I am joining Church of Rodinal

Seeing the title of this thread immediately reminded me of our old friend Morten...from whom we've not heard in a long while. Now, I see that he is still here. Feels like home.

BradS said:

Seeing the title of this thread immediately reminded me of our old friend Morten...from whom we've not heard in a long while. Now, I see that he is still here. Feels like home.

Click to expand...

That's APUG, really. Home away from home.

M. Lointain said:

Rodinal is one of the classic developers. It was the first developer I ever used and still is my main developer. It is practically foolproof unless you do stand developing (sorry). Looking back over all of the images I have made with it over the last two decades I have found that it produces the best negs at 1+25. I even recently started using it with 4x5 at 1+50 rotary processing in a Jobo and the negs are great. That is after years of using various Pyro formulas that are long on promise but short on delivery. If Rodinal is a cult then I am definitely a member.

Click to expand...

So used at normal-for-developer dilutions, using normal means (rotary or normal inversion) for the usual times produces good results, and that makes it worthy of cult status?

I must be a member of the church of T-Max RS and the church of D76 then, and if we expand to "use as directed even if that's unusual" to produce good results then I'm a high priest (because I've used it for many years) of the Church of Diafine.

Not knocking Rodinal, I'm really not. But as others have said other developers work well too. The biggest potential advantage I see in Rodinal, as someone who doesn't get to do darkroom work NEARLY often enough, is the keeping quality of the concentrate. But HC110 concentrate keeps remarkably well too. And for the ultimate, D76 and, even more so, D23 are silly-simple to mix at home and the constituents keep superbly too.

At this stage I'm just happy we have members of the church of film!

I have found that each developer and their various dilutions have distinct personalities and when matched with different films can create a significant array of styles. That's the beauty of silver. Rodinal can make Tri-X terribly harsh and can extend Panatomic-X's tones to levels it was probably not designed to reach. Of course the converse is true as well. If you consider all the possible permutations with the variations of developer, film, dilution, temperature, time, agitation (and yes, lack of agitation if you must) there is a lot of experimentation to be done. That's why most photographers settle on just a few combinations of their favorites. Rodinal is the least expensive if used at its most dilute. More than anything that's probably why I used it a lot. I probably used D76 1:1 more than anything else, however.

I'll always keep the old brown bottle with its corroded rubber stopper as a reminder of those days.

michaelbsc said:

At this stage I'm just happy we have members of the church of film!

Click to expand...

+1!

RODINAL AS PART OF NEW MIX

In one of my books I have a formula wherein Rodinal is used as part of the formula - I have had a quick look in the Barnet Book of Phot' 1898 editon; AGFA Berlin book on neg' proc' 1938 and the BJ Almanac for 1956 - But it may be in one of my older books - However, now is good gardening weather so I will look for that formula this evening, there is only crap on Australian TV tonight

Rodinal adds texture, and yield sharp prints. It has its place, for sure, and depending on how you use it many different results can be had with the same film and developer.
Ask Ralph Gibson why he shoots Tri-X overexposed and then overdevelops. Have you seen his prints? Someone said harsh. Well, I beg to differ. His prints are lucious!

Roger Cole said:

So used at normal-for-developer dilutions, using normal means (rotary or normal inversion) for the usual times produces good results, and that makes it worthy of cult status?

I must be a member of the church of T-Max RS and the church of D76 then, and if we expand to "use as directed even if that's unusual" to produce good results then I'm a high priest (because I've used it for many years) of the Church of Diafine.

Not knocking Rodinal, I'm really not. But as others have said other developers work well too. The biggest potential advantage I see in Rodinal, as someone who doesn't get to do darkroom work NEARLY often enough, is the keeping quality of the concentrate. But HC110 concentrate keeps remarkably well too. And for the ultimate, D76 and, even more so, D23 are silly-simple to mix at home and the constituents keep superbly too.

Click to expand...

Well Roger, I don't know what to say to this. Passive aggressive maybe? I find your comment a little bizarre. I simply like Rodinal. You seem to not like what others like for whatever reason and that is legitimate. This thread is about someone discovering the properties of Rodinal, not T-Max or whatever else. There is a reason a great number of photographers use Rodinal, and have for a hundred years. I don't know anyone that is religious about T-Max RS. Maybe you should start a thread about what you like about T-Max developer? To say that D76 is the ultimate is a stretch. It is a standard, but the ultimate? I find it an incredible boring developer and haven't used it for years. But this is what makes the world go round. Everyone has their own opinion. I have used an incredible number of developers in my life and Rodinal has always stood out because of its ease of use and the quality of the negatives it produces. It also is great in other regards, like it doesn't produce much fog, if any. I recently shot some old T-Max from '93 to test out some new holders for leaks and the film was splotchy and fogged horribly in Pyrocat but was clean as a whistle in Rodinal. These are some of the reasons people love it and are religious about it.

I think I was misunderstood too then. In fact I'm sure of it if you found my comment in any way bizarre. I just don't understand why "I use it in the normal way and it works well" merit cult/church status. It DOES merit "I like this developer" status and that is fine. But why does it merit cult status? Is there something truly unique about the results? And the bigger question now, in my mind, is how on earth anyone could find these questions bizarre or "passive-aggressive" or indicating that I don't like anything? Huh??

Now I do understand your other points and I actually have some Rodinal to experiment with, and I understand Thomas's comments - agreeing would require my duplicating or at least seeing the results, which I may, but I do understand. My prior reply though was in regard to, basically, "it works well." Well ok, but "religious?" and I thought it was obvious but I am far from religious about the three developers I mentioned. They just work well and predictably for me. That's all, but it's all I ask of a developer.

Forgive me Roger. It is late and I am a little ornery tonight. What I should have written was- Rodinal has its following because it is a high acutance, low fog developer that lasts forever and is easy to use. It is also unique because it has a high pH and is still a clean developer thanks to the characteristics of the p-Aminophenol. Off the top of my head I can't think of another developer that has these characteristics. I have made other developers with a high pH but inevitably fog creeps in and a restrainer needs to be added. In any regard Rodinal has it's own tonal characteristics which make it somewhat unique and loved by the people who use it including myself. The only possible downside to Rodinal is an increased possibility under certain circumstances of exaggerated edge effects which is why I won't use it as a stand developer. There are really only a scarce few developers that are good as stand developers though.

FOUND IT

You asked about Rodinal being used as part of a mixture - When it got too hot to work in the garden I found the reference - Barnet Book of Photography 1898, Portraiture Chapter, Harold Baker p89 - However, with today's printing materials I can see no point in mixing it, but here it is

RODINAL AND HYDROKINONE
A
Sod sulphite 1oz
Water 20oz
Citric acid 1 crystal
Pot bromide 1 dram
Hydrokione 2 drams

B
Pot Carbonate 2oz
Water 2oz
Rodinal 1 fl oz

Use 1 part A, 1 part B and 1 part water

I will continue with my now over 26 year old deep tank of D76d, which started life as Agfa 17 in 1985 and has transmuted over the years - I use a very careful replensihment system and a densitometer - So like me it improves with age

John

M. Lointain said:

Forgive me Roger. It is late and I am a little ornery tonight. What I should have written was- Rodinal has its following because it is a high acutance, low fog developer that lasts forever and is easy to use. It is also unique because it has a high pH and is still a clean developer thanks to the characteristics of the p-Aminophenol. Off the top of my head I can't think of another developer that has these characteristics. I have made other developers with a high pH but inevitably fog creeps in and a restrainer needs to be added. In any regard Rodinal has it's own tonal characteristics which make it somewhat unique and loved by the people who use it including myself. The only possible downside to Rodinal is an increased possibility under certain circumstances of exaggerated edge effects which is why I won't use it as a stand developer. There are really only a scarce few developers that are good as stand developers though.

Click to expand...

No problem and thanks for spelling it out this way. I knew of those characteristics, and I have to agree I don't know of another developer that combines them all in one developer. (I also confess I tried it in the 80s and again in the 90s and was unable to get results I liked, making me scratch my head about its popularity. Don't ask for details because I have only vague memories, which is part of why I'm willing to try again.)

I also notice Thomas in another thread talking about it being a great developer for TMY while others didn't agree. Provided one can get tonality they like on it, it would seem to me a great match for modern T-grain films. The biggest downside others have often had with Rodinal with conventional films was that it was a bit grainy in 35mm. TMY has such fine grain that shouldn't be an issue (TMX even more so of course, and even the Deltas, which are grainier than the T-Max films, are finer enough compared to old tech films that they should yield good results too)

I still think the church/cult thing is more than a bit over the top, fine as a joke but it's almost like some folks take it seriously. I really don't think a photograph succeeds or fails due to the developer used. There are some "semi-exceptions" mainly with developers for pushing for low light shots, but even then there are others that will do close enough to make the same photos possible.

My inclusion of D76 in the developers I use was precisely because it's "boring." It works well, is easy to use, and has no real vices. I could say the same of Xtol if it didn't come only in such large sizes and die suddenly without warning sometimes - pretty big drawbacks for my amount of usage. I keep it on hand as a secondary developer to T-Max RS mainly because every film in the world has published data for it, so you can get a starting point that gives printable negatives the first time, and refine that to what you need within one or two rolls. It's nothing to do with the developer itself, it's just so standard. It's sort of the opposite of a church or cult I guess, but then again I'm always a champion of the common folk.

Roger Cole said:

... it's "boring." It works well, is easy to use, and has no real vices. ;

Click to expand...

That reminds me of an old girlfriend...

I think one of the reasons Rodinal has a sort of cult status is that it retained its popularity even through the times where 35mm was king and minimization of grain was the difficult to attain goal of many darkroom workers.

Back before the T-Grain films and the modern, lower grain versions of traditional emulsions came into being.

A choice of Rodinal with old Tri-X was a serious statement, especially when compared with old Tri-X with D76 stock or, wait for it, old Tri-X with Microdol-X.

I first seriously tried Rodinal with T-Max 100 when the film was first introduced. I liked it because it would give a bit more edge to the T-Max, which has very high resolution but lacks the "bite" of older emulsions. I've since stopped using either and joined the Church of Pyrocat. This after many years in the HC-110 congregation. Call me fickle.

I find Rodinal a very interesting developer. With the 1970s Tri-X, it gave an almost square-looking grain. Very crisp and snappy. I have an unopened liter of it in my friend's darkroom right now just waiting for the right project. It certainly has its own look, especially with traditional film emulsions.

Peter Gomena

Michael R 1974 said:

I repeat, Rodinal is not a high acutance developer......

Click to expand...

I would love to hear from where you get your information.

Gainer's thoughts on photochemistry were to put it most politely rather quaint.

Rodinal and PyroCat-HD, nectar of the gods.

I am in the church of no silver bullets. Sure, Rodinal is great for some purposes. So is a bunch of other stuff.

However, your content and composition matters 100x more than any particular photochemistry you might choose.

polyglot said:

I am in the church of no silver bullets. Sure, Rodinal is great for some purposes. So is a bunch of other stuff.

However, your content and composition matters 100x more than any particular photochemistry you might choose.

Click to expand...

This is well said. Rodinal is definitely a fine and viable product, but isn't exactly the rise and fall of good pictures.


An interesting exercise is to shoot the same scene with the same camera, same film, process in different developers, and then make prints. Some would be surprised by the differences. The important thing, however, is to know your materials well enough so that they are not an obstacle in your process, but rather something that is so well anchored in your vision that what you see in front of your lens when you take the picture, you can also see roughly what the resulting print will be like.
To have that clarity of vision is like photographing on instinct, and it means you can leave all of the technical aspect out of your thought process, and you can simply react to the subject matter in front your lens. There's real freedom in that. It's what I strive for in my process, and you can do it with Rodinal, D76, Xtol, Microphen, DD-X, Pyrocat, etc... My own choices are replenished Xtol and some PMK Pyro.


But I also don't want to take anything away from the die-hard Rodinal fans out there. It's a wonderful tool, and if it's your opinion that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, who's going to be able to say that you're wrong? Just continue to love it, use it, and make the wonderful prints that you want to make. If you believe it works, and you like the product, the results will probably be great too. That's what's important in the end anyway.