First time with Rodinal; how am I doing?

This is my first time developing with Rodinal. I tested tri-x at box speed, 20-21c, 12.5 minutes agitating every 30 seconds. I am wondering what people who are experienced with this developer think of some of my results, how they can be improved, etc. These are just quick scans, no work done with them after scanning.









I've noticed a tendency for people to rate tri x a stop slower. what differences can i expect in dev times and negative quality if i were to do this?

they're flat, with closed shadows--more neopanish than tri-xish

but that's beside the point. developing black and white film you aim to match a certain tone aesthetic, yours and no one else's. while some prints may be pleasing to more people than others, above a certain level of technical acceptability printing is not subject to democratic voting procedures

showing us "quick scans, no work done with them after scanning" you're really asking us to discuss the merits of your scanner, not your process, let alone your tone

part of the development process is about maximizing the recorded information so you can manipulate it later. check the shadows--any data there? do try processing the scans then post again

Of course when I initially scan I try to capture as much information as possible without degradation in the preview with a histogram before i commit to a scan. When i meant no postwork done, i guess i meant i tried to stay as close to the negative as possible for the most objective critique about the development process

Off topic sorry - but may I ask where you procured Rodinal in Australia?

okee, in that case my first line should do

all best

I agree, they feel that way to me too. I was thinking about trying stand developing/higher dilution next time because i've read that I will get more detail in the shadows with finer grain. true/untrue? Also I live in US

I think you are doing pretty good, considering you have some shots with tough light, and rodinal is not known for getting full speed out of a film. I would say that your time/temp/agitation is a great starting point.

You'll get all sorts of opinions on what dilution and stand development will accomplish (or not). I shoot a lot of Tx 400 @320. If the light was flat, I agitate every 30s, and if it was bright and contrasty I let it stand for the last 5 minutes (10 mins in PMK, 70f). This is based on, well, nothing. But it seems to work for me.

Film scans are not 'true to the negative', they're much flatter because film scanners are made to scan the hihger density range of transparency film, so ALL neg scans need processing to bring out the full tonality of the film image.

All in all they look good to me.

Jeff

Looks to me like the stuff works!

They are also a good example of how incredibly low in grain modern Tri-X is. IME it handles 8x - 10x linear enlargements easily without looking particularly grainy. Considering that you used Rodinal and scanned, two things that usually increase grain, these are very technically impressive to me.

When it comes to traditionally-grained 400 films, I use HP5 when I want grit and bite, and Tri-X when I want a softer, more glowing look.

As for the pix looking "flat," I think that 1) they really are not so over all, and 2) where they are flat, it is simply due to flat lighting at the location of the shot. You can't precisely judge whether or not you are getting abnormally flat results without shooting a test subject of know and fixed contrast, and then comparing a normal print to that same subject. If you shoot something that is flat, and it comes out looking flat, then everything in your process is calibrated pretty well.

chriscrawfordphoto said:

Film scans are not 'true to the negative', they're much flatter because film scanners are made to scan the hihger density range of transparency film, so ALL neg scans need processing to bring out the full tonality of the film image.

Click to expand...

I guess that makes sense. home brewed BW is just a hobby of mine so i guess i need to learn more about scanning at home. most of my professional stuff is sent to labs and well paid timers and color correctors, and when I sit in on these sessions, every one of them stresses the importance of getting the most of the negative during the scan and not after. That way you can lose information in meta data rather than in the original file. Of course that gives you the most use of the negative, not necessarily your ideal aesthetic which would come later in post. I guess I tried to do that in the initial scan to show the range of possibilities allowed by my development. these darned consumer scanners are kind of a pain!

I can't see the attached images. Am I the only one? I mean, I can't even see the thumbnails in the post, just a large empty space between the lines of type.

George Collier said:

I can't see the attached images. Am I the only one? I mean, I can't even see the thumbnails in the post, just a large empty space between the lines of type.

Click to expand...

I can't tell whether you are the only one who can't see them, but i can.
Maybe with a different browser?