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).
As I mentioned in my opening post, I have made all the prints with identical settings, which had been tuned for the first print that I have made that is the one with D23.I just wonder even at the speed of 50, Rodinal at 1+50 is loosing lot of shadow details. :-(
For the past few years, I have gone back and forth between D-23 and Pyrocat-HD. Honestly, my favorite prints for tonality and overall quality are D-23. Sadly, I think Pyrocat-HD looks a bit brittle compared to D-23. I have been experimenting with Beutler's (a D-23 variation with a carbonate accelerator) for improved sharpness and am very pleased with the results. FP4 in Beutler's is very sharp, with almost no grain to speak of, even at 16".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.
As I mentioned in my opening post, I have made all the prints with identical settings, which had been tuned for the first print that I have made that is the one with D23.
What this comparison shows is that the Rodinal negative is indeed a bit thinner than the other ones. But it should not be taken to indicate that is "too thin".
A better print could be made with the Rodinal negative, there is enough shadow detail there. Rodinal is my usual developer with Fomapan and I had done some testing to establish that an EI of 50 would give me sufficient shadow detail.
A better print could be made with the Rodinal negative, there is enough shadow detail there. Rodinal is my usual developer with Fomapan and I had done some testing to establish that an EI of 50 would give me sufficient shadow detail.
I have only tried 1+25 with FP4, which i don't shoot very often and it was medium format. I got a lot of contrast, so I decided to try with 1+50 and since then I have only been using 1+50 any time I use Rodinal (other than some occasional stand development at 1:100 just for fun).Have you ever tried 1+25 dilution? I use also Rodinal 1+50 with Foma films, in my case 4x5'' sheets. I wonder if 1+25 would give some more effective speed...
That's quite interesting, I'll add to my list of things to try, beside different D23 dilutions (I have only tested 1+1 so far).I have been experimenting with Beutler's (a D-23 variation with a carbonate accelerator) for improved sharpness and am very pleased with the results. FP4 in Beutler's is very sharp, with almost no grain to speak of, even at 16".
I don’t know for sure, pentaxuser, but in my experience it isn’t really more negative or adversarial than it was, say back when I joined in 2010. Just as one coincident example, one of my first posts here was a comparison not all that dissimilar to what OP has undertaken in this thread (although it was supposed to be somewhat more “scientific” in methodology), and I was very quickly taken to task. I’m off topic but just some thoughts.
I remember the time a Kodak rep started posting, and people shot it to pieces and that was the end of that. I was really pissed about it.
I have just finished developing my tests for HP5 (rodinal 1:50, rodinal semi-stand, hc-110 dil H and D23). I managed to shoot at f8 this time, but the max speed I could achieve was 1/30 (I don't have strong enough strobes, I have a beginner's kit I got from Amazon; maybe I need to use flash next timeI look forward to your experiment with HP5.
If I can make a suggestion, I would recommend that you use plenty of artificial lighting (because it is consistent) and shoot at least at f8 and with a shutter speed of at least 1/125.
Thanks, sterioma. This test will be even more interesting for me for a couple of reasons 1. Whenever the subject of Rodinal is mentioned with HP5+ then if this usually draws comments to the effect that these are a particularly poor comboI have just finished developing my tests for HP5 (rodinal 1:50, rodinal semi-stand, hc-110 dil H and D23). ).
I have just finished developing my tests for HP5 (rodinal 1:50, rodinal semi-stand, hc-110 dil H and D23). I managed to shoot at f8 this time, but the max speed I could achieve was 1/30 (I don't have strong enough strobes, I have a begineer's kit I got from Amazon; maybe I need to use flash next time).
As soon as I get back to our local community darkroom I'll make the prints.Great. Can you post some of your examples, please?
As soon as I get back to our local community darkroom I'll make the prints.
The Rodinal 1:50 seems a bit underdeveloped compared with the other ones, I don't have times of my own as I don't normally shoot this combination, other than using semi-stand development when I shoot at 800.
The densities from the remaing three combinations seem very similar on the light table, and looking around with a loupe they seem pretty identical. I guess only the print will tell if there's any real difference.
Looking forward to it.
Great. Can you post some of your examples, please?
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:
View attachment 270244
Rodinal:
View attachment 270245
HC-110
View attachment 270246
Details comparison (around 2.5cm or 1 inch in the actual print):
View attachment 270277
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
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.
Ah, yes that was a typo. It was a standard 50 f2, which I have since sold. Photrio does not let me edit my original post anymore.Were the tests done with a 50mm f/2 Yashica ML? The f/1.2 Yashica ML standard lens is a 55.
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?