HP5+, Rodinal, Minimising Grain ?

zsas · Jul 8, 2013

Well said Tom. I'm honored to have held some of your Caffenol prints and talk over your milestones in your process.

Ming Rider - If again you get a good result in round 2, I've still some HP5+ and Rodinal that Id be happy to run one roll thru your new "recipe"....just post your notes and whatnot. I've been burning up a lot of HP5+ and Rodinal/HC110/Diafine this summer in one of my plastic cameras, I don't mind tossin a roll towards your theory to help your pursuits. I like that you've a Leica and I a plastic P&S, seems we've the whole spectrum there

If this "salt bath" is a dead end so what, you've tried and shared with a comminity your work, which is a key virtue to happiness

Don't let the dissenters get ya down. So what if the salt Rodinal stand techniquue is a bit Rube Goldberg....we are all talking and that's gotta count for something. I'm enjoying this thread and I am one of those folks who does't like stand, it's never worked for me....though I respect your theory, flawed or not....lets see where the cards fall! We've got a lotta folks suggesting better test design models with ideas. Hope you bake in some of that, Michael, Ian, Poly. Etc. Nowhere but up! Let round 2 begin!

Ming Rider · Jul 8, 2013

zsas said:
Well said Tom. I'm honored to have held some of your Caffenol prints and talk over your milestones in your process.

Ming Rider - If again you get a good result in round 2, I've still some HP5+ and Rodinal that Id be happy to run one roll thru your new "recipe"....just post your notes and whatnot. I've been burning up a lot of HP5+ and Rodinal/HC110/Diafine this summer in one of my plastic cameras, I don't mind tossin a roll towards your theory to help your pursuits. I like that you've a Leica and I a plastic P&S, seems we've the whole spectrum there

If this "salt bath" is a dead end so what, you've tried and shared with a comminity your work, which is a key virtue to happiness

Don't let the dissenters get ya down. So what if the salt Rodinal stand techniquue is a bit Rube Goldberg....we are all talking and that's gotta count for something. I'm enjoying this thread and I am one of those folks who does't like stand, it's never worked for me....though I respect your theory, flawed or not....lets see where the cards fall! We've got a lotta folks suggesting better test design models with ideas. Hope you bake in some of that, Michael, Ian, Poly. Etc. Nowhere but up! Let round 2 begin!

Cheers for the support and if you don't mind sacrificing a roll, that's most welcome.

If I can nail a working negative, next will be a print.

zsas · Jul 8, 2013

Great intel Michael

Lets hope Ming's round two - "every 10min agitation model" combats the effects and the salt aids in warding off many of these genies that skunk the brew!

We shall see, Ming's signed up for a second round. Hope I can catch his YouTube in a week or so when it's ready. Like an old fashioned serial tv show or something

Go Ming Rider - may you win Apug's summer 2013 "don't give up award"!

Ming Rider · Jul 8, 2013

Michael R 1974 said:
Ming Rider - uneven development and/or streaking are often the result of insufficient or non-agitation. The reason is that as development proceeds, by-products of development accumulate. These by-product compounds come from both the developer and the film. Depending on the type of film and the composition of the developer, accumulated development by-products can have a variety of effects. For example in some cases these compounds slow down development locally. One of the functions of agitation is to remove these by-products from the emulsion surface. When agitation is insufficient the by-products will tend to simply accumulate and flow downward along the emulsion surface causing streaks of restrained development or broader areas of unevenness. Note this is just one simplified example to illustrate without getting into the specifics of certain developing agents etc. There are many variables. Different developers and films will respond in different ways to reduced or non-agitation. Some combinations work better than others.

Thanks for that Michael. That's certainly added to my growing understanding of what's going on in the Patterson Tank.

When it comes to developing I've barely taken off let alone broken orbit. The great attraction of darkroom work for me is the limitless scope for knowledge and old and new ideas.

clayne · Jul 9, 2013

I can't believe this is almost 20 pages by now. Haven't we already debated this same stuff out in 10 other threads before, guys?

baachitraka · Jul 9, 2013

Toffle said:
We should not be so quick to shout NO to new or unusual approaches to working with analog processes. When I first tried Caffenol printing in 2007, I was told on this very forum that the idea was a complete waste of time.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan103630.html

TheToadMen · Jul 9, 2013

Michael R 1974 said:
Ming Rider - uneven development and/or streaking are often the result of insufficient or non-agitation. The reason is that as development proceeds, by-products of development accumulate. These by-product compounds come from both the developer and the film.

I also believe (without any chemical knowledge) that this could be the sources of the streaks due to higher concentrations locally.
But what is the process that's going on:
1) heavier elements are sinking down, thus causing extra development from the bottom up;
2) lighter elements float to the suface, thus causing extra development from the top down;
3) heavier elements are sinking down, thus reducing development from the bottom up;
4) lighter elements float to the suface, thus reducing development from the top down?

All four seem theoretically possible, at least to me.
What are the chemicals that cause the effect and are they heavier or lighter than water?
Also, do we know if the side with the light streak was on top or at the bottom in the tank?

So maybe in the next test making a mark in the film (cutting out a sprocket?) to mark the top side?
And maybe develop a second part of the film under the same conditions, but with some minor agitating, say three or four times, to see what the effect is?

removed account4 · Jul 19, 2013

great thread !

ming, some caffenol folks ( over on flickr in the palace )
use salt in their caffenol developer to reduce fog ..
its fun to see other folks experiment with it ...

did you get a chance to print any of your experiments ? some
salty film looks better electrified, some looks better contact printed, and others look best enlarged
i guess the trick with film is to dovetail the whole chain .. film>dev> what type of print ...

don't stop having fun and experimenting, its when you get off the main road you see the good-stuff.
and don't listen to the nay-sayers, sometimes they just enjoy stepping on everyone's buzz ...

Toffle said:
We should not be so quick to shout NO to new or unusual approaches to working with analog processes. When I first tried Caffenol printing in 2007, I was told on this very forum that the idea was a complete waste of time. I suppose the votes are still out on that, but over the last six years, Caffenol has become my primary paper developer. It is the spirit of experimentation over these years which has allowed me to adjust my formula and process to raise the quality of my Caffenol work above random, haphazard results to controllable, consistent prints. I can and do make "traditional" silver prints on a regular basis, but it is my caffenol work which catches the eye of gallery owners and these are by far the prints in my portfolio which sell. When I first began working with this process it seemed that I was all alone; now there are dozens of fine printers pushing the process beyond anything I imagined when I first began. Had I listened to the nay-sayers when I first posed the question, I would never have experienced the great joy I have in this process.

Cheers,
Tom

couldn't agree more tom !

john

ic-racer · Jul 19, 2013

Increase development and print on softer paper to minimize grain.

zsas · Jul 19, 2013

That's a good theory too ic^. Would a soft paper dev also help? Something like this?

LegacyPro Select Soft Paper Developer to Make 1 Gallon
Model: 750710
Manufacturer: LegacyPro

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/750710-LegacyPro-Select-Soft-Paper-Developer-to-Make-1-Gallon

tron_ · Jul 19, 2013

Great thread, imo. That NB23 guy is a little unsavory but overall there has been a lot of great discussion so far. FWIW I stand develop my film about 50% of the time and after getting the recipe down, have had consistent results that I am happy with.

Michael, correct me if I'm wrong but there are no bromide ions released when using Rodinal thus making bromide drag a non factor?

Gerald C Koch · Jul 19, 2013

tron_ said:
correct me if I'm wrong but there are no bromide ions released when using Rodinal thus making bromide drag a non factor?

If I might cut in, the bromide ion comes from the film itself it is released during development. Thus during stand development it is concentrated at the surface of the film. This is what causes bromide streaking. Any bromide ion originally present in a developer is evenly concentrated throughout its volume. This is why any agitation is preferable even if it is only intermediate agitation.

One of the standard ways of minimizing grain is to under develop a film and use a higher contrast paper. This is the method recommended for 35mm film and was advocated by Willi Beutler in his book. Doing the opposite would actually increase grain.

Ian Grant · Jul 19, 2013

Michael R 1974 said:
tron: as noted in my post bromides (and chlorides/iodides in smaller amounts) are released by the film emulsion.

There's also bromide in fresh Rodinal, it's part of the formula.

Ian

Brandon D. · Mar 17, 2017

Alright, I have a dilemma similar to that of the O.P. I'm shooting medium format HP5+ at EI 400, and I'm developing it in Fomadon R09 (a Rodinal clone) 1+50 for 10:50 at 68F. First of all, I wasn't expecting so much grain. I really don't see it as a horrible thing per say, but I would prefer somewhat less grain. Secondly, the negatives seem to lack contrast. I assume that that's partly due to my modest/conservative agitation method. Of course, I'm cool with adding contrast in post production. But, I'd like to start with a more contrasty negative to begin with.

That said, I was wondering if it would be a good idea to adjust my Rodinal dilution to 1+100 and develop for 15:50 to minimize the grain? Then, I assume I should invert my tank more quickly and more aggressively during the agitation periods?

PS - I wish I would've known how beautiful HP5+ looks at EI 800+ before I committed to EI 400.

Thanks in advanced for the help!

Karl K · Mar 17, 2017

The combination of HP5 and Rodinal is going to yield grain, but it can be controlled.
I've had some success shooting in low contrast situations using this formula:

Set ISO to 800
Dilute Rodinal 1:75 in a 10% sodium sulfite solution
Develop 13 minutes @70°, gently agitate 30 seconds in the beginning
Gently agitate 15 seconds every minute thereafter

The negatives should be of normal density. If not, adjust the ISO.
It should be noted that this combination does not work very well in high contrast situations because it may blow out the highlights.
As usual, YMMV.
Test well before shooting anything important.
In my experience, I try to limit each test to only one variable, so the results can be measured quickly.

Brandon D. · Mar 17, 2017

Hey! Thanks, Karl!

I'd love to try out your method sometime since I'm eager to try it out at EI 800.

But, my current dilemma is that I've already exposed the negatives in question at EI 400. They're undeveloped, so now it's just a matter of how I process the remaining 7 rolls of the batch. It's not life or death, as the grain isn't too bad. The look I got would be really cool if we were still living in the 1970s or 1980s, haha. Plus, I can add contrast later. But, I'm just wanting to see if I can get a more pleasing negative to begin with for the EI 400 shots.

Karl K · Mar 17, 2017

Well, at ISO 400, I would cut the development time to 8.5 minutes.
The sodium sulfite will help reduce the appearance of grain.

Gerald C Koch · Mar 17, 2017

Why not just try a fine grain developer such as D-23?

John Bragg · Mar 17, 2017

If you add sulfite, it is no longer unadulterated Rodinal. It is like wanting a Camel and removing the hump because you don't like bumpy Camels. Just get a horse.

Brandon D. · Mar 17, 2017

Gerald C Koch said:
Why not just try a fine grain developer such as D-23?

Gerald, thanks for the suggestion! Haha, if I knew what I knew now, that's exactly what I probably would've used. In the past, I had been using Kodak XTOL with Delta 100, which was very sharp and almost grainless. But, this time I chose Rodinal because it looks excellent with my primary film, Fomapan 100. And, I don't mind a little bit of grain as it adds texture to the image and it distinguishes it from digital.

That said, I just ran a roll from the batch through a 1+100 dilution at 68F for 15:20 with more aggressive inversions. And, I must say the negative appears to have more contrast than the low contrast negative that made me call this combination into question. The film is hang drying now, so the word is still out on the grain. But, I feel like I've made an improvement. Thanks, again!

TheToadMen · Mar 18, 2017

Brandon D. said:
That said, I just ran a roll from the batch through a 1+100 dilution at 68F for 15:20 with more aggressive inversions. And, I must say the negative appears to have more contrast than the low contrast negative that made me call this combination into question. The film is hang drying now, so the word is still out on the grain. But, I feel like I've made an improvement. Thanks, again!

How about the grain this time? is it less or more (visible)?

Brandon D. · Mar 18, 2017

TheToadMen said:
How about the grain this time? is it less or more (visible)?

Miraculously, the grain came out much smoother than before. I mean, it's almost unnoticeable in the prints I've made. Plus, I was able to get much closer to the tonality that I was originally trying to achieve. The only issue was that I either underdeveloped the negative a little too much or I underexposed it a little bit. But, it wasn't that big of a deal.

Here is a rough scan:

John Wiegerink · Mar 18, 2017

Brandon D. said:
Miraculously, the grain came out much smoother than before. I mean, it's almost unnoticeable in the prints I've made. Plus, I was able to get much closer to the tonality that I was originally trying to achieve. The only issue was that I either underdeveloped the negative a little too much or I underexposed it a little bit. But, it wasn't that big of a deal.

Here's a rough scan:
View attachment 175345

It's always hard to tell from a scan, but I think the highlights in the lower right look pretty good. Maybe a little more exposure is needed? I stumbled onto a combination with HP5+ that surprised me a little or enough to continue to use it. This is with 120 film format so other film sizes might have different outcomes. I had not used HP5+ in a very long time since I like less grain. So the films I used most were DELTA 100 FP4+ and several other 100 speed films. When I ordered my last batch of film I also order 10 rolls of HP5+ with some more FP4+ . I took a shot of a steam locomotive with a 6x9 camera using both FP4+ and HP5+ developed both in Xtol replenished with the HP5+ at 10% less than the recommended time. I made 16x20 prints from both and was pleasantly surprised by the results. The HP5+ prints were fantastic. Grain still wasn't there even at that size and the best part was that the HP5+ print showed what looked like better overall sharpness. Nothing wrong with the FP4+ print, but the lack of edge just didn't get it with that shot. It was just too smooth. Might be better for a portrait, but for a big, black steam locomotive it doesn't cut it. I rate my FP4+ at ISO 80 and guessed at the HP5+ at ISO 250, but I believe ISO 320 might be better. I will be doing my own testing after these results. My next order for film is going to include HP5+ in 4X5 that's for certain. It's a lot nicer being able to shoot a faster film and get results like this. Maybe Xtol replenished and HP5+ was a one time fluke for me, but I sure will be trying to fine out.

RalphLambrecht · Mar 18, 2017

Ming Rider said:
Hi all,

I was hoping to draw on the wealth of experience here.

I like to shoot HP5 and process in Rodinal (substitute) because I love the 'age' that it gives the images. Only problem is that I tend to get quite noticeable grain, (I previously processed FP4+ in Rodinal with great results).

Have read on many sites that this is common for this combination, but is there a preferred method to at least minimise the grain clustering?

Have consulted the 'Darkroom Cookbook' and 'Film Developers Cookbook'.

My method has always been Rodinal 1:25, 20c, 6 minutes, agitation first minute, 10s every minute after.

This is the result. Cheers :-

View attachment 52404

looks like a great result to me.where is the issue?

RalphLambrecht · Mar 18, 2017

Ming Rider said:
Wow, thank you all for the tips and advice. I couldn't believe my eyes when I checked the thread tonight.

For the record, I like grain. It gives my photo's a look that I like. Just slightly smaller than golf balls would be nice though.

Changing to another film would be a bit awkward at the moment as I just spent 50 quid on a 30m roll of HP5+. Another developer would be interesting though.

Now going to have a read of the links.

Cheers,

tart with ID11 or D76 1+1 and use it as a baseline to judge other developers.

HP5+, Rodinal, Minimising Grain ?

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency