With Rodinal, it seems highly prone to aerial oxidation at working strength.
Okay, but if that's the issue at hand here, I think the example posted by @Milpool above says enough. Yes, rodinal oxidizes readily, but it'll work fine for 1 hour at least, even at 1+100. So it's not as extreme as you make this out to be. Other developers can be more problematic in this regard; esp. staining developers like 510 pyro.
There might (will) be diminishing returns, but that doesn't place them at firm zero after 30 minutes as you implied earlier.
510 pyro
My regular 35mm film is also Fomapan 100, because bought in bulk it's affordable on a tiny pension! I like it (but not more than FP4 that I shot in the 80's and also bought in bulk). When I have a camera with a working meter it's box speed, when not it's a guess or a toy camera without adjustment. It just works for me! I have one p&s camera that tends to favour slow speeds and in which I use K400 (DX coded and a metal cassette). In box cameras I like Fomapan 200 because it's just so flexible. Pity about the black spots that I can't get rid of with my scalpel without wrecking the print! I do not like Fomapan 400 because of the plastic cassette (light leaks straight out of the box and the cassettes won't even fit in some of my cameras). The alternative for me is K400 or Agfa APX400 which are reasonably close to Fomapan prices through internet suppliers in EU. If I used more 400ISO I would probably go to Fomapan to bulk load but I only have one loader and I prefer slower speeds. Gone are my days of Pan F and Tri-X developed in Perceptol - that's poverty (I think!)My walk around film in 35mm is Foma, less expensive Kodak or ILford and about the same as Kentmere, but even in 35mm the anti -halogen layer works better for me in the glare of the desert sun. I do not use Kentmere or its rebranded version only due Foma's 120 curl, I use Foma sheet film in MF and LF size. I find the tones of 200 to be odd, could be that Foma 200 is a mix of T grain and traditional grain. What is nice about 200 is that I can shoot at pretty close to box speed while I shoot 100 from 50 to 80 and 400 from 100 to 250 depending on the developer. Kentmere is also DX coded which is needed when I am using one of my point and shoots without DX override.
Rereading my day book the image I took in the 70s was developed in Rodinal 1:25 at 75 degrees for 30 mint, my note says time was a WAG, which means wild ass guess.
Not really, and I wouldn't expect them to because it's kind of a vague situation where activity is in a grey area and drops off rapidly. Here's what they say in the datasheet for Rodinal/Adonal (which actually is an Agfa datasheet they still use):
View attachment 418271
This leaves an open question what constitutes "a short time".
I eventually stopped using 510-pyro at dilutions other than 1+100 because I found the times too unpredictable,
With some films, with enough solution volume - which does not equal all films. The test was also done to look into stand development - if you add enough agitation to resolve the major uneveness that @Milpool mentions, that will effectively aerate the developer too, unless you use nitrogen gas burst (I think some of the testing by others was done with regular agitation). A density/ time curve would demonstrate when diminishing returns rapidly set in, but would require much more extensive work.
I'd also add that the 30 min result is roughly equal to what Agfa (US) suggested would be the outcome of 20 mins with regular agitation, and that the average gradients and curve shapes tell a key story about something that can be achieved in much less time with Xtol and regular agitation (and the potential to land higher aim densities).
The way the film is digitized does make a difference and a flatbed tend to smooth things out a bit.I actually have a quick question that just popped into my mind : is it possible, on the images of that roll of HP5 at 3200 in Rodinal that the grain appears not overwhelming (at least to my taste) because they were scanned on an Epson V600 ? Would that grain appear much more prominent if "digitized" with a DSLR and macro lens ??
I actually have a quick question that just popped into my mind : is it possible, on the images of that roll of HP5 at 3200 in Rodinal that the grain appears not overwhelming (at least to my taste) because they were scanned on an Epson V600 ? Would that grain appear much more prominent if "digitized" with a DSLR and macro lens ??
Even modern film like HP5+ TriX, and even Kentmere are much more fine grained than films from the 70 and 60s, when pushed to 3200 a three stop push. I don't if the manner in which you scanned it made that much of difference.
The way the film is digitized does make a difference and a flatbed tend to smooth things out a bit.
The grain will be blurrier at a lower resolution. How contrasty the grain is largely depends on how much you or your scanner's software increased the contrast. Also, the last thing you want to do is use a sharpening radius setting that primarily sharpens the grain. I don't sharpen at all. These are Tri-X in HC-110.
I'm not very well versed in how much films that have existed for a long time, like Tri-X or Ilford films, have evolved over time, but yes, they usually look less grainy to me than old photographs. I suppose I'll see for myself when I try to digitize them if it looks really different.
There is a channel on YT I just stumbled upon while looking at ways to push HP5 and their results. This guy ("Dan Mars, Photographer?" is the name of his channel) has pushed some films way beyond what I thought was possible, like FP4 @800 in Rodinal, and the results are honestly surprisingly good (at least, if you like that kind of look, which I completely understand if people don't). And he "scans" with a Leica SL2, so... Anyway.
Thank you for your answers !
I scanned them at 2400dpi (which, as far as I can tell, is the maximum realistic resolution of the V600). As for the contrast, I think I tried to make them quite flat (I don't remember exactly, that was like... in 2021, maybe). I don't remember either if the V600 does some sharpening or not. The results I've shared have not been sharpened in Lightroom, at all. And they looked like straight from the scanner.
Are these still Kentmere 400 at 3200 in Rodinal at 1+50 for 30 mins? Whatever these are they look pretty good to me
pentaxuser
I'm not very well versed in how much films that have existed for a long time, like Tri-X or Ilford films, have evolved over time, but yes, they usually look less grainy to me than old photographs. I suppose I'll see for myself when I try to digitize them if it looks really different.
Ah, no, sorry ! They're the old HP5+ at 3200, Rodinal 1+50, 52 minutes.
It is hard to compare old prints with new scans, because of the differences in the films, differences in printing tastes, differences in enlargers - e.g. condenser light sources vs. diffused light sources - and differences in reproduction media - e.g. magazine pages vs, phone screens!
But yes, Tri-X in the 1970s was more grainy than it is now, and we used to print it or share it in ways that showed it clearly.
These pages are most of my 1970s 35mm black and white negatives and almost all of them are Tri-X:
View attachment 418388
It is hard to compare old prints with new scans, because of the differences in the films, differences in printing tastes, differences in enlargers - e.g. condenser light sources vs. diffused light sources - and differences in reproduction media - e.g. magazine pages vs, phone screens!
But yes, Tri-X in the 1970s was more grainy than it is now, and we used to print it or share it in ways that showed it clearly.
These pages are most of my 1970s 35mm black and white negatives and almost all of them are Tri-X
OK and thanks. For what it is worth I have an old Afga film development sheet and HP5+ is one of the films that is not recommended for Rodinal
Maybe Agfa were wrong?
Wow, Matt even the inside covers of the album look grainy
pentxuser
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?