Leica Fotografie article on film developers

[clogz]

My Rodinal..right or wrong!

 

[hansbeckert]

My Rodinal..right or wrong!

Let us not go softly into that good night....

Let us go grainily, foggily, and very dilutedly...

 

[TPPhotog]

My Rodinal..right or wrong!

and it's the best soup I've ever had in me whole life and it always understands me. RIGHT !!!!!!

 

[clogz]

Now Jorge, is it true ..about this Mexican Rodinal with a worm at the bottom of the bottle that eats away any excess grain?

 

[Jorge]

Now Jorge, is it true ..about this Mexican Rodinal with a worm at the bottom of the bottle that eats away any excess grain?

Some of us preffer to take the worm out ......
we like the damn grain the way it is, 30 year articles not withstanding.

 

[clogz]

Alexander Pope: What was often thought but never so well expressed.

 

[TPPhotog]

Some of us preffer to take the worm out ......
we like the damn grain the way it is, 30 year articles not withstanding.

There's nothing like beautiful vintage grain to show that life is worth living. I hope your going to top that jug up with some of that Glennmorangie before the worm drinks any

 

[hansbeckert]

There's nothing like beautiful grain to show that life is worth living. I hope your going to top that jug up with some of that Glennmorangie before the worm drinks any

The point of posting this article was to show how the different films and developers stack up in comparisons. Rodinal is not horrible, but it comes in pretty close to dead last on a number of scores relevant to 35mm users...

 

[clogz]

May the beauty of God-given light be with you.
And now off to bed....I don't want to be in Dutch with my Teddy Bear!

 

[Jorge]

There's nothing like beautiful vintage grain to show that life is worth living. I hope your going to top that jug up with some of that Glennmorangie before the worm drinks any

Sorry Tony, nobody, but nobody gets my Glennmorangie.....but I have a collection of Rodinal worms I am willing to share with mezcal....you up to it?

 

[TPPhotog]

The point of posting this article was to show how the different films and developers stack up in comparisons. Rodinal is not horrible, but it comes in pretty close to dead last on a number of scores relevant to 35mm users...

Strange I'm a 35mm user and they didn't ask me but there again I was only errrm 8(ish) when that data was valid. As I said it's not a "magic bullet" but from mine and many others perspective it's a beautiful developer and now I use it for everything from iso 25 to 3200 and love it.

Waitress another round for my friends and myself if you please .....

 

[roteague]

The product is not 'best in class'.

Sure it is; to the people who like it and use it. That is all that matters. You might as well ask which is better, Nikon or Cannon, Kodak or Fuji, or even Ford or Chevy. It's subjective.

 

[stephen]

The point of posting this article was to show how the different films and developers stack up in comparisons. Rodinal is not horrible, but it comes in pretty close to dead last on a number of scores relevant to 35mm users...

I enjoyed the article. Reading data on films I remember was good fun. But the developers as well as the films are proprietary products, and as far as I can see, there is no reason why they should be the same today any more than the films they were tested on.

D76 may appear to be an exception, but when I started in photography D76 and ID11 had exactly the same published formula. The latest ones I have seen are similar, but not identical. Anchell and Troop's book says that commercial formulae have indeed changed over time.

The reason I quoted the part I did was because it specifically mentioned scores relevant to 35mm users. Criteria change with format size, as Hans has implicitly stated here. I have not developed a B&W 35mm film in years.

Rodinal has certain objective features that I set against the more subjective ones:

1 You can always make up your own from formulae if Agfa stops making it. This may not be the case with Acutol (although Geoffrey Crawley sportingly made the formula for Acutol-S public when Paterson discontinued it).

2. You can vary the dilution to vary the effect in a way that seems to me difficult to match with any other developer.

Final point. I did try Acutol back in the 1960s and found the prints I made amazingly sharp (Pan F in 35mm). I did not continue using it on a regular basis because the "look" of the negatives did not suit my own subjective preferences. Possibly others would look at my negatives (and/or prints) and think that they would have been improved by using Acutol. But I am the one doing the developing, so I get to make the choice.

 

[hansbeckert]

Sure it is; to the people who like it and use it. That is all that matters. You might as well ask which is better, Nikon or Cannon, Kodak or Fuji, or even Ford or Chevy. It's subjective.

Well, not really. In the class of developers to which Rodinal belongs (non-solvent), it comes up pretty much dead last, as the LF article shows. For instance Neofin Blau gives a good deal more speed on KB14 and Pan-F (both still avaialble) Panatomic-X (discontinued), and better sharpness on Isopan IFF (a discontinued AGFA film). Rodinal gives lower than average sharpness on several films (some discontinued).

If you are interested in maximizing the quality of your negatives, you'll want the very last bit of detail and speed. Rodinal will not give you the very last bit of detail and speed, but it may give you enough detail and speed for many uses. It's just that Acutol blows Rodinal away. If you think Rodinal is good (and you may well) then you'll go nuts over Acutol.

 

[MikeK]

Actually I have found Rodinal quite a remarkable developer for practicing the zone system, and depending on dilution enables both contraction and expansion simply through changing the dilution and development time. What is more I find this works admirably with 35 mm film.

- Mike

 

[hansbeckert]

Actually I have found Rodinal quite a remarkable developer for practicing the zone system, and depending on dilution enables both contraction and expansion simply through changing the dilution and development time. What is more I find this works admirably with 35 mm film.

- Mike

But of course one does not use the zoan sistern with 35mm....

 

[hansbeckert]

I enjoyed the article. Reading data on films I remember was good fun. But the developers as well as the films are proprietary products, and as far as I can see, there is no reason why they should be the same today any more than the films they were tested on.

D76 may appear to be an exception, but when I started in photography D76 and ID11 had exactly the same published formula. The latest ones I have seen are similar, but not identical. Anchell and Troop's book says that commercial formulae have indeed changed over time.

The reason I quoted the part I did was because it specifically mentioned scores relevant to 35mm users. Criteria change with format size, as Hans has implicitly stated here. I have not developed a B&W 35mm film in years.

Rodinal has certain objective features that I set against the more subjective ones:

1 You can always make up your own from formulae if Agfa stops making it. This may not be the case with Acutol (although Geoffrey Crawley sportingly made the formula for Acutol-S public when Paterson discontinued it).

2. You can vary the dilution to vary the effect in a way that seems to me difficult to match with any other developer.

Final point. I did try Acutol back in the 1960s and found the prints I made amazingly sharp (Pan F in 35mm). I did not continue using it on a regular basis because the "look" of the negatives did not suit my own subjective preferences. Possibly others would look at my negatives (and/or prints) and think that they would have been improved by using Acutol. But I am the one doing the developing, so I get to make the choice.

I doubt very much whether the developers we still have today have changed in any significant way. There's no reason to. When a new developer is introduced or an existing one is modified, it is the name is changed. Kodak Microdol became Microdol-X. Paterson Aculux became Aculux-2.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Well, not really. In the class of developers to which Rodinal belongs (non-solvent), it comes up pretty much dead last, ...
....It's just that Acutol blows Rodinal away. If you think Rodinal is good (and you may well) then you'll go nuts over Acutol.

It might be an idea to give this a rest. You *assume* that if no one here prefers Acutol, it NECESSARILY means they have not tried it ... a VERY LARGE assumption.

I prefer Rodinal. That does NOT mean that I do not wish to learn, or that I simply refuse to learn, nor do I deliberately blind myself from some undeniable truth.

I have as much RIGHT to prefer Rodinal as anyone else has to prefer anything else...

We are not trying to silence you. We ARE reading what you write, but its very repetition is becoming tiresome. We understand what you are saying - repeating it over and over again will not add to its credibility.

Vive' Rodinal - the elixer of the GODS!!

 

[hansbeckert]

It might be an idea to give this a rest. You *assume* that if no one here prefers Acutol, it NECESSARILY means they have not tried it ... a VERY LARGE assumption.

I prefer Rodinal. That does NOT mean that I do not wish to learn, or that I simply refuse to learn, nor do I deliberately blind myself from some undeniable truth.

I have as much RIGHT to prefer Rodinal as anyone else has to prefer anything else...

We are not trying to silence you. We ARE reading what you write, but its very repetition is becoming tiresome. We understand what you are saying - repeating it over and over again will not add to its credibility.

Vive' Rodinal - the elixer of the GODS!!

Of course you do. It's just that I hear so many people talking about Rodinal lately, and I have to point out that it's really not that great...that's all. Things go in cycles. Products are rediscovered every few years.

 

[Jorge]

Of course you do. It's just that I hear so many people talking about Rodinal lately, and I have to point out that it's really not that great...that's all. Things go in cycles. Products are rediscovered every few years.

Please see:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

and

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

The developer is only as good as the person using it. If you dont think is not that good, that is your opinion, just dont try to force your opinion on us. You probably just did not know how to use Rodinal. That is much more likely than saying is not good in face of evidence to the contrary.

as you were told before, give it a rest......

 

[hansbeckert]

Please see:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

and

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

The developer is only as good as the person using it. If you dont think is not that good, that is your opinion, just dont try to force your opinion on us. You probably just did not know how to use Rodinal. That is much more likely than saying is not good in face of evidence to the contrary.

as you were told before, give it a rest......

The one is 4x5! The other is Pan-F medium format! Of course, the developer does not matter so much with large format or slow films. In 35mm, it matters a great deal more. If you would run some tests on 35mm Tri-X, for instance, you'd be more open to discussion...

 

[Jorge]

This is 4x5! Of course, the developer does not matter so much with large format. In 35mm, it matters a great deal more. If you would run some tests on 35mm Tri-X, for instance, you'd be more open to discussion...

You are on bubba, will you then shut up, this is a very nice forum and we dont need the likes of know it alls like you. One print comming up.....

 

[Aggie]

The only discussion seems to be if we lock step with your idea. We are many and varied, and have different methods of working with our film. We stick with what works for us doing what we want it to do. No amount of brow beating will change that. Grow up and learn sharing is one thing, domineering is another.

 

[hansbeckert]

You are on bubba, will you then shut up, this is a very nice forum and we dont need the likes of know it alls like you. One print comming up.....

All I know is 35mm what my eyes tell me. Tell ya what, I'll get some Rodinal this weekend and run some tests too. OK?

 

[Dean Williams]

If you are interested in maximizing the quality of your negatives, you'll want the very last bit of detail and speed.

Sorry Hans, but I can't see how speed has anything at all to do with the quality of a negative. As for detail, that can be a blessing or a curse depending on the subject. From what I've read here you've equated it with quality when it is simply a characteristic. Maximum detail can be very useful in many respects while detrimental in others. Point is, neither speed or detail are what make a quality negative, speed being the least. People who use Rodinal regularly will already know that it is not a speed developer. If it produces the detail they want, then it is at the least all they need. More importantly if it gives them exactly the look they want, then nothing is better.