• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

HP5+, Rodinal, Minimising Grain ?

I think any test should include printing negatives, not scanning them. In the end it's most important to figure out what YOU like. If that is HP 5 stand developed in Rodinal so be it.
 
erikg said:
I think any test should include printing negatives, not scanning them. In the end it's most important to figure out what YOU like. If that is HP 5 stand developed in Rodinal so be it.
Click to expand...

Hello Erik,
You're absolutely right! But for now let us first try this to see if we get any "differences" in the negatives at all.
The way we print is also an other variable to exclude in this phase: testing film developing. And scanning negatives can help (for now).
But when the first tests seem to show that method A or B will give "better" negatives, it is certainly time to start printing
and to see if we can translate the "better" negatives into "better" prints.
But first things first (in my case anyway) ...
Thanks,
Bert
 


Hi Ming,
We could meet half way and shoot on the same spot simultaneously, but I'm not such a good swimmer....
But I'll use my 50 mm lens at f/5.6 on a sunny day with blue skies as well.
Just sent me a simple scan of your negative (or just a snapshot made with a d***l camera or phone) to show me your subject and I'll try to find a similar setting to shoot my film. It will be close enough for our empirical testing, I guess.

BTW: also let me know how you handled the salt. I'll do the same.

Bert
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Bert,

Here's a pic' of my test setup. I took the shots about an hour ago so the light has now gone to pot and there's shadows. But earlier was bright and clear.

Just waiting on the first batch of Rodinal 1:25 to warm up.

Good luck,

Kev
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nice setup,
I'll start looking for the props
 
Yes I think printing as well would introduce another set of factors into the results, though afterwards it's an excellent idea to make a print of each.
 
TheToadMen said:
Nice setup,
I'll start looking for the props
Click to expand...

Cheers,

The downside of living in the country and with the wife away - I had to grab whatever was to hand. I did consider the Cats, Dogs and Horses, but they wouldn't stand still long enough.
 
Ming Rider said:
Cheers,

The downside of living in the country and with the wife away - I had to grab whatever was to hand. I did consider the Cats, Dogs and Horses, but they wouldn't stand still long enough.
Click to expand...

I live in the country side too, so the cats, dogs and horses wouldn't be a problem. I could even toss in a sheep or two:
(our Devon & Cornwall sheep, yes: from the UK too)

But finding that kind of brick wall will be a challenge ...
I'll think of something suitable.
 
Bert,

Forgot to say that because the light was so good, I had to shoot at f8 as the shutter was maxed at 1000th.
 
Quick update.

All four test strips are now processed. Just waiting for the last to dry, then will scan a frame from each and upload the results here.
 
The results are in . . .

The results are in, and I must say it has been a bit of an eye opener.

Firstly, I would like to reassure everyone that by doing this test, it is not my intention to tread on any toes. Nor am I out to prove anyone right or wrong. In this thread, I gratefully received a great many suggestions, all of which I took on board and put together in this series of tests. Like a `Mensa Test`, there are no right or wrong solutions. Each has it's own merits but at the end of the day, it comes down to personal preference.

All test strips were Stopped for 1 minute with constant agitation. Fixed for 5 minutes, with constant agitation for the 1st minute, 10 seconds every minute thereafter. Then rinsed using the Ilford method and swirled in Wetting Agent. Then squeegeed and left to dry naturally overnight.

First up is (my usual method) theRodinal 1:25, 20c for 6 minutes, agitation for the 1st minute, 10 seconds every minute thereafter.

On inspection, I was quite happy with the result. As this was the first strip scanned, I had nothing to compare it against . . .
 

Attachments

  • Rodinal-1-25-Crop.jpg
    146.9 KB · Views: 226
  • Rodinal-1-25.jpg
    935.8 KB · Views: 233
Last edited by a moderator:
. . . next, Rodinal 1:25 + Salt (same method as above).

After scanning this one, the difference was quite a shock. I particularly like the results of this one. The salt, whilst not making much noticeable difference to the grain, has boosted the contrast throughout the image to another level.

After viewing this, I realise the standard 1:25 seems quite 'bright' and not as clearly detailed . . .
 

Attachments

  • Rodinal-1-25-Salt.jpg
    938 KB · Views: 216
  • Rodinal-1-25-Salt-Crop.jpg
    124.6 KB · Views: 207
Last edited by a moderator:
. . . next up, Rodinal 1:100, 18c, 1 hour, constant agitation 1st minute, 10 seconds agitation at 30 minutes.

What I find apparent here, is that there's very little difference in contrast with the 1:25 standard and also very little difference (if any) in terms of grain size, clustering or shape. Maybe with the weaker dilution but increased time, the results are the same. Two ways to skin a cat, if you'll pardon the expression . . .
 

Attachments

  • Rodinal-1-100.jpg
    904.3 KB · Views: 190
  • Rodinal-1-100-Crop.jpg
    115.6 KB · Views: 178
Last edited by a moderator:
. . . and finally, Rodinal 1:100 Salt (method as standard 1:100).

What's apparent here is that there is a more noticeable difference with the 1:25 Salt. With the rake head for example, the contrast seems to have more balance, as though the salt was loosing it's potency over the longer developing time (?) Also, the grain appears more structured and `busier`. I am particularly pleased with the look of this negative . . .
 

Attachments

  • Rodinal-1-100-Salt-Crop.jpg
    120 KB · Views: 169
  • Rodinal-1-100-Salt.jpg
    991.4 KB · Views: 190
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice job, thanks!
Here are the 3 images side by side for easier comparing:

1+100 1+25 1+25 with salt 1+100 with Salt

It is possible that the sun was gone in image #3 (with Salt)? I don't see the shadow of the ladder anymore.
If you used the same exposure time, then this could explain the darker image.

Are you planning on printing the images in an identical way?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
. . . So there you have it. The results of the 4 tests were quite surprising for me. It would seem that none of the four methods had any real effect on grain size, clustering or sharpness. However they (to my eyes), fall into two distinct groups as far as contrast is concerned. Both the standard 1:25 and 1:100 appear to make similar images, maybe a factor of wildly different dilutions but offset by wildly different times. The same could be said of the salt solutions, however the longer period of the 1:100 Salt seems to effect the longevity of the salt itself?

So in summary and based on pixel peeping only at the moment, my money is on the 1:100 Salt.

I've also done a video of this test process and will be uploading it to my Youtube channel and will put the link on this thread when ready. I will also be posting the test on my Blog at www.streetphotographyblog.co.uk
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cheers Bert. I hope the results were helpful?

Yes, the next step is to make a print of each, though it might be a few days until I get round to it.
 
Hey Ming Rider, the problem I see with judging the contrast difference you see is that it is a fully adjustable characteristic, it can be matched across all 4 development regimes by adjusting say the time a bit.

The difference is effectively irrelevant, the adjustment to fix that contrast difference is simply part the normal refinements we all do. It is not an inherent difference.
 
Good intel here. I'd like to know what you mixed these chems with (distil water, kosher salt/sea salt/..quantity....etc).....

Where's the "notes"?

Great work thus far! I've some HP5+ that I'd love to run thru the 1:100+salt-regime
 
I've watched this thread continually pop up, read a post or 2, and moved on. It seems a continuing saga of experiments to make Rodinal palatable. Now I see added salt is one of the tricks to make this grain factory workable. It's always about the grain with this potion, isn't it? So now it seems that high dilution and salt is another way of trying to make Microdol out of this developer. To which I can only question. why not just use Microdol (or Perceptol)? Maybe I'm getting old and have fewer days, so to me, life's too short to make a bad developer work.
 
^Because one might use HC-110 for one film, Diafine for another, Rodinal for a third....why's one need to buy a fourth dev when one can use all three aformentioned to almost 99% of what's needed.....I think this thread is trying to find that last 1% (for me at least....)
 
The evil grain needs a lot less agitation. All your tests were constant agitation which explains the constant grain results.

Stand development will get you the finest grain (no agitation) but can suffer from bromide drag and low contrast. What rodinal loves is gentle periodic agitation, like a gentle swish you would give a fine wine. Somewhere between stand and 1 minute cycles with only about 5 seconds in duration. Agitate more often for greater contrast and less for minimal grain. It's a balance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register