Found the infamous Rodinal grain today

Ian Grant said:

I use Rodinal with Agfa AP/APX100 and Tmax100 for neraly 20 years and even with 35mm had very fine grained results, it was Agfa's recommended developer.

Click to expand...

Earlier this year I started to work with T-Max 100 ('120' format) and 'Rodinal' - currently in the guise of Tetenal Paranol-S - and find myself in agreement with your results, having been somewhat of a Rodinal sceptic in the past. I'm not sure how Delta 100 would compare as I've only done a couple of tests with the ILFORD film and Rodinal.

Ian Grant said:

with the right films Rodinal gives very fine grain

Click to expand...

Absolutely - you need to be looking pretty hard under fairly tight test conditions to see the higher granularity obscuring details, even on Delta 400 etc. Up to 10-12x, I doubt it would really make a significant perceptual difference - the optical performance (or not) of cheap film scanners is a different matter.

takilmaboxer said:

While there are a few experts on this forum who can back up their opinions with real data, there are far more who have strong opinions based on....their personal experience. So, do your own testing and make your own conclusions.
Rodinal is grainy. Period. Don't like it, try another developer. Have fun doing it!

Click to expand...

Rodinal doesn't have to be grainy, although it certainly can be. Here is 1:100 for one hour and my favourite XP2 Super:

Holly by chrism229, on Flickr

I agree with Ian, although Rodinal's formula has evolved over the past 100 years I like it best with slow speed films, it was my go to developer with Pan X, and I still use on occasion with Tmax 100. The only time I use Rodinal with a fast film is 4X5, Forma 400 shot at 400 develop 1:50. In any event you need to test your combo until you find the best personalized ISO for you camera, film and developer combo.

My perception of Rodinal is that it is an honest developer; whatever the grain structure of the film is, will be sharply defined by the developer because it lacks silver solvents that developers like D-76 have in abundance. This produces higher apparent acutance for Rodinal and many folks like that look. I like it only in 4X5 and generally prefer the smoother tonal values that D76 produces. Also, I only do wet printing. That's an essential link in the chain.

takilmaboxer said:

My perception of Rodinal is that it is an honest developer; whatever the grain structure of the film is, will be sharply defined by the developer because it lacks silver solvents that developers like D-76 have in abundance. This produces higher apparent acutance for Rodinal and many folks like that look. I like it only in 4X5 and generally prefer the smoother tonal values that D76 produces. Also, I only do wet printing. That's an essential link in the chain.

Click to expand...

There's a noticeable difference between T grain and similar modern film emulsions compared to more traditional films like FP4, HP5, Tri-X etc. I found Tmax 100 and APX 100 lost their edge in ID-11/D76 but were superb in Rodinal, and later Xtol when that was released. I'm predominantly an LF worker but noticed this most with 35mm where the results using APX100 or Tmax 100 were outstanding.

So your comments are maybe applicable to traditional films. I'm a traditional darkroom printer but also have to scan negatives and Rodinal negatives scan perfectly.

Ian

I found Arista 400 (Foma) annoyingly gritty even in 8x10 format. But then I forgot about it, and ironically, when shooting 35mm, I often want a very different feel from large format work, and actually want a more vernacular conspicuous grain look. Hmmm. ...With respect to emulsion fragility, just be careful not to let any of the chem or wash water get around or over 75F, and use a rather weak stop bath.

Ian Grant said:

I found Tmax 100 and APX 100 lost their edge in ID-11/D76 but were superb in Rodinal, and later Xtol when that was released

Click to expand...

I suspect this is because the solvency of D-76/ ID-11 so severely reduces the apparent granularity of TMX and APX 100 such that when everyone is conditioned to seeing a certain amount of just perceivable granularity, not being able to perceive any seems 'odd'. Though of course the quantity and visual quality of perceivable granularity are critical factors in how we qualitatively choose materials. The actual MTF sharpness/ acutance may paradoxically be higher in D-76 than Rodinal, but in the relatively proportionally small enlargements that many people make, overall granularity seems to have an important role in how people perceive what they think is acutance... It's certainly interesting to note that at 1+1, Xtol apparently has a sulphite level closer to D-76/ ID-11 at 1+2, which suggests there is a sulphite level high enough to access the iodide in an emulsion for acutance, but low enough to not suppress the granularity to the extent that people perceive the film as less 'crisp'.

TMax100 simply does not have strong edge adjacency effect in most developers, unlike its higher-speed TMY400 brother, which does. Don't blame D76, which was otherwise formulated with good edge acutance in mind, and demonstrates that in most other films, like FP4 for example. There is a way to greatly improve edge effect in TMX, but I won't go into specifics here. Something like D23 might more realistically be blamed for having a "silver solvent" effect. HP5 is a fast large grain film which can achieve very high edge acutance in staining pyro developers, yet almost no perceivable granularity, due to what is commonly termed a "watercolor grain" effect. This is one of those situations with a number of potential factors, and where any generic answer will be potentially misleading.

@DREW WILEY TMY-II is more of an outlier in the edge effect side of things (most other BW neg films all seem to land in about the same area MTF-wise from the available published data these days) - and short of a very high resolution scan or (better yet) a proper microdensitometric study, much of the discussion of 'acutance' seems to really be arguments over granularity at just below visual perception.

You can easily see the good edge acutance of TMY in the print, and generally with other films too. I shoot it in every format from 35mm to 8x10. MTF is a different subject, and only partially related. Likewise granularity is not synonymous, though partially related. And why on earth do you need to interject scanning into this? That introduces yet another set of variables. If one uses a tanning developer which stains the neg yellowish, the edge effect can be seen projected under a high quality enlarger lens using either blue light, or a blue eyepiece on the grain magnifier. If you want to plot microdensity, it has to be in relation to how the specific paper itself see the grain structure, and not just a generic study. And that in turn is bound to the specific development regimen. Why overcomplicate this subject, when one's own eyes can evaluate the final cumulative result in print if their enlarging technique is precise?

Lachlan Young said:

I suspect this is because the solvency of D-76/ ID-11 so severely reduces the apparent granularity of TMX and APX 100 such that when everyone is conditioned to seeing a certain amount of just perceivable granularity, not being able to perceive any seems 'odd'. Though of course the quantity and visual quality of perceivable granularity are critical factors in how we qualitatively choose materials. The actual MTF sharpness/ acutance may paradoxically be higher in D-76 than Rodinal, but in the relatively proportionally small enlargements that many people make, overall granularity seems to have an important role in how people perceive what they think is acutance... It's certainly interesting to note that at 1+1, Xtol apparently has a sulphite level closer to D-76/ ID-11 at 1+2, which suggests there is a sulphite level high enough to access the iodide in an emulsion for acutance, but low enough to not suppress the granularity to the extent that people perceive the film as less 'crisp'.

Click to expand...

It's worth remembering Kodak's own developer comparison chart and then comparing D76 with Xtol:



My experience is that with Tmax 100 (50EI) or Agfa APX100 (100EI) the results of both films in Rodinal or Xtol (replenished) were almost identical in terms of extremely fine grain, and superb sharpness as well as an excellent tonal range. I did test Tmax100 in ID-11/D76 and was not impressed, but it was better than Tmax developer or HC110. I did my own tests with Tmax 100 on it's UK release based on John Sexton articles, updating when Xtol was introduced as well as testing Rodinal and Agfa AP100 (later APX100) and before Kodak's comparison chart was released but my results agree completely for Tmax 100 & AP10/APX100. I didn't test Duraflo RT as I don't machine process.

As I've said previously these differences are most noticeable with 35mm. It was the late Peter Goldfield who introduced me to AP100, Tmax 100 and Rodinal, he'd been (Goldfinger) the sole UK importer of Afga B&W materials for a few years in the early to mid 1980's after Agfa pulled out of the UK market. He'd spent time in the US with Paul Caponigro, and also Minor White and his technique and image quality from 35mm was superb.

You might ask why I was using Rodinal as well as Xtol, the replenished Xtol was mostly used for commercial work where I might be processing around 15 to 20 rolls of film or many sheets of 5x4 in a session, it was also my preferred developer for Tmax 400 (200EI).

I found excellent micro contrast (edge effects) with Xtol and Rodinal and Tmax100, I'd note that edge effects are more apparent in faster and grainier films, and with developers that increase graininess, In a another thread there's a discussion of Acutance developers and they do increase grain especially the very high acutance developers like Ilford Hyfin, Johsons Definol, Paterson Acutol-S or Kodak HDD.

Ian

Hi, is there reticulation in the photographs? I also use Rodinal and I am quite satisfied. Seems it depends of the format. I use R09 with 6x6 upwards

DC Lohenstein said:

Hi, is there reticulation in the photographs? I also use Rodinal and I am quite satisfied. Seems it depends of the format. I use R09 with 6x6 upwards

Click to expand...

I use ordinal for everything. Modern emulsions are not very prone to reticulation, you really have to go off the chart temperature-wise.

DREW WILEY said:

MTF is a different subject, and only partially related. Likewise granularity is not synonymous, though partially related. And why on earth do you need to interject scanning into this?

Click to expand...

I suppose it's actually CMTA, not MTF - Cascaded Modulation Transfer Acutance aims to understand the entire imaging chain, then gets mathematically related to RMSG, then a whole lot more calculus & eventually conclusions can be drawn about the imaging capacity of a film emulsion...

Why scanning? Well, an actual optical 6000ppi+ scan will let you fairly readily and quickly look deep into the fine detail resolution/ acutance, get a sense of overall granularity and a sense of the overall 'look' of the image without needing to find, build, rebuild or maintain a microdensitometer, let alone indulge in the necessary calculus. In other words, it gives enough of an impression to get an idea (for example) whether Richard Henry was right or wrong about Rodinal and D-76 (have seen no evidence with my own eyes that disproves him & plenty to confirm). I would never describe high res scanning as a definitive analytical method, but it's often good enough to peel apart a lot of the hot-air (pixels?) that gets wasted on acutance discussions. As you know, there are more effective ways to forcefully boost the apparent sharpness of a print than via the film developer alone.

DREW WILEY said:

Why overcomplicate this subject, when one's own eyes can evaluate the final cumulative result in print if their enlarging technique is precise?

Click to expand...

I would not disagree - the reality is that Rodinal apart (and even then it's only fractionally different, and only at grossly huge magnifications), most developers these days are much more alike than different in many aspects of behaviour - gross apparent granularity, shadow speed and curve shape are really the three choices to be made, unless you have access to serious analytical kit that is realistically unavailable outside of a handful of research labs worldwide.

Ian Grant said:

My experience is that with Tmax 100 (50EI) or Agfa APX100 (100EI) the results of both films in Rodinal or Xtol (replenished) were almost identical in terms of extremely fine grain, and superb sharpness as well as an excellent tonal range. I did test Tmax100 in ID-11/D76 and was not impressed, but it was better than Tmax developer or HC110. I did my own tests with Tmax 100 on it's UK release based on John Sexton articles, updating when Xtol was introduced as well as testing Rodinal and Agfa AP100 (later APX100) and before Kodak's comparison chart was released but my results agree completely for Tmax 100 & AP10/APX100. I didn't test Duraflo RT as I don't machine process.

...

I found excellent micro contrast (edge effects) with Xtol and Rodinal and Tmax100, I'd note that edge effects are more apparent in faster and grainier films, and with developers that increase graininess, In a another thread there's a discussion of Acutance developers and they do increase grain especially the very high acutance developers like Ilford Hyfin, Johsons Definol, Paterson Acutol-S or Kodak HDD.

Click to expand...

I've found that current TMX in D-76/ ID-11 is more than adequately sharp if you look at it analytically, but the granularity is more suppressed than Delta 100 (for example), which does make TMX look less seemingly 'sharp' in the edges but much smoother overall at a given enlargement of small to moderate size. My own preference is for the high resolution and harder sharpness of Delta 100 with its excellent colour handling.

I know a dev tweak that improves the edge acutance of TMX even better than Delta 100, while maintaining the steeper toe and longer straight line deep into the shadows. I also prefer the specific spectral balance of TMX. But there are otherwise strong similarities of these two films, with Delta have somewhat better edge acutance in ordinary developers. With larger formats, I switch to TMY400, which has it all.

@DREW WILEY is that by adding a small amount of Benzotriazole?

No. I sometimes add a very small quantity of benzotriazole to highly dilute HC-110 to act as a toe cutter for very low contrast applications of TMX or FP4 when I want to maintain a long straight line. But it does nothing to improve acutance. But my main go-to general purpose film developer for many years now had been PMK pyro and certain other staining pyro tweaks. These certainly tame the highlight printing issues of TMax 100, but don't help its disappointing edge acutance either. Unsharp masking can be used, but is a whole secondary step. So I went back to one of my early favorite developers, Perceptol. At ordinary 1:1, same story with TMX100. But when it is diluted to 1:3 for usage, it changes its character and significantly enhances printable grain structure and edge acutance, just the right amount for TMax 100 it seems, but too much for TMY400 or Delta 100, which come out visibly gritty. With 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film, I just routinely used the 400 speed TMax instead. But with 6x9 roll film backs, being able to use TMX100 in a much more ideal way has become a real game changer for me. I get the very crisp detail snap reminiscent of Acros, but at twice the effective speed rating, and with more detail deeper down into the shadows - important for me because I've had to substitute roll film backs for long-haul backpacking trips now that 4x5 Quickload and Readyload sleeves are gone. I want my MF prints to sneak into the same 16X20 print portfolios as full 4X5 and 8X10 shots without being embarrassed. This developer tweak with TMX has done the trick, though in the darkroom I prefer printing sheet film whenever possible, over roll film.... But I'm over 70, and it's inevitable I'll be shooting smaller gear more than I used to. My days of lugging 85 and 90 lb packs over the high passes and peaks are over. Last summer I backpacked two weeks at high altitude in Wyoming, and it was more like 70 lbs. The year before I did a hundred-miler in the Kings Canyon high country around here, and took a little Fuji 6x9 RF, so got things down to around 60 lbs - the lightest pack I've actually backpacked with in the past 40 yrs. One has to be prepared with sufficient food an equipment. I did get pinned down in a blizzard for 3 days on that trip. In fact, ten out of the twelve last years I've been in serious blizzards in the mountains. Any month of the year can bring winter conditions. I ended up joining an August search for two missing hikers in Sequoia high country a few years ago. They were found, but too late, already dead from hypothermia - dayhikers who walked off under a blue sky, then got caught in summer snowfall without a parka, jacket, or serious footwear. Happens every year to someone.

@DREW WILEY For some reason I recalled that you mainly used HC-110 - apologies!

Yes, Perceptol at 1+3 (and ID-11 doesn't do badly at 1+3 either) is very sharp indeed - I tend to use 1+3 for exactly the reason you don't - to crisp up Delta 100. I recall that Ron made the implication that Henn et al had not pursued a Rodinal-type developer because they found dilute Microdol-X did the job at least as well.

My use of HC-110 is for technical lab applications like masking and color separation negatives. For Delta 100 general use, I've stayed with PMK pyro because, like TMX, it's an easy film to build up just too much contrast with and risk highlight blowout. Once one resorts to minus development to control contrast they lose a lot of the tonality magic in the curve that makes these films so beautiful.

Lachlan Young said:

@DREW WILEY For some reason I recalled that you mainly used HC-110 - apologies!

Yes, Perceptol at 1+3 (and ID-11 doesn't do badly at 1+3 either) is very sharp indeed - I tend to use 1+3 for exactly the reason you don't - to crisp up Delta 100. I recall that Ron made the implication that Henn et al had not pursued a Rodinal-type developer because they found dilute Microdol-X did the job at least as well.

Click to expand...

Kodak's research and early work on Rodinal type developers was essentially inherited when they bought Wratten and Wainwright, the work it'self had been done 1907'ish by Mees and Sheppard. This was around the same time Ilford released Certinal their equivalent of Rodinal. Kodak themselves did eventually make Kodinol here in the UK for the European market, I'm notsure when it was introduced but possibly before WWII, it was in production during the war up to the 1960's.

Kodak also sold p-Aminophenol Oxalate before WWII as Kodelon in the US and UK later switching to p-Aminophenol Hydrochloride instead (still called Kodelon) so while Henn etc may not have worked on Rodinal type developer others in Kodak were, particularly in Harrow and hey had the Wratten & WAinright research as well. somewhere I have a short paper written by Mees and Sheppard on p-Amininophenol and some other developing agents from around 1908.

Ian