HP5+, Rodinal, Minimising Grain ?

[Toffle]

Give me the negs or a proper print of each of those images and I'll give you the right answers.
For all I know, these scans could all be lightroomed and silverefex'd from
A P&S. If you are really serious about it and not just smartarsing us, I will PM you my address for you to send me the negs/prints. It will then be my pleasure to play.
Thanks.

I swear, there is something in the APUG water lately that is making people really grumpy. I would hate to imagine what a neophyte would think had they asked such an innocent question as to how to maximize results from a given film/developer combination. We are doing more harm than good for the film community by making personal attacks on someone who is not only curious enough to ask a question, but motivated to do some serious testing of a hyphothesis. It is far below us to cast personal aspersions on someone for simply having a different workflow than we ourselves are accustomed to using.

Many of the great European photographers made their names documenting life in sidewalk cafes and hole-in-the-wall restaurants, but it is below us to take a picture in an American fast food restaurant? Really? As for stand or semi-stand development, there are numerous threads here on APUG in which these processes are discussed in great detail, and with respect for the photographers using these processes. Why choose this discussion to denigrate someone for using the process?

Why is it necessary that the OP proves that his process is not digitally adulterated? Is his word not good enough for you?

The film photography community should be positive and supportive. This kind of personal attack is below us. Go take some pictures, for goodness sake, and don't come back until you feel you can be civil.

Regards,
Tom

 

[zsas]

Standing ovation Tom....

The water seems to be filled with skunked beer or something I swear too!

I admire the OP for bringing up a topic, that is what a community is for, to talk....

If we all sat around and said, "It's been done, just check the great texts (aka archives)." Then why the heck is this a FORUM?! He...

I don't get it either. Though I don't agree with stand, I even tried to mirror the OP's process, just to give his theory a check, posted my results, instead of dismissing him.

Talk folks! As Tom says, give each other the same benefit that you'd give em if you were sharing a pizza and a drink shooting the breeze....just don't drink and bring here a skunked drink, sour and bitter...heeee

 

[TheToadMen]

I swear, there is something in the APUG water lately that is making people really grumpy. I would hate to imagine what a neophyte would think had they asked such an innocent question as to how to maximize results from a given film/developer combination. We are doing more harm than good for the film community by making personal attacks on someone who is not only curious enough to ask a question, but motivated to do some serious testing of a hyphothesis. It is far below us to cast personal aspersions on someone for simply having a different workflow than we ourselves are accustomed to using.

Many of the great European photographers made their names documenting life in sidewalk cafes and hole-in-the-wall restaurants, but it is below us to take a picture in an American fast food restaurant? Really? As for stand or semi-stand development, there are numerous threads here on APUG in which these processes are discussed in great detail, and with respect for the photographers using these processes. Why choose this discussion to denigrate someone for using the process?

Why is it necessary that the OP proves that his process is not digitally adulterated? Is his word not good enough for you?

The film photography community should be positive and supportive. This kind of personal attack is below us. Go take some pictures, for goodness sake, and don't come back until you feel you can be civil.

Regards,
Tom

+1

Thank you, Tom.

 

[Truzi]

I swear, there is something in the APUG water lately that is making people really grumpy...

I agree. I was even considering a thread on the subject. The past couple months seem to have had a very adversarial tone in general on the forum. It's one thing to debate and disagree, and another to argue and insult.

 

[mrred]

Maybe it's just time to turn on the light and open the door to get outside for some fresh air. I recommend shooting (hand held) with the bulkiest camera we have for exercise.

 

[polyglot]

I swear, there is something in the APUG water lately that is making people really grumpy. I would hate to imagine what a neophyte would think had they asked such an innocent question as to how to maximize results from a given film/developer combination.

Hear hear.

Just don't try going to LFPF, it's frequently even more poisonous with a cadre of self-appointed experts who seem to have "being smugly narrow-minded/unhelpful" and "insulting people" as their day-job. It's a pity, because there are also some wonderful people there too.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If it can remain civil, I actually think it's good that something like standing development gets scrutinized, because it is a little bit controversial (as we can clearly see here). It's good for future generations to be able to search for threads to see that some people claim it to be the best thing since sliced bread, and others vehemently oppose it. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, and hopefully that person is smart enough to realize that when they look into it.

Having tried standing development, as well as intermittent agitation, for a couple of years, using Rodinal and Pyrocat, I have had all the problems in the book with uneven development and wonky tonality. With standing development, it is a matter of time WHEN you will get that problem, not IF. But it does have its virtues, if you consider the work of Steve Sherman, for example, who has done some breathtaking work using the technique.
Like with everything else, any technique has virtues and limitations, and it matters a lot more HOW we incorporate that into our work flow, than the technique itself, which is always secondary to skill, ingenuity, curiosity, inventiveness, passion, observation, and application.

Have fun and make good photographs.

 

[Ian Grant]

The point of this thread was whether it's possible to get finer grain from Rodinal with faster films, a worth while question and discussion is/was about whether adding other chemicals could help.

There's nothing inherently wrong with this idea, whether it's worthwhile is another issue but if someone wants to try there's no reason to attack their ideas.

There is a lot of disinformation about some developers usually frrom those who should know better, as MichaelR says Stand, Rodinal, Pyro, Amidol, all have their place, as for myths I fear it's usually people deriding them because they aren't to their own personal liking. It's the final results that count, how you get there is craft.

Ian

 

[zsas]

That was the point Ian, but for those that followed the whole thread the OP determined that the salt w and w/o had no impact on grain, however, it was noticed that a stand 1:100+salt yielded (on a scan) an nice looking image.....

However it was also noted (and validated by my own test) that there is uneven development in the stand 1:100+salt technique

So we sit here today, wondering if any of the 'stand' folks can overcome the streaking (or over dev on the right side as noted by - I forget).

This is not a dead thread but a challenge at this point, if someone can overcome the 1:100+salt-streak-paradox we might have the Ming-Rider-Rodinal-semi-stand-salt-technique

That's the deal here.

We have streaking on negs as shown by the OP and me

If someone can solve for that, then we might have an alternative dev tech that someone might add to his/her bag'a tricks

I can't stand that there is a contingent of folks that want this line of thought to fail. I want the OP to succeed (regardless if I am not a stand type of guy)...

 

[viridari]

For those with streaks, how much working solution did you have, vs. how many spools of film were in the tank?

I'll stand one or two rolls in 1L of working solution, and swirl for initial and midway agitation, and my Tri-X doesn't seem to suffer streaks.

 

[zsas]

^Criteria is defined in posts #67 a #75 or so....

The working "theory" is that salt + stand = streaks

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

For those with streaks, how much working solution did you have, vs. how many spools of film were in the tank?

I'll stand one or two rolls in 1L of working solution, and swirl for initial and midway agitation, and my Tri-X doesn't seem to suffer streaks.

Various levels of working solution, based on a minimum of 3ml concentrate per roll of film (Rodinal). Sometimes I used 5ml per film, and sometimes 6ml. I got uneven development from all types of films, mainly FP4+ and Kodak Tri-X, but also Fuji Neopan 400 and Efke films. There was no pattern to why some rolls came out uneven and others did not. I should add that much of the subject matter I photograph has even tonality, or slowly shifting tonality, like sky, a calm water surface, a wall that is uniform in texture, etc - subject matter where those types of things would reveal themselves very readily.
If I photographed in the woods, where lots of abrupt changes in tonality take place, with tree trunks, leaves, tree branches, etc, make it almost impossible to distinguish slightly uneven tonality.

That's my experience. Some rolls were perfect. Others were not. I'd say maybe a 70% good / 30% bad ratio.

 

[zsas]

Michael do you realize that the OP approached the query with one idea, then branched into a side analysis....does salt+1:100 stand yield a nice image?

Had he scientifically quantified the virtues if stand, he'd be no where

Can't we just agree that the artist Thomas cites had nice results (eg Steve Sherman), and thus your whole point that the virtues of stand need to be proven before beginning any suggestion that salt is a new varriable that can have any effect on outcome?

I was reading an article today oddly enough suggesting that those in science need to experiment....

Sometimes the formal (eg six sigma) approach is great, but to find a new N....outside the box


Don't believe me, search "Google X Labs)...

 

[zsas]

I thought the OP did 4 tests (1+25, 1+25 w salt, 1+100, 1+100 w salt)

See posts #65-75 or so....

Heck Polygot have him kudos for attempting a controlled test

He's not perfect but I thought the OP's design was well thought out, executed

What shd he do to be better?

Regardless if I got the artist wrong who used X dev vs Y, there are examples of artists making great art w stand. So if they can accept a steak or two 3 out of 10 roll (what Thomas mentions) that is their deal....

I have done stand a few times and not liked it, but I can't deny a photo that looks great having used it...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Well to give one quick example, were all the test films developed to the same contrast?

Again, I'm not saying great work can't be done with stand-developed negatives. Of course it can.

All I'm suggesting is, if you were a Rodinal user and were considering using stand development, and you came across this thread, wouldn't you want to know what kind of tonality to expect? What kind of film speed to expect? What kind of local contrast compression (if any) there is? Etc.? Wouldn't you want to know how adding Sodium Chloride changed things vs straight Rodinal?

Michael is absolutely correct, especially if there is a need to quantify the findings. Developing the negatives to the same contrast is very important if you want a comparison that actually tells you exactly what differences you can expect to find. Unless you do this, it isn't a true comparison of what truly happens with the negative. It just isn't. There are too many other variables to draw any conclusions and with certainty claim a specific result.

And Andy is correct too, because there are a lot of photographers who don't want to quantify their findings, they just want to try things, a little bit flying by the seat of their pants (like me), because they just care about the print, and the numbers don't matter.

Can't we have both in the same thread?

 

[zsas]

I thought his 4 tests attempted to show the impact....maybe not to your liking (densimeter, step wedges, etc)

I am a Rodinal user, if I wanted to do stand, I wouldn't expect such a formal approach to a out side of the box approach to dev.

Everyone knows that stand dev is not recommended by the manufactures of the film and chems. No one expects a formal curve log or whatnot

Use it, if you like it and losing a roll or two is ok, give it a go....

I personally don't like it but I will not presume anyone who uses it and doesn't have "the notes I require" to be not able to talk about its virtues

See what I think happens here is some like stand others want scientific predictable outcomes

Thomas, one of Apug's greats got to 70% predictability of results, if that was good/not enough for him is his deal.....it's not your deal to say you expect 100% probability and therefore stand is not a good option....

 

[zsas]

Can't we have both in the same thread?

Yes, so long as folks are constructive. If a person requesting a more scientific model wants that, then he/she needs to propose how that could be done. Not, the results are junk because I didn't do the test. We need folks saying stuff like "send me the negs, I'll plot them..." Not ".....shesh you don't have a densimeter, these negs are not possible to eval..."

More constructive-group-think-community. Not no, it can't be done because you did it wrong....

 

[Ian Grant]

That was the point Ian, but for those that followed the whole thread the OP determined that the salt w and w/o had no impact on grain, however, it was noticed that a stand 1:100+salt yielded (on a scan) an nice looking image.....

However it was also noted (and validated by my own test) that there is uneven development in the stand 1:100+salt technique

So we sit here today, wondering if any of the 'stand' folks can overcome the streaking (or over dev on the right side as noted by - I forget).

This is not a dead thread but a challenge at this point, if someone can overcome the 1:100+salt-streak-paradox we might have the Ming-Rider-Rodinal-semi-stand-salt-technique

That's the deal here.

We have streaking on negs as shown by the OP and me

If someone can solve for that, then we might have an alternative dev tech that someone might add to his/her bag'a tricks

I can't stand that there is a contingent of folks that want this line of thought to fail. I want the OP to succeed (regardless if I am not a stand type of guy)...

I'm not an advocate of stand development, I'd not use it if adding Sodium Chloride, you get good edge sharpness with dilute developers anyway with normal agitation, and then I wouldnt use 1+100 with Sodium Chloride added.

My best results with Rodinal were using it between 1+25 & 1+50 at 3 +100, and this dilution gave me superb results with normal lighting/contrast for about 20 years in all formats. One caveat I never used films faster than Agfa APX100 or Kodak's 50 EI equivalent Tmax 100.

If I were to add Chloride I'd use something similar to the 3+100 as a starting point and no way would I use stand development and such a low dilution as 1+100.

Ian

 

[polyglot]

Heck Polygot have him kudos for attempting a controlled test

He's not perfect but I thought the OP's design was well thought out, executed

For the test to be truly valuable, the negatives would need to be shot in unvarying light (IIRC one was a bit dimmer? I would go with a flash-lit scene with lots of sharp detail and a step wedge) and developed to the same contrast index, or at least printed thereto. This is actually quite important because the usual contrast controls (amount of development and paper grade) will dramatically hide or emphasise grain. And of course it'd be nice to know if the film speeds varied with the addition of salt. Getting the CI identical across all the tested options will take probably 3 to 5 development runs for each option... and there goes a couple of whole weekends.

Doing that test properly is an incredible amount of work and I don't care enough about the variations on Rodinal to do it myself. I use it at 1+50 rotary because I personally don't like the look of the highlights with stand development, so I'm not going to bother quantifying its exact performance in that regime. And similarly, I only use it on very fine films, so I don't care much about the variations in grain one can cause by adding salts or what have you.

 

[zsas]

Poly - Good points and test bias is a valid discussion point, though when I watched the OP's video, he sure shot all those a frames pretty quick....not too certain that the light changed too drastically.....but back to his theory, salt might "enhance" Rodinal.....well...in my book this is a dead theory till somone can overcome the edge streaking. I like the idea that folks are looking to mod devs to get a look. Just want to be certain that round here folks don't throw out the baby with the bath water (err salt water ) because the test model isn't perfect. I see lots of folks round here denouncing the test model for people's experiments when there is data....though not perfect. But chasing bad data we all need to ensure we check each others back about.....


I sure liked that look of the salt+1+100 for HP5+....but that edge stuff....for the birds...
Back to my Rodinal 1+25 or 50 for most my needs


Maybe Holmburgers will continue this line-a-thought or someone new to this quite old science....

I just think there is so much still to be uncovered....it's only a hundred or so years old....

 

[markbarendt]

I am a Rodinal user, if I wanted to do stand, I wouldn't expect such a formal approach to a out side of the box approach to dev.

Zsas, for myself, I can do any which old test/variation and learn something from it. That's because I'm essentially the baseline.

The problem comes when I try to explain it to somebody else so that they can use the info. I can't be a good baseline for you unless you know all my quirks.

In the OP's test the salted films were less dense and he liked that, so what? Why would I care? If less density works better for him in a given type of shot great, but we can reduce density with reduced time or temp or more dilution or get a similar effect by using a softer paper grade. We haven't even scratched the surface, let alone answered the question of why I would want to use salt.

 

[zsas]

But that attitude that one can solve a riddle with a more mainstream route (ie agitation, Dilution, paper grade), doesn't mean that we shouldn't promote the OP from finding say a 5th varriable....

I am seeing many folks here who are Rodinal users (myself included) not too keen on the idea of using salted water....but we cant discourage the question from being raised and experiments done since we might find the exploration pointless. I thank many of those "this salt business is a dumb idea" have caused a Negative vibe from a great theory....just because there is a list of Apug-polarizing-terms (eg stand, pyrocat, lomo, etc) doesn't need we can't encourage thought...

 

[markbarendt]

I'm not suggesting that any one not experiment, I'm suggesting that we let the evidence guide us.

The one advantage the OP was hoping for didn't succeed.

The characteristic the OP liked about the salted process, doesn't require salt.

Those are the two take aways from his test.

 

[Toffle]

But that attitude that one can solve a riddle with a more mainstream route (ie agitation, Dilution, paper grade), doesn't mean that we shouldn't promote the OP from finding say a 5th varriable....

I am seeing many folks here who are Rodinal users (myself included) not too keen on the idea of using salted water....but we cant discourage the question from being raised and experiments done since we might find the exploration pointless. I thank many of those "this salt business is a dumb idea" have caused a Negative vibe from a great theory....just because there is a list of Apug-polarizing-terms (eg stand, pyrocat, lomo, etc) doesn't need we can't encourage thought...

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

 

[Ming Rider]

I've been thinking long and hard about the 1:100 Salt process. I like the intense contrast but as we know there's the lighter streak on the right.

My theory is that despite the salt being dissolved, over the 1 hour period there has been some form of seperation of the salt and water on a microscopic level, the salt thus settling to the bottom of the tank.

This may be confirmed by the 1:25 Salt not displaying the streak, due to the much shorter dev' time and the frequent agitation and therefore re-mixing of the Salt/Water/Rodinal solution?

I'm assuming the right hand side of the film was on the bottom, thus receiving the higher salt concentration, therefore producing a darker side to the neg' and as a result, a lighter positive image.

So I'm going to run the test again of the 1:100 Salt. This time dev' will still be 1 hour but with a 10 second agitation every 10 minutes.

Note: Yes there are other methods, developers or films to achieve the same or better result, but I like the look of the neg'. So what's the harm? It's my time, life, money etc . . .

Besides, I really fancy the idea of having a development technique named after me (or my 'net alias).

P.S. Maybe gravity has been the secret achilles heel of Stand Developing all this time. Seperation of Water and Developer with accumulation at the bottom of the tank equals uneven development ??