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.
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.
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.
One of my favourite combinations was APX25 in Rodinal. Gorgeous. And who cares about grain when the film is already essentially grainless?
. 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.
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.
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 fineI 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 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 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.
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
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
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?