General Rodinal Discussion

[baachitraka]

But I'd imagine it's very attractive to beginners, who see a method which is very simple, apparently requiring no special timings or temperature control and (and this may be the crucial point) produces negatives that scan perfectly well.

It would not surprise me to learn that most film developed using a "stand" method (whether in Rodinal or HC110) never sees the light of an enlarger, and thus observation of the absolutes of consistency or the niceties of shadow control are of relatively small importance.

For those who produce wet prints from their negatives, of course, these things do matter.

Bromide drag is kind of nasty which may ruin the negative. I personally do not recommend stand development for beginners.

My story: PanF+ shot in Florence.

It was sunny and pretty strong shadows. Incident meter on shadows and closed one stop.

I thought stand development will give me pretty good highlights, infact it did but with nasty effects of bromide drag.

 

[pdeeh]

I wasn't making a recommendation, simply an observation.
And yes, drag can be a problem, which is why I stopped using stand development myself.

 

[MaximusM3]

Speaking as the person who started this thread just to get a little input on Rodinal, I'm surprised to see the staying power of the thread. A lot of Rodinal fans out there. As good as a lot of it looks, I've re-concluded from this inquiry what I disliked 40 years ago. Rodinal is grainy. Grainy, grainy. Goodness knows I've tried to convince myself to give the stuff another go, but nahhh.... And all this talk about the finicky agitation is just over the top for me. But carry on, men.

Rodinal is not"grainy". Some negatives can be, with Rodinal, especially in 35mm. Have you ever tried Acros or PanF, or TMX? Even in 35mm, you'd have to blow them up pretty big to see grain. Step into MF and it's even less of an issue.
Anyway, at the end of the day, it's all about the look you want to achieve in print. Every piece of material can be bent at will if you spend time with it, and to serve your vision.

 

[baachitraka]

Even Fomapan 400(E.I 200) is not grainy when printed on 8x10 paper. I personally like the rendering of grain.

 

[PhotoJim]

Speaking as the person who started this thread just to get a little input on Rodinal, I'm surprised to see the staying power of the thread. A lot of Rodinal fans out there. As good as a lot of it looks, I've re-concluded from this inquiry what I disliked 40 years ago. Rodinal is grainy. Grainy, grainy. Goodness knows I've tried to convince myself to give the stuff another go, but nahhh.... And all this talk about the finicky agitation is just over the top for me. But carry on, men.

Grainess isn't the only measure of negative quality - but it is why I stick to slower films with Rodinal. It's hard to beat it on such films.

One of my favourite combinations was APX25 in Rodinal. Gorgeous. And who cares about grain when the film is already essentially grainless?

 

[Rhodes]

One of my favourite combinations was APX25 in Rodinal. Gorgeous. And who cares about grain when the film is already essentially grainless?

Indeed!
Also a rodinal fan, even use it to develop c-41 film XP2 with great results!

 

[Richard Jepsen]

. Bob Schwalberg according to my resources used Rodinal typically at 1:50, 1:75 and sometimes 1:100 with agitation, not stand development. His comparisons with D76 are interesting, and not always borne out by the comparisons done by others. Why that is the case, I cannot say.

Here is a link to a Bob Schwalberg's Rodinal article. It takes 30s to load.

http://forum.mflenses.com/1979-pop-photo-rodinal-article-t37502.html

It's been mentioned that film has changed and development times may not be accurate. Utilize the manufacturers current recommendations and adjust to your situation. The Schwalberg article is useful as it makes the reader aware of light, contrast and enlarger differences.

A few have commented that Rodinal is a fine grain developer. Not True. It's a honest grain developer. If you use a fine grain film like Ilford Pan F Rodinal will reveal fine grain.

Film has become finer grained over the last 40 years. Tri-X is an example. It's not the same film I shot in 1970. Matching Rodinal to ISO 125 or slower films at 1:50 has been a standard recommendation for pictorial gradation. Ilford Pan F is frequently mention as one of the best now that APX 100 is not available.

 

[baachitraka]

Rodinal do not alter the grain.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

A few have commented that Rodinal is a fine grain developer. Not True. It's a honest grain developer. If you use a fine grain film like Ilford Pan F Rodinal will reveal fine grain.

An honest grain developer is well said, I believe.

The best thing about Rodinal (aside from shelf life & simplicity) is it's flexibility. As long as your work practices are consistent and you change only one variable at a time you can get it to do just about whatever you need.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

An honest grain developer is well said, I believe.

The best thing about Rodinal (aside from shelf life & simplicity) is it's flexibility. As long as your work practices are consistent and you change only one variable at a time you can get it to do just about whatever you need.

+1

Those calling Rodinal "way too grainy" are under-exposing or under-developing or perhaps over-agitating. Of course it's all relative and subjective but no reason to have giant grain with Rodinal.


Around Albany Rolleiflex3-5E3 Xenotar Plus-X Rodinal 1-50 by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Some key points are using enough stock developer to fully develop the film and keeping processing temperatures at 20c. Higher temps likely contribute to infectious development and grain clumping. When you date Rodinal she should avoid makeup tricks like long stand development. Let Rodinal be Rodinal; which means contrast control with sharp, brilliant midtones. Oh, one other characteristic - that zone 5 sag.

Side Note. A Rollei TLR and Rodinal make a great couple.

 

[baachitraka]

Side Note. A Rollei TLR is a great match with Rodinal.

I am curious, how?

 

[Richard Jepsen]

I use a 1956 Rollei F/2.8 E2, 80mm Planar. What a great image maker. The image characteristic of older optics are high resolution with a tradeoff in contrast. Although not a low contrast lens, my 1956 does not have the high contrast of modern lenses designed to satisfy customers desire for satuated color. These older optics work very well with monochrome film. Rodinal with its sharpness and brilliant midtones compliments a Rollei. A Rollei TLR, Rodinal, medium speed traditional film, a Durst 600/601 are a classic Sunday photographer's combo.

The younger folks need to get off their iPhones and try something different. Something Classic. Learn a real craft not everyone can do. Be different, shoot square.

 

[fotch]

I recently was given a partial bottle of Agfa Rodinal, plastic white blt., Dist by Agfa USA, 500ml size with perhaps 1/10 or 1/5 left. Never used it, have been thinking about trying some. Anyway, from what I understand, it is likely still to be good? Enough to develop a roll or 2? Is this the Agfa stuff?

Thank you.

 

[R.Gould]

I recently was given a partial bottle of Agfa Rodinal, plastic white blt., Dist by Agfa USA, 500ml size with perhaps 1/10 or 1/5 left. Never used it, have been thinking about trying some. Anyway, from what I understand, it is likely still to be good? Enough to develop a roll or 2? Is this the Agfa stuff?

Thank you.

I have used rodinal from a partly used glass bottle that I recently found in the back of a friends chemical cubord and it was fine, developed my Fomapan 400 as well as my new supplied, and I don't remember when it was packed in glass bottles, I have only ever bought plastic 500 ml bottles so the legendary keeping properties of Rodinal are true, so go ahead and use it, should be fine
Richard

 

[Richard Jepsen]

My Rodinal is no less than five years old and a dark honey brown. Recent negatives look like they have a CI of 54-56. Good for either a Dichro or condensor light source.


FP-4+, EI 64, 20C, 10m of Rodinal to 500m of water (1:50), 11m, 2 inv each 60, 1 inv each 30s, stand for 5 min. I can read news print through the highlights and the negative has a brilliance of tones.

My steel developing tank holds (3 or 4) 120 reels. I use a 35mm reel as a spacer. This tank/reel technique allows for complete adgitation.

 

[baachitraka]

I use a 1956 Rollei F/2.8 E2, 80mm Planar. What a great image maker. The image characteristic of older optics are high resolution with a tradeoff in contrast. Although not a low contrast lens, my 1956 does not have the high contrast of modern lenses designed to satisfy customers desire for satuated color. These older optics work very well with monochrome film. Rodinal with its sharpness and brilliant midtones compliments a Rollei. A Rollei TLR, Rodinal, medium speed traditional film, a Durst 600/601 are a classic Sunday photographer's combo.

The younger folks need to get off their iPhones and try something different. Something Classic. Learn a real craft not everyone can do. Be different, shoot square.

I have the same combo except lesser Rollei(Rolleicord Va). Durst 600 is a little champ.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I use a 1956 Rollei F/2.8 E2, 80mm Planar. What a great image maker. The image characteristic of older optics are high resolution with a tradeoff in contrast. Although not a low contrast lens, my 1956 does not have the high contrast of modern lenses designed to satisfy customers desire for satuated color. These older optics work very well with monochrome film. Rodinal with its sharpness and brilliant midtones compliments a Rollei.

Nail on the head as to why I love my Rollei TLRs and have numerous of them. Most quite-battered and picked up through the years as I've come across the opportunity. In fact my favorite is a beaten to heck 2.8E Planar I found in a Beijing street market stall for $150. The lens is either single coated or long ago had any evidence of coating rubbed off by excessive cleaning. The taking lens also has minute but not a few minor scratches. I use it with a hood to avoid flare but its condition give me such a beautiful moderate contrast and glow along with terrific sharpness that I love for B&W particularly people shots. My best condition Rollei TLR is a 2.8C Xenotar which looks almost new. I swear though its a bit too contrasty and its images, though often great, can sometimes lack a certain something...

 

[fotch]

I have used rodinal from a partly used glass bottle that I recently found in the back of a friends chemical cubord and it was fine, developed my Fomapan 400 as well as my new supplied, and I don't remember when it was packed in glass bottles, I have only ever bought plastic 500 ml bottles so the legendary keeping properties of Rodinal are true, so go ahead and use it, should be fine
Richard

Thanks, I will do so.

 

[MartinP]

Someone complained that Rodinal is always grainy. I disagree and use it with APX100 on 35mm to get close to the old Leica recommendation of 'a slightly thin neg and print on a harder grade' for most attractive and grain-free results. Prints from sharp negs, at 20x16" have very little evident grain, even at closer than normal viewing distance.

An analogy might be cars and steering. Family cars are designed to understeer, to reduce the impact of unexpected driver behaviour -- like mistake-resistant developers, made to be consistent almost no matter how they are used. Other cars are more neutral steering, to give a tighter driving experience. However, Rodinal is a developer which is very predictable and controllable, but with "oversteer" on the agitation and temperature, so small changes have a large effect -- perfectly fine if you expect it (at this point the analogy breaks down) and allowing a lot of flexibility in getting a precise result out of differently exposed film.

 

[Ian Grant]

A few have commented that Rodinal is a fine grain developer. Not True. It's a honest grain developer. If you use a fine grain film like Ilford Pan F Rodinal will reveal fine grain.

Someone complained that Rodinal is always grainy. I disagree and use it with APX100 on 35mm to get close to the old Leica recommendation of 'a slightly thin neg and print on a harder grade' for most attractive and grain-free results. Prints from sharp negs, at 20x16" have very little evident grain, even at closer than normal viewing distance.

I guess my favourite combination was AP25/APX25 and Rodinal which I shot in a roll film back on my 5x4. However AP100/APX100 and Rodinal were very close behind Rodinal seems to bring out the best in modern emulsions, very fine grain, good tonality and excellent sharpness. Rodinal & TMax100 is another excellent combination but a stop slower than APX (if you want similar tonality) the only commercial developer to give similar qualities with Tmax is Xtol.

Ian

 

[MaximusM3]

Anyway..some people have problems with grain, some don't. At the end of the day, it's about the print and what one wants to achieve. I love some grain in my images and I also enjoy a bolder look, which is based on how I see things and to convey light, shadows, and even temperature. This, for example, is Tri-X, rated @ 100iso. Scene was exposed for highlights, and developed in Rodinal 1:25 for 12 minutes @ 68 degrees and printed on hard grade (5). Yes, there is some grain, but I like that, and even as a larger print on 16x20 paper, it is still perfectly fine. (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[dnjl]

I guess my favourite combination was AP25/APX25 and Rodinal which I shot in a roll film back on my 5x4. However AP100/APX100 and Rodinal were very close behind Rodinal seems to bring out the best in modern emulsions, very fine grain, good tonality and excellent sharpness. Rodinal & TMax100 is another excellent combination but a stop slower than APX (if you want similar tonality) the only commercial developer to give similar qualities with Tmax is Xtol.

Ian

Rodinal and APX100 (the new stuff) is an outstanding combination. Fine but well-defined grain, smooth tonality and just an overall great look. I must sound like a bad commercial, but it's true. My favourite combo.

 

[Ian Grant]

Anyway..some people have problems with grain, some don't. At the end of the day, it's about the print and what one wants to achieve.

The graininess in images is only slightly influenced by developer choice with a given film, some people have issues with grain with a film/developer combination while others using the same combination are getting superb results. It's down to good darkroom technique, good process control.

Ian

 

[MaximusM3]

The graininess in images is only slightly influenced by developer choice with a given film, some people have issues with grain with a film/developer combination while others using the same combination are getting superb results. It's down to good darkroom technique, good process control.

Ian

Indeed Ian. I meant "problem" from a visual standpoint.