HP5+, Rodinal, Minimising Grain ?

[polyglot]

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.

Or use a fine-grain film. Of course it's grainy with HP5.

Acros, TMX, Pan-F and Efke-25 are all awesome in Rodinal.

 

[Ming Rider]

Or use a fine-grain film. Of course it's grainy with HP5.

Acros, TMX, Pan-F and Efke-25 are all awesome in Rodinal.

Good point. I shoot mainly on the Street and did use FP4+. However, with our typical British climate (cloudy) and my preference for Zone Focussing, I ran into problems with achieving a workable DOF.

Most of my subject matter exhibits the annoying tendency to move. Further, they have a nasty habit of not keeping a consistant distance from the lens from subject to subject.

Unable as I am to focus and adjust metering and aperture for each shot (the shot would be gone), I have to set the camera for between 250th - 500th and an aperture of around f/8 - f/11. This gives me a zone of approximately 15 -30ft.

With FP4+ and the low light, I could only achieve between 60th - 125th, not enough to freeze the movement sufficiently, whilst maintaining a workable DOF.

Now with HP5+, I can shoot at 250th - 500th (1000th on a really good day) and still keep the DOF, thereby seeing the shot, raising the camera and shooting in a second.

Happy times.

 

[Ming Rider]

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.

But a controlled experiment is essential to find the required adjustment?

 

[Ming Rider]

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

Cheers,

The salt was Cornish Sea Salt (nothing but salt) and the ratio was 30g/litre of Distilled Water.

I will upload a picture of the notes and a full run down will be in the video, which is nearly ready. Will post link when done.

 

[Ming Rider]

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.

My goal is/was to get the best out of what I have/prefer, rather than make it something it isn't or like something else.

 

[TheToadMen]

Originally Posted by Tom1956 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 questio

Or use a fine-grain film. Of course it's grainy with HP5.
Acros, TMX, Pan-F and Efke-25 are all awesome in Rodinal.

Hi guys,
You're all absolutely right, there are nice alternatives.
But maybe we just like to fool around (I mean to test) with Rodinal and Ilford film, just to see what it can (not) do and to what extend we can influence the process and results.

To quote Bill Watterson: "You mix a bunch of ingredients, and once in a great while, chemistry happens."
and Davey Coleman: "Creative thinking may mean simply the realization that there’s no particular virtue in doing things the way they have always been done."

 

[Ming Rider]

Cheers Bert,

I couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

When you add the salt you change the chemical make-up of the developer. When you change the chemical make-up of the developer, you essentially end up with two different developers.
Because of that, you must insure that the negatives themselves have the same final contrast from both developers, in order to make a meaningful comparison.

It would be even better if you could contact print the negatives next to a 21-step step wedge to compare tonality and range.

I'd also like to mention that using standing development can be a blessing and a curse. If you ask Steve Sherman, possibly the world's expert practitioner on the topic, he will tell you that standing development is a great method. If you see one of his prints some time, I am sure you can be convinced that standing development is an alternative. But I do not see him using Tri-X at EI 25,000 either.
What DOES happen when you use this technique is that you change the tonality of the film quite severely. It is extreme compensating development where shadow values are brought up and highlights toned down, and when you print in the darkroom, I sometimes find that the tonality can be really strange from these negatives, and I think this is where some of the conflict surrounding whether it works or not comes from, possibly even contempt from darkroom printers who think scanning film is like cheating. Just a wild guess.

What the bottom line is in this thread, however, is that HP5+ will never be a fine grain film. There is no developer that will make it a fine grain film.
Embrace that grain, because it's beautiful! Last year I used about 25 rolls of 36 exposure 35mm HP5+, in replenished Xtol mostly, and the prints look really great at 16x20 inches. The grain? Just find some interesting subject matter, and make meaningful photographs, and you won't even see it. Photographers are their own worst critics, and nobody else cares about grain.

 

[Ming Rider]

I agree with both of the above. What I found with this test (and something I had to see with my own efforts) was that grain is grain. What I inadvertantly realised was that the contrast 'from the negative' could be brought out quite dramatically.

I love grain but I also love contrast. But which is better? There's only one way to find out . . . Fight !!! (Harry Hill )

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I agree with both of the above. What I found with this test (and something I had to see with my own efforts) was that grain is grain. What I inadvertantly realised was that the contrast 'from the negative' could be brought out quite dramatically.

I love grain but I also love contrast. But which is better? There's only one way to find out . . . Fight !!! (Harry Hill )

Good call. Let's fight and make the world better...

Some time, try shooting HP5+ at 100, process in Rodinal at 1+25 for about 13 minutes with normal agitation. Print at Grade 5. Have fun.

 

[Ming Rider]

Here's the video I made to go with the test.

http://youtu.be/DO5iJXtv9Qc

 

[zsas]

Here's the video I made to go with the test.

http://youtu.be/DO5iJXtv9Qc

I've thankfully some time off today and was able to watch your film

You've such great enthusiasm for learning, testing and down-right-photographic-chemistry-fun!

All APUG'rs should watch Ming Rider's video. His enthusiasm and diligence to learning is fun to take in.

Plus you get to see a neat chicken-coop-darkroom!

I've a bunch of bulk HP5+ that I am interested to try out with the 1:100-Rodinal-salt-bath-stand-method

Like Thomas cautions, sure the negs look different, but many want to know, how do they (salted negs) print?

You are going to make 4 prints from these negs and post that video/result; aren't ya

 

[baachitraka]

Grain is a gift, I do not understand why we try to reduce it.

 

[Ming Rider]

Thanks Andy and delighted you found the video entertaining.

Yep, I will be doing the prints in the next few days and will of course video every step and the results.

P.S. The good lady wife originally wanted me to convert an old outside toilet into the darkroom. Luckily she listened to common sense, or I would be welcoming viewers to 'The Toilet' (or The John)

 

[pentaxuser]

P.S. The good lady wife originally wanted me to convert an old outside toilet into the darkroom.

You could convert it to archival washing and call it the Niagara method. Those old outside toilets usually had a 3 gallon cistern about 8 feet off the ground so one pull of the chain and you got a biblical flood

pentaxuser

 

[Ming Rider]

You could convert it to archival washing and call it the Niagara method. Those old outside toilets usually had a 3 gallon cistern about 8 feet off the ground so one pull of the chain and you got a biblical flood

pentaxuser

Lol. I know what you mean, though there would be so much force, it would probably strip the emulsion clean-off the negative!!!

 

[pentaxuser]

On a more serious note I too enjoyed your video and look forward to your prints. On stand development all I can say is that your neg appears to have had none of the drawbacks cited by those who regard it as a best a risky process with notable problems.

If your scans of the negs as positives reflect what the subsequent prints will look like then either you were very lucky with stand development or just maybe it works.

pentaxuser

 

[Ming Rider]

. . . then either you were very lucky with stand development or just maybe it works.

pentaxuser

Very lucky 'twice'. 1:100 and 1:100 Salt.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Instead of trying various things to make Rodinal behave in an uncharacteristic way, why not just use a fine grain developer to start with. When you modify Rodinal it ceases to be Rodinal and the properties that people are so intent on retaining are lost.

 

[Tom1956]

Instead of trying various things to make Rodinal behave in an uncharacteristic way, why not just use a fine grain developer to start with. When you modify Rodinal it ceases to be Rodinal and the properties that people are so intent on retaining are lost.

Now why didn't I say something brilliant like that? Oh, I did. Agreed. But since I enrolled on here, I came to note that Rodinal has its fans. Some things defy understanding.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Now why didn't I say something brilliant like that? Oh, I did.

Yes you did, however it has been my experience on APUG that people skim the posts. Important things need to be said more than once for them to sink in. As far as devotion to Rodinal is concerned you will hear mention of the Church of Rodinal in older posts.

 

[Tom1956]

Yes you did, however it has been my experience on APUG that people skim the posts. Important things need to be said more than once for them to sink in. As far as devotion to Rodinal is concerned you will hear mention of the Church of Rodinal in older posts.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Now why didn't I say something brilliant like that? Oh, I did. Agreed. But since I enrolled on here, I came to note that Rodinal has its fans. Some things defy understanding.

You know, it's at least the third time in the same thread that you down talk Rodinal. It's getting really old. Rodinal has its fans because it's a brilliant developer! It does what it does with wonderful results, and if you could open your mind a little bit and see things from the perspective of other people, like Ralph Gibson for example, it would be really wonderful.
You're welcome to dislike a product, but that doesn't make it universally bad.

 

[Tom1956]

You know, it's at least the third time in the same thread that you down talk Rodinal. It's getting really old. Rodinal has its fans because it's a brilliant developer! It does what it does with wonderful results, and if you could open your mind a little bit and see things from the perspective of other people, like Ralph Gibson for example, it would be really wonderful.
You're welcome to dislike a product, but that doesn't make it universally bad.

I'll block the tread from my homepage to avoid temptation. Remember, it's all in fun.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Ralph Gibson for example, it would be really wonderful. You're welcome to dislike a product, but that doesn't make it universally bad.

Neither does liking a product make it universally good. All developers have their strengths and weakness and consideration of this fact should determine what is used in a particular situation. Gibson had a particular look that he wanted. But this look may not be for everyone. I use Rodinal when it gives ME something I want but I would not blindly recommend it for everyone.