test roll in the bath now. The idea is to go 90 minutes in Rodinal 1:200 with two inversions at 30 and 60 minutes. If this doesn’t work, I’ll pull the plug on developing pushed film in 1:200 dilution.

It has been awhile since I used Rodinal and stand development, but if I remember correctly, stand development enhances edge adjacency effects, hence acutance, hence grain. I believe the same is true for high dilutions, although at 1:200 the developer may have exhausted itself well before you reach the 90 minute mark. So I think you may be headed in the wrong direction if your goal is to keep grain in check. I mean, a 400 ISO film exposed at EI 1600, Rodinal, and push processing is the perfect storm for enhanced grain. But I am sure there are others here more experienced in stand development and Rodinal who can speak with greater authority on the subject.

By the way, there are a lot of threads on Rodinal and stand development on Photrio. You may find the search feature helpful.