Making the Most of Rodinal

[baachitraka]

May be somebody can clear the cloud of angst regarding the sudden death of Xtol. Is it really true that Xtol dies without any warning?

 

[Ian Grant]

Agfa's Rodinal development recommendations produce contrasty negatives. The results remind me of European images in the photo magazines from the 60s.

Agfa used a different contrast scale than Kodak's CI index. Agfa's development times provide brilliance if shooting in gloomy overcast light conditions.

I seem to remember that the European instruction sheet differed from the US version a point the late Peter Goldfield highlighted in his Goldfinger Craft book. Peter was the UK importer of Agfa films & papers for a few years in the early 80's.

My own experience was that Agfa's dev times and EI's were the most reliable of all manufacturers and matched my own Zone system tests, until Agfa dropped APX100 in sheet film sizes APX100 in Rodinal @ EI 100 was my main film in all formats 35mm/120 & 5x4. I found that Tmax 100 @ 50 EI at the same dev times gave very similar results. Both gave great tonality - a long tonal range, and excellent fine grain.

Ian

 

[baachitraka]

Thanks Michael.

I develop one or two rolls in a month, so I was wondering about the life time of the developer.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

May be somebody can clear the cloud of angst regarding the sudden death of Xtol. Is it really true that Xtol dies without any warning?

You're asking two questions, actually:
1. Does Kodak Xtol developer suffer from sudden death?
As Michael pointed out, the sudden death happened to 1liter packets that were mixed rather freshly, and that was a problem that Kodak isolated and fixed. It should not be confused with the next question, which is:

2. Does Xtol fail without warning?
Xtol's properties means it doesn't change color like D76 would when it goes bad. It stays clear. So it's impossible to tell, from just looking at the solution with the naked eye, whether the developer is fresh or not.
I have had stock Xtol in store for six months or more, and never had a single problem. I use full glass amber bottles that are tightly capped for long term storage, and a 2liter collapsible bottle for short term storage. Then I have a friend that uses a floating lid type of container and had Xtol fail within six months. I suspect that the means of storage meant that the developer got oxidized.
Caution is due, and it's appropriate to test the developer before it's used, if you feel it's been stored for a long time, possibly in hot conditions and where oxygen might have reached the solution.

You have to consider that Xtol in 5liter packets is a compromise for most hobbyists. 5 liters of Xtol has the capacity to develop up to 70 rolls of film. In six months that's 11-12 rolls per month, or about three rolls per week. That's a lot by most people's standards, and if you can't come close to it, it's worth considering other developers, or be prepared to simply pour out developer after about six months of proper storage.
You might consider something like Ilfotec DD-X, for example, which comes in a one liter bottle, and is used up much faster. Or maybe one liter packets of D76, which will give you a visual clue when it starts to deteriorate, by showing a brown color.

Choose your tools based on your work flow, volume, and needs. For me Xtol works, because I do run enough film through my Xtol batch to justify it. I never throw away any developer and manage to use them all up before they go bad, so it makes sense for me. It might not make sense for others.

- Thomas

 

[brucemuir]

2. Does Xtol fail without warning?
Xtol's properties means it doesn't change color like D76 would when it goes bad.
- Thomas

D76 changes colors?
I'm not doubting you Thomas.
I've not seen this but I've never had any go bad even after 12 months of proper storage.

What do you notice? Does it turn darker? ? ?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

D76 changes colors?
I'm not doubting you Thomas.
I've not seen this but I've never had any go bad even after 12 months of proper storage.

What do you notice? Does it turn darker? ? ?

It turns darker. And you're right, it stores well if handled properly.

 

[baachitraka]

You're asking two questions, actually:
1. Does Kodak Xtol developer suffer from sudden death?
As Michael pointed out, the sudden death happened to 1liter packets that were mixed rather freshly, and that was a problem that Kodak isolated and fixed. It should not be confused with the next question, which is:

2. Does Xtol fail without warning?
Xtol's properties means it doesn't change color like D76 would when it goes bad. It stays clear. So it's impossible to tell, from just looking at the solution with the naked eye, whether the developer is fresh or not.
I have had stock Xtol in store for six months or more, and never had a single problem. I use full glass amber bottles that are tightly capped for long term storage, and a 2liter collapsible bottle for short term storage. Then I have a friend that uses a floating lid type of container and had Xtol fail within six months. I suspect that the means of storage meant that the developer got oxidized.
Caution is due, and it's appropriate to test the developer before it's used, if you feel it's been stored for a long time, possibly in hot conditions and where oxygen might have reached the solution.

You have to consider that Xtol in 5liter packets is a compromise for most hobbyists. 5 liters of Xtol has the capacity to develop up to 70 rolls of film. In six months that's 11-12 rolls per month, or about three rolls per week. That's a lot by most people's standards, and if you can't come close to it, it's worth considering other developers, or be prepared to simply pour out developer after about six months of proper storage.
You might consider something like Ilfotec DD-X, for example, which comes in a one liter bottle, and is used up much faster. Or maybe one liter packets of D76, which will give you a visual clue when it starts to deteriorate, by showing a brown color.

Choose your tools based on your work flow, volume, and needs. For me Xtol works, because I do run enough film through my Xtol batch to justify it. I never throw away any developer and manage to use them all up before they go bad, so it makes sense for me. It might not make sense for others.

- Thomas

Unfortunately, I do not develop as many films in order to use Xtol economically. I will stay with Rodinal and may experiment HC110 for high-speed films.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Follow the manufactures recommendations on storage for D-76. Photo Techniques published reports of the keeping properties of several developers. XTOL lasted a few months longer than D-76. I forget how the developer was stored.

XTOL stored in full 1L plastic soda bottles produces fine results after 8 months. After 8 months I discard it to maintain negative quality and piece of mind. If you can't process enough film to use 5L of XTOL in 6 months suggest you split an order with another photographer. On the other hand D-76 is very close in image quality and is convient in 1L packages.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

I also use Rodinal because of its keeping properties. I agree Rodinal and a general purpose developer like D-76/XTOL are two different looks.

Rodinal has a look of its own. The Rodinal look may be difficult to describe. I would suggest the look is often associated with a high contrast scene with limited mid-tones. If zone 4 compresses slighly a zone 5-6 tone may stand out of a darker background and appear to glow. The image is sharper than D-76 1:1.

I get good results when I use 120 FP4+ rated at EI 64 souped in Rodinal 1:75. Rodinal is another tonal scale.

A general purpose developer works best with Tri-X 135 unless your trying for special effects.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

My developers are XTOL/D76 paired with Tri-X and FP-4. In the past I would occasionally use Rodinal with both MF films. My results with Rodinal have been unsatisfactory 60% of the time. Negatives tend to be underdeveloped/underexposed or have sagging mid-tones.

I'm calibrating my film/developing time/agitation to achieve consistent results using Rodinal. I'm using the guidelines found in Popular Photography, Dec 1979, by Bob Schwalberg.

The image qualities I'm looking for are sharpness, ability to separate highlights, increased brilliance vs a general purpose developer. Increased developer shelf life is a positive.

I'm trying HP-5 due to its acutance. The last roll I shot was HP-5, rated at 200, metered with an incident meter set at 160, shot with a 1956 Rollei F/2.8 and light yellow (factor 1.5) filter. Souped at 14 min, 8cc Rodinal with 17oz of water, agitate 1st 40 sec, agitate each 60s (3 inversions in an oversize metal tank), 1 inversion each 30s for first 7 min. After 7 min reduce agitation to 3 inversions each 60s. Light conditions were full Central Oklahoma Nov sunlight with wispy clouds. Light intensity similar to upper Midwest in summer. 120 negatives were slightly thin only achieving an acceptable print contrast on E-maks G3 if toned. Enlargement 8x6 on 8x10 paper.

How much should one derate Tri/X or HP-5 to achieve full film speed when using Rodinal? How can I improve low tone/mid tone separation? Would it be helpful to extend development by 1 min without agitation hoping to bring up low tones without building density in the sky area?

Just looking for advice on optimizing Rodinal for landscape images.

Without going into the detail you have, it's worth noting that I have Agfa literature to hand in which they clearly state that Rodinal is NOT RECOMMENDED for use with HP5+ at 1+50 dilution. I have no reason why but it accords with my own experience that whilst Rodinal works very well with medium speed films it is not as good with ISO400 and I prefer other developers.
I have had good results with DDX which is one shot liquid and convenient but more expensive in use, and I have also used Prescysol EF with very good results. If I was using a powder developer I'd probably stick with ID-11/D76. The main problem with ID-11/D76 is they don't keep very well as stock solutions and if your usage is low then you'll end up wasting a lot.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Without going into the detail you have, it's worth noting that I have Agfa literature to hand in which they clearly state that Rodinal is NOT RECOMMENDED for use with HP5+ at 1+50 dilution. I have no reason why but it accords with my own experience that whilst Rodinal works very well with medium speed films it is not as good with ISO400 and I prefer other developers.
I have had good results with DDX which is one shot liquid and convenient but more expensive in use, and I have also used Prescysol EF with very good results. If I was using a powder developer I'd probably stick with ID-11/D76. The main problem with ID-11/D76 is they don't keep very well as stock solutions and if your usage is low then you'll end up wasting a lot.

Believe it or not, I was waiting for someone to state what you stated.

What you state for HP5+ is also true for the last APX400 emulsion Agfa made. At 1+50 dilution the developer simply did not develop the film beyond a certain gamma. It simply could not. I suspect the same is true for HP5+.

With that said, I have used Rodinal with Tri-X 400, Delta 3200, and TMax 400 with absolutely amazing results at the 1+25 dilution. APX 400 worked just fine at this dilution also, and HP5+ has a very strong following in combination with Rodinal - at the 1+25 dilution for the developer.

So my opinion of Rodinal and medium to high speed film is that it works absolutely beautifully, as long as you don't dilute the developer too much, and you're ready for some nicely defined and sharp grain to show in your prints (I want that sort of grain sometimes; 35mm Delta 3200 + Rodinal 1:25 looks absolutely amazing in 16x20" prints).

 

[baachitraka]

@Thomas, do you have any other sample for Delta 3200 + Rodinal 1+25 apart from one which you have shown(sky scrappers with glass wall) which I believe is Delta 3200 + Rodinal(unknown concentration).

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

@Thomas, do you have any other sample for Delta 3200 + Rodinal 1+25 apart from one which you have shown(sky scrappers with glass wall) which I believe is Delta 3200 + Rodinal(unknown concentration).

I do, but only neg scans... Attached.

Prints would obviously look better.

Rodinal 1+25. First two at EI 800, developed for 20 minutes. Last one, (the street at night), was EI 1600, developed for 30 minutes.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Thanks Michael.

I develop one or two rolls in a month, so I was wondering about the life time of the developer.

Like others have said previously Rodinal Stock concentrate lasts pretty much forever, and Xtol is rated to 6 months after mixing dry chemicals to stock in tightly sealed bottles.

I use multiple 1 Liter Seltzer bottles for the Xtol, and store in a temp controlled area in the dark, and have never had it suddenly die on me. I use it diluted 1:1, 1:2, 1:3 and use it one shot, and all have worked fine compensating for dev times. Though I always finish it before the 6month time, but I suspect it can last longer.

Developer prices are cheap comparitivly to film, at $11-$14 for Xtol 5L or Rodinal 500ml. Thats the price of only 2-3 rolls of film if buying it at retail prices. When in doubt, just mix a new batch.

edit: also I remember seeing a few forum posts on mixing both Xtol and Rodinal together to get the best of both, I have never tried it, has anyone here done it? Sounds a bit crazy, but so did stand development, and coffee development lol

 

[MattKing]

XTol around here is about $18.00 for the 5 liter package.

That is $3.00 per month if you limit it to 6 months.

If you like the results that XTol give, only you can answer the question whether $3.00 per month is too expensive.

That being said, I use, and therefore recommend, HC-110.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Believe it or not, I was waiting for someone to state what you stated.

What you state for HP5+ is also true for the last APX400 emulsion Agfa made. At 1+50 dilution the developer simply did not develop the film beyond a certain gamma. It simply could not. I suspect the same is true for HP5+.

With that said, I have used Rodinal with Tri-X 400, Delta 3200, and TMax 400 with absolutely amazing results at the 1+25 dilution. APX 400 worked just fine at this dilution also, and HP5+ has a very strong following in combination with Rodinal - at the 1+25 dilution for the developer.

So my opinion of Rodinal and medium to high speed film is that it works absolutely beautifully, as long as you don't dilute the developer too much, and you're ready for some nicely defined and sharp grain to show in your prints (I want that sort of grain sometimes; 35mm Delta 3200 + Rodinal 1:25 looks absolutely amazing in 16x20" prints).

Thanks Thomas, for that. I only ever used APX100 with Rodinal and it was superb. I have a Lomography 400 film to develop for someone else tomorrow and I'll try the 1+25 dilution to see how I like it.

 

[baachitraka]

I do, but only neg scans... Attached.

Prints would obviously look better.

Rodinal 1+25. First two at EI 800, developed for 20 minutes. Last one, (the street at night), was EI 1600, developed for 30 minutes.

I am really amazed by the redering of grain. Seems Rodinal renders it very uniquely.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Please remember that what I showed are neg scans, and my poor Epson V700 is nowhere near capable of actually resolving the grain, so what you see in the neg scans is not what the grain looks like in a print.
The phenomenon is called grain aliasing, and is a bit of a pest when it comes to scanning negatives. You need something like a drum scanner, or an Imacon Flextight to get a good approximation of what the grain actually looks like.

But, you can get a fair idea at least. Tri-X in Rodinal 1+25 is absolutely amazing when printed.

I am really amazed by the redering of grain. Seems Rodinal renders it very uniquely.

 

[Dave Martiny]

I am now using Tri-X 135 rated @ 250 in Rodnal 1:50, 9:20, 68F, 5-7 sec. ag/min, as my standard film/developer combination.

8x10's look great.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

What is a recommended film/Rodinal dilution to achieve detailed shadows and pictorial mid-tone gradation?

I got flat results with HP5 and Rodinal 1:75. Perhaps a stronger mix ratio is the answer. FP4 produced much better results at 1:75. I'm not going back to HP5 as I am more comfortable with FP4 & Tri-X.

A decade ago I tried Rodinal at 1:25 with Tri-X -135. Images had a gritty, news reportage look. Every few years I reach for Rodinal as it has a sharper/different look from a general purpose developer (D-76/XTOL). This tends to happens when I run out of developer and Rodinal is sitting on the shelf.

XTOL (5L) is listed at $9.19 plus shipping in Freestyle's Winter Catalog. XTOL is a speed increasing developer, a tad better image quality over D-76, Kodak researched developing times and environmentally friendly. Mixed at 1:2 its economical and sharp for a general purpose developer. Grain is crisp at 1.3.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I did not get good results with HP-5 and Rodinal 1:75. Perhaps a stronger mix ratio is the answer. FP-4 produced much better results at 1:75. I'm not going back to HP-5. When you move from 1.50 to 1.75 do shadows and mid tones improve or just softer contrast?

Ten years ago I first used Rodinal at 1:25 with Tri-X -135. Images had a gritty, news reportage look. If your looking for pictorial gradation this is not a good choice.

XTOL (5L) is listed at $9.19 plus shipping in Freestyle's Winter Catalog. XTOL is a great developer, Kodak researched developing times and environmentally friendly. Mixed at 1:2 it is very economical and sharp for a general purpose developer. Grain is crisp at 1.3.

Richard,

HP5+ will not work well with Rodinal at dilutions higher than 1+25. HP5 can and will give you very similar contrast to FP4+ if you work your exposure and technique. It just won't be as fine grained. It's not a failure on behalf of the film, but it's a failure of using the wrong combination of tools.
When you change dilution from 1:50 to 1:75 it just takes longer. If you develop the 1:75 long enough, with normal agitation, you will reach the same contrast index, same slope of the curve, and the same grain as 1:50. Try it and you will see, just don't use HP5+.

- Thomas

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Richard,

HP5+ will not work well with Rodinal at dilutions higher than 1+25.

- Thomas

I agree with, Thomas. I love Rodinal & HP5, just not together.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Thomas

You know the old story about chasing too many variables. I'm very familiar with FP4 and Tri-X. I have no doubt HP5 produces great results but so does Tri-X.

I admire Edward Weston's simple approach. Two film developers, two films, three enlargers (1c, Dichro & Condenser) paper replacements for Forte PWT, Bergger/Oriental WT is more than enough variables.

One camera, one film, one developer, one paper, one enlarger...less is more.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas

You know the old story about chasing too many variables. I'm very familiar with FP4 and Tri-X. I have no doubt HP5 produces great results but so does Tri-X.

I admire Edward Weston's simple approach. Two film developers, two films, three enlargers (1c, Dichro & Condenser) paper replacements for Forte PWT, Bergger/Oriental WT is more than enough variables.

One camera, one film, one developer, one paper, one enlarger...less is more.

I do, and try to live by using only a small amount of emulsions. But it seemed like an explanation for the troubles were asked for, and I wanted to make sure that those that are trying knew that HP5+ and Rodinal 1+50 isn't a good combination, and also help them understand why.

I love Tri-X myself, but I think equally of HP5+ (I use Tri-X, but not HP5+, because I know what to expect when it comes time to print). You certainly can't say that one is better than the other. Just different, and as usual it's about making sure we use our materials correctly and creatively, which means we have to really know them inside out before we can judge them properly.

 

[jon koss]

Hmm... In general I would stay away from having a filter in the light path until I had nailed baseline success. Once a baseline is established you will be able to add variables such as filters and you will understand and isolate the effect of the filter. Also, your unhappiness with the "look" you are achieving could be 100% the effect of the filter and unless you have a baseline you would never know. Just some thoughts - not presented as gospel.

J

...I'm trying HP-5 due to its acutance. The last roll I shot was HP-5, rated at 200, metered with an incident meter set at 160, shot with a 1956 Rollei F/2.8 and light yellow (factor 1.5) filter...