HP5+, Rodinal, Minimising Grain ?

TheToadMen · Jun 21, 2013

mrred said:
If you like that look and do not want to see as much grain, use thornton. If the chems are not found locally, B&H will ship internationally.
Thornton is a high acutance developer, especially when used standing. Being 2 step developer the dev times are short enough not to have any of the typical streaking associated with stand. The recipe is posted on this site.

By "Thornton" you mean the two-bath developer called DiXactol = stain developer from Barry Thornton?
See: http://www.barrythornton.com and (there was a url link here which no longer exists) and http://www.monochromephotography.com/section255920_83800.html and Dead Link Removed.

One of the developers on my list to try sometimes.

mrred · Jun 21, 2013

No, just the D23 variant.

mrred · Jun 21, 2013

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

viridari · Jun 22, 2013

The golf balls are from over agitation. Try experimenting with stand development. Process the HP5+ in a 1:100 solution at 20C. At this dilution you're going to want about a liter of solution to make sure you've got enough Rodinal in there. Ever so gently swirl for 20-30s. Then just let it sit for 30 minutes. Then more very gentle swirls for about 5 seconds. Then leave it alone for another half an hour.

Try that as a starting point with a test roll, let us know if it's not remarkably better.

NB23 · Jun 23, 2013

viridari said:
The golf balls are from over agitation. Try experimenting with stand development. Process the HP5+ in a 1:100 solution at 20C. At this dilution you're going to want about a liter of solution to make sure you've got enough Rodinal in there. Ever so gently swirl for 20-30s. Then just let it sit for 30 minutes. Then more very gentle swirls for about 5 seconds. Then leave it alone for another half an hour.

Try that as a starting point with a test roll, let us know if it's not remarkably better.

I'm sorry but this is not good advice. Stand development is just not good. And the grain will still be pronounced. I'm not even sure there is a connection between shaking and grain size.

Ian Grant · Jun 23, 2013

NB23 said:
I'm sorry but this is not good advice. Stand development is just not good. And the grain will still be pronounced. I'm not even sure there is a connection between shaking and grain size.

Totally agree.

Ian

Ming Rider · Jun 23, 2013

markbarendt said:
. . . So, onward to considering the example shot you provided, why not just step closer to your subject? . . .

Good point and one I've tried in the past.

There's two main reasons. Any closer and I start entering their space and I/they begin to feel uncomfortable. Secondly, because (especially with such a sensitive subject) I like to show the whole and include some of their 'world' in order to emphasise and bring awareness to their situation.

If I shoot head and shoulders, it comes out as 'look at this guy, he's dirty/bad teeth/tatty clothes' etc . . .

markbarendt · Jun 23, 2013

Ming Rider said:
Good point and one I've tried in the past.

There's two main reasons. Any closer and I start entering their space and I/they begin to feel uncomfortable. Secondly, because (especially with such a sensitive subject) I like to show the whole and include some of their 'world' in order to emphasise and bring awareness to their situation.

If I shoot head and shoulders, it comes out as 'look at this guy, he's dirty/bad teeth/tatty clothes' etc . . .

A few thoughts.

First, a longer lens could mitigate the grain some too, anything that makes the subject larger on film.

Second, talk to your subjects, get to know them a bit, tell them what you want/why, and ask permission.

Third, offer a couple bucks or something in return for taking the photo.

viridari · Jun 23, 2013

NB23 said:
I'm sorry but this is not good advice. Stand development is just not good.

Speak for yourself, please. My experience differs.

Awwwww by Dead Link Removed, on Flickr

NB23 · Jun 23, 2013

Laws of physics versus internet hype spread by newbies that never printed a single picture.
But if I was speaking only for myself I'd have over 20,000 rolls of experience to back me up. I'm also not sure what a picture of a bunny proves, anyways.

I have 3 questions for you:
-Do you print yourself?
-Do you agitate your prints in the developer and fixer?
-If not, why not?

AlanC · Jun 23, 2013

NB23 said:
-Do you print yourself?
/QUOTE]

Are you thinking of fingerprints here, or a full body print?

Alan

Tom1956 · Jun 23, 2013

The best cure for grain with Rodinal is to use something else.

Patrick Robert James · Jun 23, 2013

Rodinal has all kinds of myths about it on the internet spread by people who don't really have experience making prints. I agree with NB23 and Ian. Stand development is a bad way to develop film, especially if you going to print it the traditional way. You can do just about anything if you are scanning it however, which is how I think these myths get promulgated. People make all kinds of claims on the internet to feel special about themselves. Tri-X at 64,000! for example. Never gonna happen unless you operate under a different set of physics than a mortal man.

Kevin, if you already have Rodinal and want finer grain while using it, I know of two ways (there are surely others): Salt and Sodium Sulfite. I have never tried the Sulfite, but I do use salt occasionally. Use sea salt or table salt without the iodine. 30g/l will do it. I have read that salt may cause dichroic fogging with modern films, but I haven't experienced it yet. You may also lose some film speed with the salt FYI since from what I understand the salt acts as a restrainer. Maybe Ian can shed some light on that. Salt is a good option for you to try since it is easy to get and it works. Good luck.

TheToadMen · Jun 23, 2013

Patrick Robert James said:
Kevin, if you already have Rodinal and want finer grain while using it, I know of two ways (there are surely others): Salt and Sodium Sulfite. I have never tried the Sulfite, but I do use salt occasionally. Use sea salt or table salt without the iodine. 30g/l will do it. I have read that salt may cause dichroic fogging with modern films, but I haven't experienced it yet. You may also lose some film speed with the salt FYI since from what I understand the salt acts as a restrainer. Maybe Ian can shed some light on that. Salt is a good option for you to try since it is easy to get and it works. Good luck.

A good way to test yourself if this is a good method for you.
Shoot a whole film on a single scene "at once" (all 36 frames). If possible put your camera on a tripod and use a camera with motorwind. Take a scene with some contrast & details. Preferably under circumstances with a steady lighting during shooting (avoid days where the sun comes & goes because of clouds, etc.).
Then cut the exposed film in half and develop each part separately (with & without added salt, or whatever the factor is) to see what the effects are. Keep all the other factors (temp, agitating, developing times, ....) identical to eliminate a combination of effects. This way you're certain what factor causes what deviations in results.
Can you see any difference? And do you like it?

Gerald C Koch · Jun 23, 2013

Ian Grant said:
Agfa used to recommend mixing up Rodinal with a weak sulphite solution if you needed to prolong the life of a working solution this also helps give finer grain.

As Ian points out mixing the Rodinal with a sulfite solution will improve the grain. Years ago a 9% solution was recommended as the resulting developer would be close to the recommended sulfite content for such developers as D-23 and D-76. However, it now known that maximum halide solvency occurs around 80 g/l so a weaker solution would be better. When using this method development times should be shortened by approximately 20%.

polyglot · Jun 23, 2013

If you're going to mix in solvents like sulfite to soften the grain then it's not Rodinal any more and you might as well use a solvent developer.

Softening the grain with sulfite is one way to make an image smoother, but the grain won't get smaller. In fact, you can make resolution worse because the silver-solvent effects act a bit like a low-pass filter, i.e. it spreads things out a bit. D76 stock for example makes things very mushy, especially compared to Rodinal. Totally different look.

viridari · Jun 23, 2013

Ah, even this fine forum is not safe from Internet trolls. They are easily ignored.

It works for me. No golf balls. If you can't figure out how to make stand development work for you, that's not a good reason to be rude to your forum mates. I hardly think you'd behave thusly in person. Shame!

NB23 · Jun 23, 2013

viridari said:
Ah, even this fine forum is not safe from Internet trolls. They are easily ignored.

It works for me. No golf balls. If you can't figure out how to make stand development work for you, that's not a good reason to be rude to your forum mates. I hardly think you'd behave thusly in person. Shame!

Thin skin, perhaps? Calling someone a troll because your technique is questionable makes you feel better? And don't forget: The Size of Grain is NOT related to the degree of shaking. Just by this statement one quickly realizes that you don't understand the subject. You want fine grain out of a coarse grain film? Use a fine grain developer. The least amount of time in the developer, the smaller the grain will be.

When you wash your hands, do you scrub your hands against each other or do you simply leave them soaking in soapy water for 30 minutes without moving them in hope to get them clean? Stand-washing technique? The same goes for developing film: The whole point of shaking the can is to remove exhausted developer to make way for fresh developer. By not shaking the can you jeopardize the contrast as well as the evenness of development. You're basically killing the film's native contrast curve. What a bad thing to do.

Out of the 10,000 films that I have successfully developed, it took me 3 stand development trials to come up with garbage negatives. Never again!

If anything, you should thank me for being direct and because I have given you GOOD advice. But no, you prefer to call people trolls just because you don't get the free ego stroke you're expecting. Rather sad.

Tom1956 · Jun 23, 2013

Maybe he meant me, for my trite 1-sentence post. But I maintain I see no redeeming quality to Rodinal. Just because it has been around for 125 years and has a fan base on that account, it's still a grainy mess of a developer. Granted it's a general purpose film developer, but lye soap is a general purpose soap too. At one time it was a bath soap, shampoo, laundry and dish soap.

MattKing · Jun 24, 2013

Are we in danger here of getting into a religious discussion?

Stand or semi-stand development is a special purpose technique. It only serves well as a general purpose technique if the affects it adds to negatives (tone compression and edge effects) are what a photographer seeks.

And unlike Tom1956, I like Rodinal, in the hands of some photographers. It has a fairly distinct look. It doesn't suit me though.

Gerald C Koch · Jun 24, 2013

The granularity of a film is essentially fixed during its manufacture. This is why Kodak can specify a RMS granularity of each of its film. The granularity can be reduced somewhat by the choice of developer. Obviously a solvent type developer will produce finer grain.

Now the perception of grain is influenced by several factors among them the Gamma or Contrast Index of a negative. The lower this value the less grain perceived by the human eye. When film is stand developed it is usually developed to a lower Gamma than normal and so will appear less grainy.

There is only one reason to use stand development and it is usually described in manuals on the Zone System. That is to reduce the overall contrast of a contrasty subject to match the tonal scale of a particular paper. I can't think of a single subject in photography that is the source of so much speculation, unfounded claims and general folderol than stand development.

Gerald C Koch · Jun 24, 2013

polyglot said:
If you're going to mix in solvents like sulfite to soften the grain then it's not Rodinal any more

At one time when films were coarser grained than now it was fairly common practice to use them with added sulfite. Besides Agfa Rodinal another example would be Edwal FG-7 which recommended this practice. I don't think the people at Agfa or Edwal would have accepted your statement that their developer became something else. There was a time when I used Rodinal-sulfite, as it was called, quite frequently. I really liked the tonality it gave to my negatives.

Ming Rider · Jun 24, 2013

If anyone was to say to me that film was dead, I would simply direct them to APUG. With this amount of passion, how can anything be dead?

There are a lot of good and interesting suggestions here and I thank you for all of them.

There's something about stand development that has always intrigued me, as well as adding salt (I have no sulphite) but I've never tried it. So I'm going to conduct an experiment along the lines of what has been suggested in this thread by many of you helpful guys (and girls?) here.

I'll shoot 24 exposures of HP5+ of the same scene, with the same light. Then cut into 4 equal lengths.

1. Straight Rodinal 1:25, 20c, 6 min's, agitate 1st min, 10 sec's every min' after.

2. As above but with salt at ratio of 30g/l, time, temp' and agitation kept the same in the interest of clarity.

3. Straight Rodinal 1:100, 18c, 1 hour and ambient room temp' kept at 20c (to help maintain dev' temp'), agitate 10 sec' after 30 min's.

4. As above but with salt at 30g/l.

All with 3 sharp taps after each agitation. All will be stopped and fixed the same. 30 sec's stopper, 5 min's fixer, Ilford rinse method, wetting agent, dryed over night by hanging.

What's the best way to add the salt. Does it need to be dissolved fully?

Then 1 frame of each will be scanned on an Epson V500, no sharpening or adjustments in-scanner or PS, just straight from the 'can' and uploaded at 96 dpi and the largest file size the forum will allow.

How does that sound?

TheToadMen · Jun 24, 2013

testing stand developing & adding salt

Ming Rider said:
I'll shoot 24 exposures of HP5+ of the same scene, with the same light. Then cut into 4 equal lengths.
(...)
What's the best way to add the salt. Does it need to be dissolved fully?

Then 1 frame of each will be scanned on an Epson V500, no sharpening or adjustments in-scanner or PS, just straight from the 'can' and uploaded at 96 dpi and the largest file size the forum will allow.
How does that sound?

Sounds like an interesting experiment and a lot of fun to me. Especially testing for the differences between "shaking & standing" developing. I'm going to try this myself also, but I'll do it with Ilford FP4+. Would be nice to see if there is a difference between methods and films.
And if we both use a Leica M5 with 35 mm or 50 mm Summicron at the same f-stop (aperture) we even minimize the "lens factor" as well.

I read about stand developing not so long ago, but don't know where anymore. I'm going to find that book first. Maybe it was The Edge Of Darkness (Barry Thornton) or The Negative (Ansel Adams) or The Film Developing Cookbook (Troop & Anchell) or Experimental Photography Workbook (Christina Z. Anderson)?

or

???

I'll let you know where what was said about stand developing. If you like, I can scan the pages and mail it to you (if so, send me a PM with your mail address).

About the salt, I have no experience with adding salt, but it seems to me it should be dissolved completely. I would heat water, add salt, let it dissolve and cool down and then add the right amount of (concentrated) salt water to the developer.

"Have fun and catch that lightbeam"
Bert from Holland
http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl

Ming Rider · Jun 24, 2013

TheToadMen said:
Sounds like an interesting experiment and a lot of fun to me. Especially testing for the differences between "shaking & standing" developing. I'm going to try this myself also, but I'll do it with Ilford FP4+. Would be nice to see if there is a difference between methods and films.
And if we both use a Leica M5 with 35 mm or 50 mm Summicron at the same f-stop (aperture) we even minimize the "lens factor" as well.

I read about stand developing not so long ago, but don't know where anymore. I'm going to find that book first. Maybe it was The Edge Of Darkness (Barry Thornton) or The Negative (Ansel Adams) or The Film Developing Cookbook (Troop & Anchell) or Experimental Photography Workbook (Christina Z. Anderson)?
View attachment 70688 or View attachment 70689 or View attachment 70690 or View attachment 70691 ???

I'll let you know where what was said about stand developing. If you like, I can scan the pages and mail it to you (if so, send me a PM with your mail address).

About the salt, I have no experience with adding salt, but it seems to me it should be dissolved completely. I would heat water, add salt, let it dissolve and cool down and then add the right amount of (concentrated) salt water to the developer.

"Have fun and catch that lightbeam"
Bert from Holland
http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl

Excellent idea. Obviously there's no problem with the M5 but the lens might be a problem. I have a Canon Serenar 50 1.8 (similar to Zeiss I think) and was going to shoot at f/5.6 on a tripod. We're currently enjoying a sunny day with blue skies here in the UK (yes, really), so now's as good a time as any.

HP5+, Rodinal, Minimising Grain ?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency