Fuji 100 Acros in Rodinal or HC110?

[doitashimashite]

I'm gonna do some street photography with my Rolleiflex, loaded with Fuji Neopan 100 Acros. For developing, I can choose between Rodinal and HC110. What developer (and/or developing method) would deliver the finest grain? Any ideas?

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Rodinal is lovely. 1+50. HC-110 shouldn't be bad either, though. I'm not exactly sure which would give the finest grain since I haven't used HC-110 yet.

 

[ZorkiKat]

Both developers will work great with your film. HC110 will give less grain than Rodinal.

Are you using a vintage TLR? If you want the 'old look'. Rodinal might do it better. One reason why I like Rodinal (or paRodinal) is that it gives the negatives I shoot with vintage RF cameras qualities- a rather subtle look- associated with old RF street photographs.

Jay

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I'm a weird egg...I do HP5 in Rodinal, which is a combination loathed by a lot of people. I do 1+50 on almost all my films, including the pushed ones, with good results. If it was me developing a lot of ACROS, I'd use Rodinal. But that's just me.

 

[Simon.Weber]

I once tried Acros at 80 ASA and then developed it in 1+50 Rodinal (I think about 7 1/2 mins, 20°C/68°F).

I quite liked the results - no easily visible grain (yes, it's there with a loupe) at 9,5x12", my standard size.

One hint for the development: since Rodinal seems to put up the contrast, I only turned the tank two times every minute rather sloooowly, which tamed the contrast (together with the slight pull). This gave me some excellent shots, and those which were underexposed still gave good results on about grade 3,5 or 4, which I thought was acceptable.

All in all I quite liked the combo.

Best wishes,

Simon

 

[doitashimashite]

Are you using a vintage TLR? If you want the 'old look'. Rodinal might do it better. One reason why I like Rodinal (or paRodinal) is that it gives the negatives I shoot with vintage RF cameras qualities- a rather subtle look- associated with old RF street photographs.
Jay

I'm using a Rolleiflex Automat 3.5 TLR, a late 50's / early 60's model.
What you say about that 'old look' appeals to me. I might try Rodinal first for that reason. Thanks!

 

[P C Headland]

Rodinal 1+100 for 18 minutes works really well.

 

[Dan Henderson]

if you're using a classic camera and looking for that classic feel, might a classic film like Tri X help you out? I'm not experienced in that kind of shooting, so I'm just guessing here.

 

[haziz]

Rodinal for me.

It's Rodinal for me diluted 1:50 (9 1/2 minutes at 20 C [68F]) for developing Acros 4x5 sheets in an HP Combi daylight tank with initial 20 sec agitation then one inversion every 30 sec. Beautiful results.

I have since experimented with Xtol 1:1. The negs have tended to come out too contrasty. I suspect my times are too long (I am using Kodak's recommended times). I could cut down the time but will likely just go back to Rodinal. Why fix it if it ain't broke?

Rodinal will not give you the finest grain (if that is what you seek). HC110 may give you marginally less grain (have'nt used it on Acros myself but have used it rarely with other films). Xtol will definitely give finer grain. Grain with Acros is minimal anyway even with Rodinal, and should really be invisible with MF from the Rolleiflex.

Rodinal also gives mild additional sharpness/acutance (bite if you will) to a film that tends to look just a little too smooth, almost soft.

Sincerely,

Hany.

 

[haziz]

Do you intend to scan and print digitally?

I'm gonna do some street photography with my Rolleiflex, loaded with Fuji Neopan 100 Acros. For developing, I can choose between Rodinal and HC110. What developer (and/or developing method) would deliver the finest grain? Any ideas?

I just noticed your listing yourself as a "digital neg" user. Are you intending to scan and print digitally. My answer was targeted at tradtional darkroom prints. Scanning for some reason tends to give a truly exaggerated sense of grain with smaller formats (certainly with 35 mm). I have still had good luck wit scanning my 4x5 but then the negative is large. I still mostly do traditional wet prints. Many people have had good luck with Xtol when scanning (you could check out Paul Butzi's website). Personally I am sticking to Rodinal.

Sincerely,

Hany.

 

[doitashimashite]

I just noticed your listing yourself as a "digital neg" user. Are you intending to scan and print digitally. My answer was targeted at tradtional darkroom prints. Scanning for some reason tends to give a truly exaggerated sense of grain with smaller formats (certainly with 35 mm). I have still had good luck wit scanning my 4x5 but then the negative is large. I still mostly do traditional wet prints. Many people have had good luck with Xtol when scanning (you could check out Paul Butzi's website). Personally I am sticking to Rodinal.

Sincerely,

Hany.

Yes Hany, since I shoot 90 % digital (Nikon D70) I listed myself as a "digital neg" user.

The other 10 % I shoot with all kinds of analog gear; for 35mm I use Ricoh GR1V, Konica Hexar, Olympus's Stylus Epic and XA (the XA broke down recently, mid-roll), a vintage Pentax SL (with 20mm Flektogon) and a bunch of other (mainly cheapo and low-tech) cameras that I love to use.
For MF work I have two Rolleiflex's, one in pristine condition which I only use indoors, and the other one is my MF work horse.

I do scan my negatives, but when I print them I do them wet. That's because I always find the results of scanning disappointing, even though (I think) I use a fairly decent scanner (Canon 9900F). Most difficult to scan (for me) are Tri-X and Kodachrome. Then again it's no big deal for me, as I only scan my images so I can mail them easily.

 

[ZorkiKat]

I do scan my negatives, but when I print them I do them wet. That's because I always find the results of scanning disappointing, even though (I think) I use a fairly decent scanner (Canon 9900F). Most difficult to scan (for me) are Tri-X and Kodachrome. Then again it's no big deal for me, as I only scan my images so I can mail them easily.

I find Rodinal-developed negatives, especially those done at 1+100 most scanner-friendly. I've run Acros both in HC100 (dilution 1+73) and Rodinal 1+100; my Acros experience though is limited to 35mm format only. Acros is supposed to have a grain structure which is already fine to begin with. Souping it in Rodinal makes the grain edges somewhat more obvious, and the resulting negative easier to scan.

My Tri-X negatives which were developed in Rodinal also scan better than those developed in other developers, though D76 diluted 1+3 seems to do as well.