• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

FP4+ rodinal, just curious

henk@apug

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
99
Location
Belgium
Format
Multi Format
I am going to try FP4+ in Rodinal. I noticed a 3 min difference in
development time between the Rodinal leaflet (18 min @ 20°C) and the
digital truth dev chart (15 min @ 20°C).

Why is that ?

I would like to test this combination for the zone system, so which should
be the better starting point of those two times ?

Thanks.
 
For a normal range of light I use ei 100, and develop 1:25 for 8-1/2 minutes at 68 degrees (agitate gently for first 30 seconds, then two gentle twisting inversions at the top of each minute).
 
I am going to try FP4+ in Rodinal. I noticed a 3 min difference in
development time between the Rodinal leaflet (18 min @ 20°C) and the
digital truth dev chart (15 min @ 20°C).

Why is that ?

Because the Digital Truth figures are becoming absolutely meaningless because there's no standards, in type of processing, agitation etc, anyone can post a film/developer dev times, and no-one checks them to see if they are even remotely correct.

Ian
 
I've had great results with FP4+ and Rodinal at 1:50 for 12 minutes and 5 seconds agitation per minue at 20C
see results here
http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/5201

The above post uses the same combo but for a minute longer, this demonstates perfectly there is no absolutes in developing, it is a matter of taste.
 

Yeah, very true. The best dev. time for someone depends on their developing technique, the light they shoot under (yours were mostly bright sun, more contrast, needs less dev.), and how they print (condenser enlarger, cold light, diffusion colorhead, scanning, etc) since different types of enlargers print with different contrast, and if you scan that is a little different too. The paper you print on is a factor too.
 

Great photos demonstrating this developing technique.
 

I have been running Digitaltruth Photo since 1995, and personally oversee all entries into the Massive Dev Chart. Unlike an open forum, all data that is submitted to the chart is manually checked before it is added to the database. Whilst it is not realistic for anyone to test the actual development data of every submission, most data can be compared to existing times to check whether it appears to make sense as a useful starting point. In cases where people submit data that varies from the manufacturer's own recommendations, such data is only ever included if there is a clear reason not to trust the officially published times. Spurious data is never included.

There are clear standards set out in the User's Guide & FAQ:
http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?doc=faq

The Massive Dev Chart is used by a very wide cross-section of people, and is designed to offer starting point times in a clear and simple format. There are over 8,000 entries in the chart, every one of which has been added manually, checked and rechecked for consistency, and painstakingly maintained over a 15 year period. Thousands of hours of work have gone into this effort.

It is impractical to attempt to list specific unique agitation information for every entry. Instead, just like the manufacturer's data sheets, a standard method of agitation (initial 30-60 seconds, then 10 secs per minute - or 3 inversions) is applied. Where the manufacturer or a user who has submitted the data provides an alternative agitation technique, this is shown clearly in the Notes section which appears (where applicable) as the last column of the entry.

All development times are starting points. For reasons I don't understand, some people insist on treating a published time as if it somehow enshrined in stone. This is simply wrong. No manufacturer makes any such absolute statement. While some manufacturers provide highly tested and accurate data, others do not. In some cases, manufacturers are now taking data from the Massive Dev Chart and including it in their own published information. They have never tested it or checked for errors. Even where data is technically accurate for producing a specific level of density and contrast, unless you are engaged in a scientific use of film, development times should be adjusted for subject contrast, enlarging equipment and subjective preferences.