General Rodinal Discussion

[cliveh]

My first choice developer is D76 at 1:1, but my second choice would be Rodinal at probably 1:50.

 

[P C Headland]

Thank you folks. But my good buddy is very undereducated and I thinks he's probably bipolar with little patience for learning. I just don't think he can handle this. I'm putting him back on D-76. With that, all you do is follow Kodak instructions, and you get what you get. Besides, I already know it's grainy stuff.

He could just stick to 1+50 at 20C, and it'd be fine. Or, if you are dead set against Rodinal but want something equally long lasting, then HC-110 is one to consider.

If he has little patience for learning, then maybe Diafine would be the better option. Temperature and time are largely irrelevant (3 minutes minimum), and you just need to stick to the agitation scheme suggested on the instructions. It too lasts a long time.

 

[noacronym]

100% agree. Superb developer. Easy as pie. Great results. I'm a 1-50 guy. 1-2 agitations once per minute.


Albany roof garden macro SL66 80Planar(old) Neopan400 Rodinal 1-50 9min30sec 22C by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr


Rick's Sonoma place Rolleiflex2-8CXenotar Tmax100 Rodinal 12min 20C by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr

Rich815, I would like to hear from you on a couple questions about the tree picture. I like it, and would like to ask some questions regarding your procedure. 1) Did you expose just one negative on your Rollei, or is it bracketed, consuming several frames. 2) How did you meter this? 3) Was there any printing tricks you used, like flashing, dodge/burn, or is it a straight print? Thank you.

 

[noacronym]

He could just stick to 1+50 at 20C, and it'd be fine. Or, if you are dead set against Rodinal but want something equally long lasting, then HC-110 is one to consider.

If he has little patience for learning, then maybe Diafine would be the better option. Temperature and time are largely irrelevant (3 minutes minimum), and you just need to stick to the agitation scheme suggested on the instructions. It too lasts a long time.

So HC-110 has stock keeping qualities like several years, like I've heard about Rodinal? I've never used HC-110 because I never liked the short developing times in the Kodak literature. To me, roll film shouldn't be developed less than 8 minutes, lest you risk consistency and uniformity issues. Being a Microdol man at heart, I only settle for D-76. Nothing about the stuff ever grabbed me as something special. Plain Jane stuff.

 

[viridari]

I think a lot of photographers know too much for their own good sometimes. My gallery is full of mostly Rodinal-souped images, and most of the time I'm pretty pleased with Rodinal. I don't shoot Acros often but I do think that Rodinal + Acros is super special.


BSA by Dead Link Removed, on Flickr

 

[fmajor]

OK, sorry for the newb question, but is ADOX "Adonal" the same chemistry as Rodinal?

I just bought a 500ml bottle of this ADOX "Adonal" and I'm really excited to try it with Acros 100. I've only used Xtol, which has been great, but I'm hoping for more contrast/"sharpness" than the Acros/Xtol recipe.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

You are over-skeptical about Rodinal. It is very forgiving of highlights being over-exposed, and it produces negatives with beautiful mid-tones. The one thing it does not like is under-exposure, especially of the shadows. For most other developers I would say "expose normally develop normally", but for Rodinal it is "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights". It benefits from a zone-oriented exposure approach, and I tend to use a hand spot meter for that purpose. If that is out of the question for your friend, then a good alternative is to lower the EI of the film by 2/3 to 1 stops and develop normally or slightly shorter. It would be good to experiment and see what works for him. Obviously, it would be wise to avoid films that aren't good mates with Rodinal, such as Kentmere 400.

..... Rodinal...character is very dependent on agitation and dilution, and it is possible to achieve a wide variety of effects, more so than most other developers. So for a beginner, it would be wise to stick with one technique. I would say 1:50 at 20 C, with one or two gentle inversions once per minute is a good place to start.

This is an informative discussion and I agree with the above. Also an earlier comment about brilliance within a narrow range, say zone 6.



This is a Rodinal look.

The above print shows how tones slide down the scale. The sky has a slight tone. Each tree has detailed bark. The leaves are pin sharp. The foreground grass and hedge are darker than normal while reflected light off the table and fire pit is bright and stands out.

What makes Rodinal difficult is the number of recommendations on dilution, agitation, and time. Where to start. After you know how to get good negatives from a general purpose developer then tackle Rodinal. It helps if you know what you want a developer to do. It is flexible adjusting contrast for different light conditions. But it is a compensating developer and micro contrast is affected. Medium to low speed 120 film will improve tones.

Rodinal works for some images but not all. Part of the magic.

 

[walbergb]

So HC-110 has stock keeping qualities like several years, like I've heard about Rodinal? I've never used HC-110 because I never liked the short developing times in the Kodak literature. To me, roll film shouldn't be developed less than 8 minutes, lest you risk consistency and uniformity issues. Being a Microdol man at heart, I only settle for D-76. Nothing about the stuff ever grabbed me as something special. Plain Jane stuff.

To lengthen the development times with HC-110 simply use a higher dilution. I use 1+14 (I think it is known as dilution H), which is twice the dilution of dilution B (1+7), with sheet film (Tri-X 320). At the beginning of my tests I doubled the dilution B times. My test results determined that 8:30 was my ideal development time for my set up and technique.

 

[MattKing]

To lengthen the development times with HC-110 simply use a higher dilution. I use 1+14 (I think it is known as dilution H), which is twice the dilution of dilution B (1+7), with sheet film (Tri-X 320). At the beginning of my tests I doubled the dilution B times. My test results determined that 8:30 was my ideal development time for my set up and technique.

Just a note - the dilutions referred to here are dilutions from an intermediate stock solution.

Kodak recommends two different approaches to using HC-110: either create the working solution by diluting directly from the concentrate, or create the working solution by first diluting to an intermediate stock solution, and then further diluting that stock solution to a working dilution.

Both approaches have their pros and cons.

 

[noacronym]

Just a note - the dilutions referred to here are dilutions from an intermediate stock solution.

Kodak recommends two different approaches to using HC-110: either create the working solution by diluting directly from the concentrate, or create the working solution by first diluting to an intermediate stock solution, and then further diluting that stock solution to a working dilution.

Both approaches have their pros and cons.

I've had what you just wrote on my mind all day as I was on the printer today manufacturing welding supply labels for the customer. Just seems to me that boning up on how to draw whatever measurement was needed for a purpose from the Kodak HC 110 container , applying a dilution to it, and enjoying the Rodinal benefits of storage, without the Rodinal grain. I'll let those fans buy and use it; bless them and Adox for keeping up something that works. I've been spoiled by Microdol X. D-76 does not fill that void. And Rodinal's grain is just entirely unacceptable. So it would suit me to read some HC-110 stories. I've learned my lessons repeatedly from straying from the EK products. It never worked out. Re-inventing the wheel at my age is no longer an option.

 

[MattKing]

I've had what you just wrote on my mind all day as I was on the printer today manufacturing welding supply labels for the customer. Just seems to me that boning up on how to draw whatever measurement was needed for a purpose from the Kodak HC 110 container , applying a dilution to it, and enjoying the Rodinal benefits of storage, without the Rodinal grain. I'll let those fans buy and use it; bless them and Adox for keeping up something that works. I've been spoiled by Microdol X. D-76 does not fill that void. And Rodinal's grain is just entirely unacceptable. So it would suit me to read some HC-110 stories. I've learned my lessons repeatedly from straying from the EK products. It never worked out. Re-inventing the wheel at my age is no longer an option.

All you ever wanted to know about HC-110: http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

Be sure to scroll down the page.

 

[noacronym]

Thank you. That link about HC110 was excellent. Except, why in the world is there a European version, which is evidently only in the Catalog number printed on the bottle? That's screwy. Bottles of that can end up all over the world with only a catalog number printed on the bottle to know what you've got. Is this more of Kodak's annoying political correctness to comply with every other governments' bureaucratic foolishness? What's this European version business?. Being on this site is so rem·i·nis·cent of hanging around the camera stores in the 70's and working in them, when I wasn't hanging around. I believe I must have been an annoyance to those guys. I'd listen to all that and just say: Why aren't you just using Microdol? Thanks folks. I'm going looking for some of this Ilford counterfeit Microdol. I doubt it'll stain and separate things at the shoulder like Microdol did, but maybe I can at least get some dependability out of it.

 

[MattKing]

The "European" version is/was less concentrated and therefore less viscous and therefore easier to dilute directly from concentrate to working solution.

The most recent information from Kodak indicates that they have changed packaging. It appears that the new packaging may be consistent worldwide - i.e. there may now be just one version.

Kodak, of course, no longer make any of their chemistry. They sold the manufacturing rights in 2007 (?) to Champion Photochemicals, who took over the Kodak chemistry manufacturing facilities in Rochester and France. Much of that manufacturing may have been moved by Champion to Malaysia. Champion is one of the largest unpaid creditors in the Kodak bankruptcy.

Indications on the new HC-110 packaging makes people think that HC-110 may actually now be manufactured in Germany by Tetenal.

 

[noacronym]

The "European" version is/was less concentrated and therefore less viscous and therefore easier to dilute directly from concentrate to working solution.

The most recent information from Kodak indicates that they have changed packaging. It appears that the new packaging may be consistent worldwide - i.e. there may now be just one version.

Kodak, of course, no longer make any of their chemistry. They sold the manufacturing rights in 2007 (?) to Champion Photochemicals, who took over the Kodak chemistry manufacturing facilities in Rochester and France. Much of that manufacturing may have been moved by Champion to Malaysia. Champion is one of the largest unpaid creditors in the Kodak bankruptcy.

Indications on the new HC-110 packaging makes people think that HC-110 may actually now be manufactured in Germany by Tetenal.

Thank you Matt. I now know that Eastman Kodak simply is an echo of a deceased entity. Just takes me longer to believe that such an American company of their record of standards and quality can actually be dead, and the carcass devoured by coyotes and buzzards. Maybe it's just time to stock up on the Metol and sulfite and live with it. Metol was Ansco, Elon was Kodak. So somebody tell me, is this Ilford stuff like Microdol going to dry up before I can nail down a few decent negatives? When CD's replaced records in 1980, record stores dropped vinyl records overnight. I never bought my first CD. Watching photography die this slow death is excruciating. I am not in this world to experiment and re-invent things that were already researched and tested. I wonder if Ilford will play ball for at least a few more years.

 

[MattKing]

Tetenal is a large, high quality manufacturer with a lot of history.

Champion is quite substantial as well - I hope they survive the bankruptcy.

And the HC-110 you buy now is the same as that which was made by Kodak in the past.

If you buy any of the HC-110 that was made by Champion between 2007 and recently, for the most part it was manufactured in a former Kodak plant, using former Kodak employees.

 

[R.Gould]

OK, sorry for the newb question, but is ADOX "Adonal" the same chemistry as Rodinal?

I just bought a 500ml bottle of this ADOX "Adonal" and I'm really excited to try it with Acros 100. I've only used Xtol, which has been great, but I'm hoping for more contrast/"sharpness" than the Acros/Xtol recipe.

Adonal, as is RO9 one shot, and other versions of Rodinal, is still made by Agfa, and sold in bulk to the sellers who re pack it and sell it under their own names, so yes, Adonal Ect is just the old rodinal we all love or hate by another name

 

[J Drew]

Sorry, but I didn't quite follow you. Are U stand developing XTOL or Rodinal? I suspect Rodinal, I can'r remember anyone stand developing XTOL. I'm very interested in stand dev. if I can get away w/o streaks / artifacts.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

I would like to hear from those who stopped using Rodinal for HC 110. Why! Ian Grant mentions making a change.

As a few have said, Rodinal may not work well for all images or certainly all situations. For example, it's not a developer you would use to push film.

Some folks say Rodinal is a fine grain developer. My experience is Rodinal reveals more grain than D-76. How do you reduce grain clumping; less agitation or does dilution come in play. 1:25 produced more grain clumping for me.

 

[Ian Grant]

I went from the other way and found better film speed, Tonality and finer grain than HC-110, on a par with Xtol.

Ian

 

[Richard Jepsen]

I used Rodinal extensively from 1986 until about 7 years ago.
Ian

Ian, you moved away from Rodinal to which developer?

 

[AndreasT]

I went away from Rodinal, although I still have a bottle, to FX-39. Fx-39 is in my opinion just as sharp but gives better speed. I have never used HC-110 but what I have read between the lines here and there it would give similar speed as Rodinal.
I tend to go for developers which give good speed and sharpness.
However I still find Rodinal a very good choice and not to shun away.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian, you moved away from Rodinal to which developer?

I began using Pyrocat HD about 8 years ago, I work mainly with LF including 10x8, although I began using MF again about 4 years ago for personal work. I was using Xtol for commercial work - replenished, after trying Pyrocat realised it suited my ways of working better than Rodinal & Xtol, particulary for 5x4 & 10x8 negatives but then I found it gives similar fine grain to Rodinal with smaller formats.

To me the advantages of Pyrocat HD are very low cost which is important as I use Inversion tanks for 5x4, and trays for 10x8, but more importantly the quality of the resulting negatives/images in terms of fine grain, tonality and sharpness. Very easy negatives to print as well.

Part of the reasons for switching were it coincided with beginning to use 10x8, another was Agfa itself pullinh out of the consumer market and Rodinal disappeared for a while, however switching was a step forward not backwards. I liken Pyrocat HD to Rodinal on steroids.

Ian

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Ian, interesting. The change to larger film format allows use of a more active developing agent without evidence of grain clumping. Staining developers and were used by large format photographers like Weston, Adams, and Strand.

Rodinal is a good match to medium format negatives. I have seen grain in blank skies at 8x + enlargement factors. Switching to a dichro head smoothed out the roughness and hid the grain.

I match Rodinal to landscape or Atget type images. I'll throw away film speed for sharpness and tonality. Rodinal's tonality is variable and subject to film type, dilution, and time. Tonality is normally brilliant at (1:50) but with a curious bend in the tonal scale. In addition the highlights print easier. But I still see it more as a special purpose developer. Rodinal can contribute to a slight look of surrealism without heavy print manipulation.

 

[fmajor]

Adonal, as is RO9 one shot, and other versions of Rodinal, is still made by Agfa, and sold in bulk to the sellers who re pack it and sell it under their own names, so yes, Adonal Ect is just the old rodinal we all love or hate by another name

Thank you!

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian, interesting. The change to larger film format allows use of a more active developing agent without evidence of grain clumping. Staining developers and were used by large format photographers like Weston, Adams, and Strand.

Rodinal is a good match to medium format negatives. I have seen grain in blank skies at 8x + enlargement factors. Switching to a dichro head smoothed out the roughness and hid the grain.

I match Rodinal to landscape or Atget type images. I'll throw away film speed for sharpness and tonality. Rodinal's tonality is variable and subject to film type, dilution, and time. Tonality is normally brilliant at (1:50) but with a curious bend in the tonal scale. In addition the highlights print easier. But I still see it more as a special purpose developer. Rodinal can contribute to a slight look of surrealism without heavy print manipulation.

Pyrocat HD is also a brilliant match for MF negatives and I use it for the odd 35mm films as well.

I never like Rodinal at 1:50 except for N-2 development, so I used 3:100 instead for normal use and 1:25 if I needed to boost contrast, N+2.

There can be some confusion as at one time the US bottles of Rodinal had different dilutions & time/speed recommendations to the European, although these days they are the same.

Ian