Film Development question...split development?

AnselMortensen · May 30, 2025

OK, theoretically speaking...

Would there be any advantage to using a two-bath film development process, where the first bath would be a silver-solvent developer, i.e. Microdol-X, to reduce grain size....and the second bath to be an acutance developer, i.e. Rodinal, to sharpen the edges of the mushy smaller grain?
(Water bath in-between, probably, to minimize cross-contamination.)
I'm sure I'm not the first person to come up with this idea, but wondering what the Prodigious Panel of Experts here have to say about it...

Milpool · May 30, 2025

You should invent a 3-bath so that you get the fine grain, the ultra sharpness and the max emulsion speed. People will be on that like white on rice.

DREW WILEY · May 30, 2025

In other words, you want to smash a vase into tiny fragments, and then try to glue some of those back together?

Why not just dilute your Microdol-X more, like 1:3, so that the longer dev time allows a little more grain growth, and higher acutance in that manner? It's a lot simpler. No Super Glue needed.

AnselMortensen · May 30, 2025

DREW WILEY said:
In other words, you want to smash a vase into tiny fragments, and then try to glue some of those back together?

Actually, no...
More like smash the vase into tiny fragments, and sharpen the edges of the tiny fragments.

Academic question, really...4x5 is my "small format".

john_s · May 30, 2025

The permutations and combinations would be endless! Have fun!

Lachlan Young · May 30, 2025

There's a very simple answer. Rodinal isn't sharper than Microdol-X/ Perceptol, just significantly grainier. Kodak and everyone else in the industry with similar levels of R&D ability knew that. They could have very easily launched competitor products if they wanted. Rodinal's main appeal was its longevity and high concentration, rather than ultimate quality or specialist ability (despite the nonsense talked by the stand development crowd, Kodak, Ilford etc all knew/ know far far more about what actual compensation effects are - and commercialised them in products that actually achieve their goals - if used appropriately). The ultimate factor that defined most of the big manufacturers' developer designs was that they had to perform consistently from a contact print to somewhere around 40x (assuming appropriate enlarging lenses), rather than someone worrying themselves silly over developer characteristics for 3x enlargements or fundamentally unsharp Epson-type flatbed scans. Beutler is vastly better at what people think Rodinal does, but wasn't particularly commercialised beyond Tetenal's adaptations - it turned out PQ could do all the relevant things better.

Bruce Butterfield · May 30, 2025

Paul Howell · May 30, 2025

Would there be any advantage to using a two-bath film development process, where the first bath would be a silver-solvent developer, i.e. Microdol-X, to reduce grain size....and the second bath to be an acutance developer, i.e. Rodinal, to sharpen the edges of the mushy smaller grain

Once gain size is reduced sharpened edge of the gain will have little effect on acutance, as larger gaps (not the the correct technical term) between the gain will leave a jagged effect. At least that what I think is the case. Kodak Alris makets Tmax 100 as being the finest grain film on the market, but Kodak Tmax 400 as being the sharpest. Larger gain the greater apperant shaprness is. And I dont know how Rodinal would sharpen the edges of mushy smaller gain? But then why not try it and see what happens.

Lachlan Young · May 31, 2025

Bruce Butterfield said:
PQ?

Phenidone & Hydroquinone.

Phenidone & Ascorbate is essentially the same in the aspects that matter.

retina_restoration · May 31, 2025

Lachlan Young said:
There's a very simple answer. Rodinal isn't sharper than Microdol-X/ Perceptol, just significantly grainier. Kodak and everyone else in the industry with similar levels of R&D ability knew that. They could have very easily launched competitor products if they wanted. Rodinal's main appeal was its longevity and high concentration, rather than ultimate quality or specialist ability (despite the nonsense talked by the stand development crowd, Kodak, Ilford etc all knew/ know far far more about what actual compensation effects are - and commercialised them in products that actually achieve their goals - if used appropriately). The ultimate factor that defined most of the big manufacturers' developer designs was that they had to perform consistently from a contact print to somewhere around 40x (assuming appropriate enlarging lenses), rather than someone worrying themselves silly over developer characteristics for 3x enlargements or fundamentally unsharp Epson-type flatbed scans. Beutler is vastly better at what people think Rodinal does, but wasn't particularly commercialised beyond Tetenal's adaptations - it turned out PQ could do all the relevant things better.

This is possibly the most sensible thing anyone has said about Rodinal.
No, it’s not a “bad” developer - it’s simply that technological fetishism has dominated the space and exaggerated the “magical” properties of the developer. You don’t have to look far on the Internet to find loads of gushing testimonials that feed into the “cargo cult science” of Rodinal.

Film Development question...split development?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency