XP2 in Rodinal 1:25. Exposure wise it is actually not bad but the image quality isnt what i hoped for
Sounds good and you seem to be on the right track. You may want to use 1:50 dilution the next time.
Do share your results when you've scanned the negatives.
XP2 in HC110 dilution BSounds good and you seem to be on the right track. You may want to use 1:50 dilution the next time.
Do share your results when you've scanned the negatives.
the image quality isnt what i hoped for
Looks like a camera limitation rather than a film/developer issue. What lens was that?
Can you take a pic of the two negatives using your phone's camera and share the same?
Sorry, those were scanned. The Agfa Rodinal is on the leftCan you take a pic of the two negatives using your phone's camera and share the same?
Is this really necessary! Rodders is a colloquial term we use verbally, two syllables as opposed to three! Had I known there was a philological imperative to adhere rigidly to nomenclature I would have referred to it as Adox Rodinal but I presumed, based on the superb guidance I received from other participants, that we were a friendly and helpful group in which I could relax, "man"! You talk of benefits, does it not occur to you that a reply like that benefits no one and we would have been better served by a request to stick to real names.I am extremely open to correction, especially as you and the other participants know significantly more about the subject than I do but no one responds well to sarcasm.
Can you take a pic of the two negatives using your phone's camera and share the same?
Well, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but I had to re-read your initial post in which you spoke of 'Rodders' a couple of time to figure out what you meant. That you use the term colloquially doesn't mean everyone just 'gets' it. Furthermore, this being an international forum, unnecessarily oblique language doesn't help participants who are non-native speakers (or even, 'barely speakers') to grasp what is going on. Perhaps my reply was unnecessarily sarcastic, in which case I apologize, but the undertone was serious: I personally would indeed prefer it if people would stick with official names, for clarity's sake. This in no means has to stand in the way of a pleasant exchange; quite the contrary.
PS: your strip on the right (HC110, right?) looks significantly under-developed, and probably also underexposed. The one on the left looks properly exposed, and perhaps developed a tad long, which would not bother me much; it's usually better to have a little too much density than not enough.
They don't come close to negatives developed in C41 but are very encouraging.
They don't come close to negatives developed in C41 but are very encouraging.
Right side strip is underexposed as expected as your EI is 400. It is also underdeveloped. You can increase developing time but it won't compensate for the underexposure.
Left side strip looks adequately exposed (as if your EI was 100) but overdeveloped. You can reduce developing time by 20-25%.
BTW could it be that your Vito camera is overexposing by a stop or two?
In what way? One might expect Rodinal to give more visible grain than C-41, for a couple reasons, but is that the only issue?
Regarding the negatives, do you place any stock in the darkness of exposed leaders?
I think its the shadow detail. quite a few people have said that is how it is when shot at 400. to be honest i think my technique needs work. i had some shots from the HC110 that were correctly exposed and you could tell straight away. i suspect this film isnt forgiving at all. i need to keep that in mind and take more care
The vitomatic uses ambient light but the MX is more like spot metering. I have been a bit too reliant on it since it came back from a cla and have probably been metering off the wrong spot. I have a great app that I use with my Yashica Mat, I am going to start using thatIf you have a reliable external light meter, you can use that for metering instead of the camera's inbuilt meter. Even smartphone light meter apps should be good enough for this purpose. And you may want to bracket a few shots (400, 200, 100) next time and see what speed gives you the best results.
Not really, no. I find leader density hard to interpret because it varies quite a bit according to the film used, and all sorts of non-linearity can be expected at the extreme end of the density scale. I myself stick to interpreting the image itself and if present, the edge numbering. In the end, of course, the only relevant test is if the film will scan/print as desired. That may sound rather obvious, but IMO it's good to keep it in mind when optimizing development. At some point you run into differences in taste and habit.
Rodinal and its various clones are well known as speed losing developers -- anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 stop off what you'd get with D-76 in the same process, depending on the film. So this isn't unexpected, though XP2 Super has enough latitude you'll probably do fine with it unless you're one of those who digs into their shadows with a loupe.
What I did with Parodinal when I used it a lot was to used high dilution (1:50) and reduce agitation to every third minute, and then extend development (worked out to about 2x MDC time) to restore normal contrast. This recovered all of that speed (maybe even a bit more) through compensating effect combined with giving the dilute developer plenty of time to work on the shadow regions, and ought to work as well with XP2 Super as it did with Foma 400. Doesn't do any favors on grain, but I didn't find it objectionable from Foma 400 (even 35 mm), and XP2 Super should be finer in the same developer.
Where I am at so far is reducing development time for rodinal 1:25 at 20° to 9 minutes and increasing the development time in HC110 1:31 from 5:30 to 6:30.
I have some stock ID11 so may give that a go, although doesn't that lose sharpness?
Don't forget you can dilute your ID-11 -- at 1+1 or 1+2 you gain a little apparent sharpness (at the cost of giving up some grain softening). Another option, if you spend a few more dollars/pounds, is Xtol (or LegacyPro's EcoPro, or Adox XT-3). Actual Xtol is sharper than ID-11/D-76, reduces the appearance of grain more, and gains a small amount of speed (1/3 stop?) by comparison, and can be diluted the same ways. If you process more than a few rolls a month, you can also replenish Xtol (and its clones) to get stock solution results at significantly reduced cost (Ilford has instructions for making ID-11 replenisher from a second ID-11 packet, as well).
I'd very much suggest trying Rodinal (et al) at 1:50 with 3 minute agitation and longer development before you give up on it, though...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?