FP4 Plus in Rodinal Question.

[Keith Tapscott.]

For years I have used either D76 or ID-11, whichever was cheapest at the time of purchase. I want to get away from powder developers and was considering Rodinal as an alternative.
If anyone is using FP4 Plus in Rodinal for darkroom printing, which dilution do you think works best? 1+25 or 1+50?
Thanks in advance.

 

[Pieter12]

I use Rodinal for all my B&W film. I don't shoot a lot of FP4+ and I but usually rate it at 80 or 100. I think I used 1+25. Either dilution should be fine. I get my times from the Massive Development Chart.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

For years I have used either D76 or ID-11, whichever was cheapest at the time of purchase. I want to get away from powder developers and was considering Rodinal as an alternative.
If anyone is using FP4 Plus in Rodinal for darkroom printing, which dilution do you think works best? 1+25 or 1+50?
Thanks in advance.

1+50 is smoother and not as contrasty as 1+25.

 

[otto.f]

1+50 is smoother and not as contrasty as 1+25.

+1, which is quite welcome with FP4+
https://flickr.com/search/?text=fp4+ rodinal

 

[pentaxuser]

Keith, I occasionally use Rodinal at 1+50 and it works well but, just in case, you haven't taken this into account, I find that if it is 35mm film and the enlargement is any greater that 8x10 the grain will show a little more than in ID11. Much less of a problem, of course, in 120 film

pentaxuser

 

[David Lingham]

Keith, Never a great fan of 35mm FP4 in Rodinal. I endorse what pentaxuser mentioned in a previous post, over a certain size the grain can be too intrusive, although with 120 it is less noticeable. I still prefer ID11 for FP4 or DDX if I could afford it.

 

[VinceInMT]

I’ve used Rodinol for many types of film for many decades and bounce between that and D76. Regarding grain, it’s not a bug, it’s a feature depending on your subject matter.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

1+50 is smoother and not as contrasty as 1+25.

Keith, Never a great fan of 35mm FP4 in Rodinal. I endorse what pentaxuser mentioned in a previous post, over a certain size the grain can be too intrusive, although with 120 it is less noticeable. I still prefer ID11 for FP4 or DDX if I could afford it.

I like D76 ID-11 a lot, I'm just want to find a good liquid concentrate that keeps well as I don't want to mix dry powders anymore to make stock solutions.
Maybe I should try hc110 or ilfotec HC instead.
I have already mentioned this on another forum, but I want to be sure I am buying the right product as a good alternative to MQ Borax Devs.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Keith, Never a great fan of 35mm FP4 in Rodinal. I endorse what pentaxuser mentioned in a previous post, over a certain size the grain can be too intrusive, although with 120 it is less noticeable. I still prefer ID11 for FP4 or DDX if I could afford it.

I make my own D76 from bulk and it is indeed finer grained than Rodinal but, it is also less sharp in 1+1.sharpness increases with dilution but never quite gets to the level of Rodinal, which is really no surprise.

 

[pentaxuser]

Maybe I should try hc110 or ilfotec HC instead.

Again, Keith, I will say this just in case, but think it is unnecessary in your case as you have a lot of experience. We none of us know whether to new HC110 has the longevity of the old. It may or may not. Equally I have never seen enough user evidence of Ilfotec HC either but I suspect it is quite a long time and there is quite a a large difference in price. The HC110 being several pounds more expensive

It all depends on your usage rate

pentaxuser

 

[VinceInMT]

….I'm just want to find a good liquid concentrate that keeps well….

This is one of the reasons like Rodinol. While I’ve been shooting lots of film over the past year or so, I will occasionally go on hiatus and shoot only a roll or two on occasion before getting back into it again. Having Rodinol on hand is handy for that. My university was cleaning out an old chemical cabinet and gave me a few bottles of Agfa-labeled Rodinol. I rested it and even though it is dark in color, it developed the film just fine.

Like I mentioned before, grain, for me, isn’t necessarily a bad thing, particularly when going to my cyanotypes.

 

[removedacct1]

In my experience, the only advantage of Rodinal is the convenience factor. Otherwise, almost any other developer will give superior tonal gradation. So it all depends what your priorities are.

 

[Pieter12]

Rodinal gives outstanding sharpness and well-defined grain. It's a matter of taste and preference.

 

[otto.f]

Keith, Never a great fan of 35mm FP4 in Rodinal. I endorse what pentaxuser mentioned in a previous post, over a certain size the grain can be too intrusive, although with 120 it is less noticeable. I still prefer ID11 for FP4 or DDX if I could afford it.

+1. I hardly touch Rodinal for 35mm film. Not of the grain itself, grain can be nice. But with Rodinal it becomes very soon muddy on 35mm

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Again, Keith, I will say this just in case, but think it is unnecessary in your case as you have a lot of experience. We none of us know whether to new HC110 has the longevity of the old. It may or may not. Equally I have never seen enough user evidence of Ilfotec HC either but I suspect it is quite a long time and there is quite a a large difference in price. The HC110 being several pounds more expensive

It all depends on your usage rate

pentaxuser

The ilfotec HC is cheaper than hc110 in the UK.
I am also considering the ddx option that David mentioned, but it's an expensive option.
I'm still undecided to be honest.

 

[radiant]

Rodinal gives outstanding sharpness and well-defined grain. It's a matter of taste and preference.

At least outstanding sharpness in grain

A bit off-topic: I (also) learned that HP5+ + Rodinal is not a good combo for 135. The grain becomes very very smushy, not a good looking grain at all. I wonder if that applies to FP4.

Foma's 1 liter Excel powders are pretty easy to use. Also Adox XT-3 is available in one liter - with that dust binding stuff it is very clean to use. Just second consideration to powder based developers.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

At least outstanding sharpness in grain

A bit off-topic: I (also) learned that HP5+ + Rodinal is not a good combo for 135. The grain becomes very very smushy, not a good looking grain at all. I wonder if that applies to FP4.

Foma's 1 liter Excel powders are pretty easy to use. Also Adox XT-3 is available in one liter - with that dust binding stuff it is very clean to use. Just second consideration to powder based developers.

I have not heard of X T3. I'm guessing that it's an xtol clone.

 

[albireo]

In 120, I have found that the tonal qualities of Rodinal used 1+50 on certain material (Fomapan 100 and 200, but also PanF in my experience) are outstanding, and (in the right light conditions) unrivalled.

Sadly, Rodinal seems to enjoy an undeservedly poor reputation in North America mostly, where I understand it is scarcely available and therefore perhaps used more sparingly which limits experimentation.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

At least outstanding sharpness in grain

A bit off-topic: I (also) learned that HP5+ + Rodinal is not a good combo for 135. The grain becomes very very smushy, not a good looking grain at all. I wonder if that applies to FP4.

I know Andréw Sanderson uses Rodinal for his 35mm HP5 Plus night photography photos.
Samples of this are on Ilford,s website. The images look quite sharp to be fair.

 

[pentaxuser]

At least outstanding sharpness in grain

A bit off-topic: I (also) learned that HP5+ + Rodinal is not a good combo for 135. The grain becomes very very smushy, not a good looking grain at all. I wonder if that applies to FP4..

This mushiness in Rodinal seems at odds with your first sentence as well as others experience which is that grain is more prominent but not more mushy.

Can I ask from whom did your learn this and did you actually see it in comparisons provided by your source or see it in your own experience?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

Rodinal is not as sharp as ID-11/ D-76, it just produces more prominent granularity - which people confuse with measurable sharpness. This has been shown microdensitometrically and is also quite apparent in high resolution scans on high end equipment & decently large enlargements, if done at adequate levels of system sharpness. In particular, the higher granularity and lower sharpness of Rodinal starts to obscure fine, low contrast detail (I wouldn't call it 'mush', but I can see how some could perceive it that way) - thus lowering information capacity. Nevertheless, it has excellent longevity & can produce aesthetically pleasing results (it's very good with Delta 400) with most films. Just don't expect magic tricks, or waste effort on things it doesn't do (if you want compensation, use XP2 Super in C-41).

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The ilfotec HC is cheaper than hc110 in the UK.
I am also considering the ddx option that David mentioned, but it's an expensive option.
I'm still undecided to be honest.

I fail to see how price can be of any consideration with developers. we are talking pennies per roll!

 

[radiant]

This mushiness in Rodinal seems at odds with your first sentence as well as others experience which is that grain is more prominent but not more mushy.
Can I ask from whom did your learn this and did you actually see it in comparisons provided by your source or see it in your own experience?

It is hard to describe. Maybe mushy is a bad word. Prominent in a big way which causes details to get lost.I've developed many many rolls of HP5+ with Rodinal, typically pushing at the same time. I actually realized I haven't tried box speed + normal dev time in 1+50 at all. Maybe it is decent box speed + normal dev?

Few opinions about Rodinal and HP5+ combo:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/grain-with-hp5-rodinal-is-this-normal.103226/
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/rodinal-and-hp5-plus-whats-a-good-mix.142526/#post-1862088

Google finds more.

Anyways on my film characteristic curves HP5+ works so much better in Xtol than Rodinal. When using rodinal the shoulder is reached much faster. With Xtol you can get more stops in the linear part for sure.

 

[VinceInMT]

I fail to see how price can be of any consideration with developers. we are talking pennies per roll!

So true. This reminds me of a thread on a bread forum I frequent where another user was complaining about the cost of parchment paper used to line a baking pan. Then again, some live closer to the financial edge than others.

The cost of consumables in our photographic hobby/vocation is really quite small when I compare this to keeping any of my vintage cars running.

Based on what the OP said, it appears that something that “keeps well” due to the overall cost is of primarily concern.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I fail to see how price can be of any consideration with developers. we are talking pennies per roll!

DDX at a dilution of 1+4 works out far more expensive than Rodinal diluted 1+25 and especially 1+50. Like wise with hc110 at the weaker dilutions. I have heard good things about DDX though.
Perhaps with rotary processing it is more cost effective.