Little unscientific test: D23 vs Rodinal vs HC-110 in 35mm

sterioma · Mar 23, 2021

Lately I have been playing reading a bit about D23 and decided to give it a go with dilution 1:1. This is the first time I make a developer from raw ingredients; I normally use Rodinal for slower films and HC-110 for higher speed films (mostly HP5).

I wanted to make a quick experiment comparing the three developers, with the only film I can bulk roll at the moment which is Fomapan 100. Let's go straight to the results and if you are still interested then read on.

Whole 8x10 prints (all printed identically with a condenser enlarger in my community darkroom).
D23:

Rodinal:

HC-110

Details comparison (around 2.5cm or 1 inch in the actual print):

As expected, Rodinal is the grainiest of the three but with this film and enlargement it's only really visible if you look carefully at the test resolution target. Second comes D23, while HC-110 has the finest grain.

D23 and HC110 give a moderate speed increase with respect to Rodinal, but it's probably not more than 1/3 stop in my test.

Rodinal gives by far the greatest impression of "sharpness", although probably there is not a big difference in terms of resultion but it's more acutance effects. In the small detail ~~print~~ scan, the numbers and that checkerboard look really crisp with Rodinal, while they look blurry in the other two prints, especially with HC-110.

If you are curious here's my test setup (again, not very scientific, so take everything with a pinch of salt):

Camera and lens: Yashica FX-D 35mm camera with 50mm 1.2 ML lens mounted on a tripod (camera is actually on sale if you are interested )
Film: Fomapan 100 bulk rolled, exposed at 50 (this is my usual rating for Rodinal derived from previous testing)
Metering: incident reading with a Sekonic 308
Lighting: window light from the top on a overcast day + 1 softbox
Subject matter: 24 identical frames of variuos objects including a gray card (underneath the tangerine) and a test target printed with my inkjet printer (!)
Development: D23 1:1 for 10 minutes, Rodinal 1:50 for 10 minutes, HC-110 dil H for 11 minutes. All developed in tanks, 30s initial agitation, then 3 inversions every minute.
Prints: 8x10 prints on Ilford Multigrade, all exposed for the same time based on the first one I tried (D23). Rodinal is slightly darker than the others. If I had more time in the darkroom I would have tried to have matching highlights
Scanner: prints have been scanned at 600dpi with a cheap Epson printer/scanner. All prints have been scanned identically and no changes have been made other than cropping.

ruilourosa · Mar 23, 2021

Indeed uncientific....

Try to focus the camera to the place you enlarge...

Density on film and on print dramatically affects grain perception. As does focus.

sterioma · Mar 23, 2021

ruilourosa said:
Indeed uncientific....

Try to focus the camera to the place you enlarge...

Density on film and on print dramatically affects grain perception. As does focus.

The scans of the whole pictures are big enough for you to analyze all the areas of the print, make sure you click on the "open in new window" button and you can zoom in. The focused area is the writing "Values in 100x lines".

I believe that rendition of out of focus area *is* of interest to the photographer, this was not a lens resolution test.

pentaxuser · Mar 23, 2021

sterioma, I declare no interest in whether it was a scientific test or not. Unless there is serious evidence that what you did skews the results and that pic A from dev X is not in fact better than say pic C from developer Y then it would appear that what we see is what we will get and were I to have been someone in a gallery looking at these three pics I'd have picked out the top one, D23, as having more realistic and pleasing contrast and a lot more shadow detail

It's the instant winner for me

Thanks for the test and showing us your results

pentaxuser

ruilourosa · Mar 23, 2021

Why do you shoot resolution tests when you do not want to make a resolution test?

Pioneer · Mar 23, 2021

I use all three developers and, IMHO, they all work great. I too preferred the top (D-23) example but I am almost certainly biased in this case.

With Fomapan/AEU 100 I prefer mixing D-23 1+3. This increases the development time but produces nice tonality. I have also noticed over time that I can change the contrast of Fomapan 100 negatives in D-23 by adjusting my agitation cycle. This is another reason I like the 1+3 dilution as it allows me to do one minute, two minute and even 3 minute pauses between agitation while still being repeatable.

For my own work, the primary advantage to D-23 is that it is always fresh. I go through a couple liters of D-23 in a little over a month so I am mixing new batches frequently. Another advantage is that it is just about as versatile as D-76.

Of course another advantage is that consistently working with one developer over a long period of time has allowed my to really learn how to use it. I am getting better at tailoring my negatives to what I would like to see in my prints. Obviously D-23 has nothing to do with this, it is just a side benefit in this case.

sterioma · Mar 23, 2021

ruilourosa said:
Why do you shoot resolution tests when you do not want to make a resolution test?

I was looking for items of with different tones and texture, and some minute details and the resolution chart was at hand. As i mentioned I have printed it with a cheap inkject printer, with all the limitations. It's not even shot perpendicular to the lens. I have also put my watch to see how light toned detail on a dark background was rendered.

It's very much a qualitative test, not quantitative. Make of it what you like.

grain elevator · Mar 23, 2021

As presented with the crops, this comes close to disinfirmation because it suggests that the dramatic difference in sharpnesssharpness was due to the developers. Please give us crops from the in focus areas to compare.

sterioma · Mar 23, 2021

grain elevator said:
As presented with the crops, this comes close to disinfirmation because it suggests that the dramatic difference in sharpnesssharpness was due to the developers. Please give us crops from the in focus areas to compare.

I am not sure I follow. Camera position and focus has not changed between shots.

The full frame prints have plenty of detail if you open them in a separate window to inspect any area of the photo that you like.

relistan · Mar 23, 2021

Thanks for sharing! I agree entirely with @pentaxuser . And, I’m not entirely sure why people read a thread called “unscientific test” and then got upset it wasn’t more scientific.

grain elevator · Mar 23, 2021

sterioma said:
I am not sure I follow. Camera position and focus has not changed between shots.

The full frame prints have plenty of detail if you open them in a separate window to inspect any area of the photo that you like.

Sorry, misremembered what I had read by the time I reached the end of the thread, or maybe I imagined having read that because it fit my visual impression. Otherwise I would have asked whether focus was different. I find it hard to believe the developers would make this extreme difference in sharpness, and it would look so much like focus differences. But now I looked more closely, and the Rodinal example simply looks like a lens stopped down two stops or so further than the other two - including more dof and less glow. Not saying you did that. But if you didn't the difference is a surprise to me, I never saw it that extreme, e.g. on the developer comparison if fotoimport.no. Gotta get my hands on some Rodinal!

pentaxuser · Mar 23, 2021

I always like to think of Photrio as the place where like the kid from Hoboken "you're riding high in April, shot down in May

However at times and unlike Ol' Blues Eyes there are occasions on Photrio when you can't always "change that tune and be back on top in June" At least not for everybody

In the grand scheme of things does it matter , does your contribution spoil some vast eternal plan or worse are you suggesting that both no pre-wet or pre-wet can both be used to equal effect?

Keep these type of contributions coming where you tell exactly what you did and show us what happened when you did it . They suit me

pentaxuser

ruilourosa · Mar 23, 2021

Focus has changed... Its notorious...

Down Under · Mar 23, 2021

These tests can be fun, but I wonder what they really achieve...

They use up film, printing paper and chemistry, keep us busy and are fun to do. Whatever conclusions we draw from them may or may not be useful in future. In my case, they have been quickly forgoten as I move on. As I see it from the comments on this thread, that's about it.

Most of us who've been into photography and darkroom for a long time, all have our 'set' developers. We mostly know them inside out and we have fine-tuned our processes and processing to obtain exactly what we want from them.

We also know when certain processes just won't produce the desired effects - two classic cases being (1) to use Rodinal for just about any high speed black-and-white film and (2) which films on the market today can best be pushed or pulled.

I've been mixing my own three brands of developer since about 1980 and I know them inside out. What they do best and what I no longer do with them. All from experience - and many failures emerging from my processing tanks.

I harken to pentaxuser's comment - "In the grand scheme of things does it matter , does your contribution spoil some vast eternal plan or worse are you suggesting that both no pre-wet or pre-wet can both be used to equal effect?" Couldn't have said it better myself.

Okay, call me cynical, but is all this a Covid spinoff? I would rather be out and about and shooting my favorite subjects, old colonial buildings in Asia, but obviously this is a no-no in these sad (and boring) times.

pentaxuser · Mar 23, 2021

ozmoose said:
I harken to pentaxuser's comment - "In the grand scheme of things does it matter , does your contribution spoil some vast eternal plan or worse are you suggesting that both no pre-wet or pre-wet can both be used to equal effect?" Couldn't have said it better myself.

Okay, call me cynical, but is all this a Covid spinoff? I would rather be out and about and shooting my favorite subjects, old colonial buildings in Asia, but obviously this is a no-no in these sad (and boring) times.

Well it is a fact that unless the OP had taken the trouble to do what he did none of would have seen the results of it. Covid or no covid

It is getting to be water off the proverbial duck's back to me in recent months but I do worry longer term about the amount of negativity we seem to be seeing of late. I can only hope that is an offshoot of the strain covid is placing on us

Sterioma is an "old sweat" here and well able to take care of himself- a "vet" in U.S parlance? However had he been a relative newcomer and had taken this trouble to show us what he did and what were the results and had received the same reaction then I fear that he might have been a "1 week member" and waving us goodbye

The philosophy that I see more and more of is: If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen which is a real pity unless it is justified and it often isn't at the stage at which it is applied

pentaxuser

pentaxuser

sterioma · Mar 23, 2021

ozmoose said:
Okay, call me cynical, but is all this a Covid spinoff? I would rather be out and about and shooting my favorite subjects, old colonial buildings in Asia, but obviously this is a no-no in these sad (and boring) time

Partly. It was both a rainy day and I was on call at work so i could not leave the house when I setup the test.

Then I had some extra time yesterday at the end of my 4 hours session in the darkroom to print these shots. I thought it would be interesting to share, with all the limitations and caveats.

foc · Mar 23, 2021

I have enjoyed reading this post.
I don't wish to belittle the test but I did a little test myself in photoshop and it does appear that there is a difference in depth of field between the 3 photos.

Have a look below but remember my example is also unscientific.

Unfortunately, it makes it hard to access the grain when part of the image appears blurred.

I think you may get a better idea from viewing the middle of the photos.
Like here.

I also agree with the above comments, that D23 looks the best. Such a simple developer but great results IMO.

ParkerSmithPhoto · Mar 23, 2021

sterioma said:
Whole 8x10 prints (all printed identically with a condenser enlarger in my community darkroom).
D23:
View attachment 270244
Rodinal:
View attachment 270245

HC-110
View attachment 270246

Sorry, but the focus is not the same in these images. I have side by side tests with D-23 and Beutler's and there is a difference but it's not as dramatic as these changing focal planes make it out to be.

sterioma · Mar 23, 2021

I am not sure how the depth of field may have changed between shoots but I can't rule it out either. Maybe the tripod moved ever so slightly between shots?

I am planning similar experiment with hp5 which is my other main film. Maybe I should consider stopping down more (I think I was around f4 here, did not want to go too low with the shutter speed as that camera has no mirror lock up).

Lachlan Young · Mar 23, 2021

All things being equal, exposures controlled to give equivalent exposure relative to effective shadow speed for each developer (HC-110 gives lower shadow speed for example), contrasts matched reasonably closely etc, what you will find is that while Rodinal etc might appear 'sharper', they aren't - D-23 is just as sharp - if not possibly moreso (solvency releasing iodide from some emulsions), but the granularity of Rodinal etc causes misleading impressions to be drawn at small/ very small enlargement sizes. In fact, the higher noise/ granularity level of Rodinal actually obscures fine detail resolution in a way that D-23 doesn't. None of this is new or especially novel in the academically/ industrially focused literature, but it seems to have been studiously ignored by the popular press.

pentaxuser · Mar 23, 2021

Lachlan Young said:
but the granularity of Rodinal etc causes misleading impressions to be drawn at small/ very small enlargement sizes.
.

Lachlan is there any info on what constitutes small/very small enlargement sizes? I recently did some Tmax 400 at box speed and the 645 negs stand-out more and look sharper than those I previously did with Xtol but I am wondering how many times magnification I can have?

Thanks

pentaxuser

wiltw · Mar 23, 2021

pentaxuser said:
Lachlan is there any info on what constitutes small/very small enlargement sizes? I recently did some Tmax 400 at box speed and the 645 negs stand-out more and look sharper than those I previously did with Xtol but I am wondering how many times magnification I can have?

Thanks

pentaxuser

I don't know that I have ever seen a chart with magnification, that classified them as 'small' or 'medium' or 'large'
I do know that subjectively over the years most 135 format photographers consider 16" x 24" prints the absolute largest print they would consider to have acceptable grain visible in the print. Larger is typically considered 'too grainy'.
So based upon that I would say 2x-4x is 'small', 8X-11X is 'medium', and 14X-16X and larger is 'large', based upon a Tri-X negative.
(stepping back to see other opinions)

Lachlan Young · Mar 23, 2021

pentaxuser said:
Lachlan is there any info on what constitutes small/very small enlargement sizes? I recently did some Tmax 400 at box speed and the 645 negs stand-out more and look sharper than those I previously did with Xtol but I am wondering how many times magnification I can have?

Thanks

pentaxuser

It gets rather complex and mathematical & depends a lot on the formats you are working with - LF has rather different optimal image structure needs from 135 because of the relative degree of enlargement needed for both negs to reach the same print size. Some of it will depend on the amount of enlargement necessary for your eyes to resolve image granularity (and that will differ - as will your ability to produce extremely accurately matched tests). It is near impossible to draw any conclusions from consumer grade flatbed scanner results because of the very low MTF sharpness performance. I've certainly been able to see enough of the noise/ granularity relationship in scans as low as 1500-1600ppi resolution from a high MTF system to not disagree with Richard Henry's results about ID-11/ D-76 vis-a-vis Rodinal - wherein the only area that Rodinal outperforms D-76 is in the amount of granularity it produces. Even at that relatively low resolution you can observe that this increased granularity actually obscures areas of fine detail, which D-76 can actually hold useable detail/ contrast in. You also have to consider the effect on the tone curve that a developer like Rodinal has - it tends to not tamp down highlight densities like more solvent developers do, leaving negs that can mislead the eye, but print rather differently (assuming the baselines of enlarger solidity, lens choice, aperture, precision of focus etc are carefully controlled). Edge sharpness at low cyc/mm and lower noise/ granularity will make more of a difference in terms of a good neg for printing than brilliantly contrasty looking highlights on the negs.

There's always a strong case for retesting assumed/ tested knowledge over time, but the standards of those tests really should demonstrate a proper awareness of qualitative baselines, otherwise they rapidly go flailing off into the 'not even wrong' category.

grain elevator · Mar 24, 2021

The impression of sharpness from the Rodinal example doesn't seem to be just due to granularity. It somehow makes thin black lines thicker and darker (and thin white lines disappear).

sterioma · Mar 24, 2021

pentaxuser said:
Sterioma is an "old sweat" here and well able to take care of himself- a "vet" in U.S parlance? However had he been a relative newcomer and had taken this trouble to show us what he did and what were the results and had received the same reaction then I fear that he might have been a "1 week member" and waving us goodbye

The philosophy that I see more and more of is: If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen which is a real pity unless it is justified and it often isn't at the stage at which it is applied

pentaxuser

Thank you for your moral support

I don't mind my "experiment" been peer-reviewed. That's just part of the fun, and a learning experience. Certainly for me, and I hope for future readers.

Providing (and receiving) constructive feedback is a communication skill. Some have it as an innate gift, other like myself have had to learn it as part of their job. Some other people are just oblivious.
As a software engineering lead, I have had my work reviewed (be it design or code) for decades now and I have come across all kind of people providing feedback. I never take it personally

Little unscientific test: D23 vs Rodinal vs HC-110 in 35mm

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency