Ilford XP2 - have you developed in C41 and b/w chemistry?

[Cerebum]

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 Rodinal 1:25. Exposure wise it is actually not bad but the image quality isnt what i hoped for

 

[Cerebum]

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 B

 

[Donald Qualls]

the image quality isnt what i hoped for

Looks like a camera limitation rather than a film/developer issue. What lens was that?

 

[Cerebum]

Looks like a camera limitation rather than a film/developer issue. What lens was that?

Thank you, thats encouraging. the roll of rodinal was in a Voigtlander Vitomatic ii rangefinder. I will try again but this time in my MX. i wanted to bash out a few frames and it was the first camera to hand. the HC110 image was from the MX but that was sporting an A series zoom, so that can be improved upon as well

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Can you take a pic of the two negatives using your phone's camera and share the same?

 

[Cerebum]

Can you take a pic of the two negatives using your phone's camera and share the same?

Certainly can

 

[Cerebum]

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 left

 

[koraks]

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.

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.

 

[Cerebum]

Can you take a pic of the two negatives using your phone's camera and share the same?

One thing that just occurred to me, I used the vitomatic on board meter. It is quite possibly a bit out, although the Rodinal leader is wholly black whereas the hc110 is slightly opaque

 

[Cerebum]

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.

Fair enough, and I completely understand the need for clarity. Sometimes it is too easy to slip into colloquialisms. As a regular contributor to Pentax forums I should know better.
Regarding the negatives, do you place any stock in the darkness of exposed leaders? I know some people like them to be slightly opaque. This is the case with the HC110. I am just processing the images developed in Rodinal and they are looking good. There is a distinct drop off in image quality as Donald pointed out but the tones are lovely. They don't come close to negatives developed in C41 but are very encouraging.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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?

 

[Donald Qualls]

They don't come close to negatives developed in C41 but are very encouraging.

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?

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

They don't come close to negatives developed in C41 but are very encouraging.

To do a fair comparison, all other variables in the test need to be held constant for both settings. Maybe you can shoot a full roll with a reliable camera, cut the roll into two halves, get one half C41 processed and the other in Rodinal 1:25 (~8-9minutes) and then compare?

 

[Cerebum]

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?

Its actually the other way round, the under exposed shots came from the MX. I strongly suspect its my fault and i need to be more careful.

 

[Cerebum]

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?

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

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

If 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.

 

[koraks]

Regarding the negatives, do you place any stock in the darkness of exposed leaders?

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.

 

[Donald Qualls]

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

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.

 

[Cerebum]

If 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.

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 that

 

[Cerebum]

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.

Isn't if funny how some people swear by it. When I was processing the scans I could see that everything you said about the exposure was bang on the trolley in the mud was bang on but the whole scene is a grey card lol. The bridge was close but I soon get nasties in the sky when I try to bring out the detail (both HC110), the tower was rodinal and needed little work because the ambient light meter on the vitomatic gave me a decent exposure.

 

[Cerebum]

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.

I am just a year into my film journey and I totally agree about the fascination. I have some stock ID11 so may give that a go, although doesn't that lose sharpness? There always seems to be a trade off lol. I am not a huge fan of heavy grain, that's why I avoided Rodinal for ages, preferring ID-11 and HC110 which is lovely. I have also dabbled with caffenol, which is fun, if a bit smelly. I went on to the HC110 because I had some pre plus FP4, then I bought some Orwo NP27. The HC110 has given me the nicest results so far, although rodinal at stronger dilutions is catching up fast. This thread and forum is an absolute godsend. I wondered if I had made a mistake buying the XP2 but the help I have received here has put that to bed. What I also find is conversations like this also move me forward in general terms and give me something to work on but its not always as fundamental as getting my exposure right lolol. 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. Occasionally it is nice to use something with less variables (I have a bulk roll of new foma200) the satisfaction you get from getting nice images with something left field (NP27 400 xp1991 and shot at 100) is just so satisfying

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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.

Do share your results (including the negatives) when you have done these tests. And have a lot of fun making good pictures.

 

[MattKing]

On the subject of using nicknames ("Rodders") I would respectfully suggest - please don't. At least don't unless you first clearly define your terms.
I've never seen that used before, and at first I was totally confused with what was posted, until I did a lot of figuring out from context. For a while, I thought it was an error caused by auto-correct!
Nicknames like that tend to be particular to smaller, very localized communities. In some ways, Photrio can be like that sort of community, but in the use of language it is really important to realize that there are people here from many locations around the globe, and many of the members use English as a second or third language.

 

[Donald Qualls]

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...

 

[Cerebum]

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...

Re. my ID-11, I am using it stock and adding 10% each time. 1+1 or 1+2 will need to wait for now I will price up xtol as for higher dilutions and stand in Rodinal, give up? Never every time I use a developer I discover something new, and, given that I have several bulk rolls to play with, everything is just a matter of time