Making the Most of Rodinal

Jerevan · May 24, 2016

Then what is 3+100 dilution in real life terms? (Extremely confusing with two sorts of notation.) Equivalent with 1.5+50?

Thomas Bertilsson · May 24, 2016

Ian Grant said:
My experience was the tonal range of the films differed at the 3 dilutions I used with both APX100 & Tmax100, enough to make me chose the 3+100 dilution which is between the 1+25 and 1+50.

The late Peter Goldfield who'd assisted Minor White used to teach that dilution was an important control with Rodinal, my practical tests indicated the same, there's no tradition of using densitometers here in the UK, I now have one but haven't used it

Ian

It could be perhaps that you look more critically at the results than I do, and the differences I see as rather minor could be what you experience as big enough to warrant change?

Also, I have used mostly Tri-X and TMax 400 with Rodinal, which are different emulsions.

It would be very interesting to see what the real differences would be, as measured by technology, between the various dilutions you mention, with negatives developed to the same overall contrast.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 24, 2016

Jerevan said:
Then what is 3+100 dilution in real life terms? (Extremely confusing with two sorts of notation.) Equivalent with 1.5+50?

Or 1+33.

Jerevan · May 24, 2016

Aha ... good. Sort of midway between 1+25 and 1+50.

Ian Grant · May 24, 2016

Thomas Bertilsson said:
It could be perhaps that you look more critically at the results than I do, and the differences I see as rather minor could be what you experience as big enough to warrant change?

Also, I have used mostly Tri-X and TMax 400 with Rodinal, which are different emulsions.

It would be very interesting to see what the real differences would be, as measured by technology, between the various dilutions you mention, with negatives developed to the same overall contrast.

You've most likely hit the nail on the head My projects are relatively long running usually a minimum of 18 months to two years, some very much longer 30 years and I keep my negatives consistent, I've only used 3 developers since 1986, Rodinal for slower films Xtol for faster and for just over 10 years Pyrocat HD for everything.

I have changed how I print in the last 30 years so can't use prints made 20 years ago alongside prints made more recently in exhibitions. So yes in some ways what you think might be minor differences definitely register when I'm processing and printing, it's more subconscious rather than being obsessional. It's more a case of next time maybe a slight increase or decrease in dev time or EI, or lets try a slight change of dilution - it's far more fun than densitometry

Ian

baachitraka · May 24, 2016

that is (3+100)/3 = 1+33.333333

K-G · May 24, 2016

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Hej Karl-Gustaf,

I haven't made a direct comparison, but to me FX-39 is not as powerful as Rodinal, so it has a slightly more muted tonality. Rodinal is very powerful and will continue to develop negative contrast with seemingly no end in sight, so you have to watch it a little bit. FX-39 is definitely sharper with higher acutance than Rodinal, and so the apparent grain will also be more present.
Although I never really felt Rodinal was a very grainy as a developer to begin with.
Film speed is definitely higher with FX-39 as well. Rodinal gives me EI 200 to 250 out of Tri-X or TMY-2, and I get full emulsion speed with FX-39, which is definitely a bonus.

Tack Thomas,

I have recently tried Rodinal with the ADOX CHS 100 II film and I am also comparing it with Xtol replenished. Rodinal ( at 1:50 ) seems to give better contrast but a litle bit more grain than Xtol . Both seem to be very sharp, but I haven't yet made any thorough analysis of this . Even with slightly corser grain when using Rodinal, the CHS 100 looks excellent ( technically that is ) . I have also tried to use Rodinal at lower temperature ( start at 16 deg C ) in order to get finer grain. I have yet to evaluate the difference compared to 20 deg C , but the overall result looks good.
Sometimes I have a feeling that with a developer originating from Germany and a film made in Berlin the two of them may have a mumbling conversation in German inside the developing tank in order to make the best of the situation. Just a feeling.
Based on your experience, Thomas, I will include a bottle of FX-39 next time I order from Fotoimpex.
Also, thank you , Ian, for sharing your experience.

Karl-Gustaf

baachitraka · May 24, 2016

For mid-tone based exposure I may recommend the below article.

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

Thomas Bertilsson · May 24, 2016

K-G said:
Tack Thomas,

I have recently tried Rodinal with the ADOX CHS 100 II film and I am also comparing it with Xtol replenished. Rodinal ( at 1:50 ) seems to give better contrast but a litle bit more grain than Xtol . Both seem to be very sharp, but I haven't yet made any thorough analysis of this . Even with slightly corser grain when using Rodinal, the CHS 100 looks excellent ( technically that is ) . I have also tried to use Rodinal at lower temperature ( start at 16 deg C ) in order to get finer grain. I have yet to evaluate the difference compared to 20 deg C , but the overall result looks good.
Sometimes I have a feeling that with a developer originating from Germany and a film made in Berlin the two of them may have a mumbling conversation in German inside the developing tank in order to make the best of the situation. Just a feeling.
Based on your experience, Thomas, I will include a bottle of FX-39 next time I order from Fotoimpex.
Also, thank you , Ian, for sharing your experience.

Karl-Gustaf

It seems that my findings also resonate with those who have investigated the matter based on science:

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

FX-39 really has more compensating action than Rodinal (although my assertion about film speed appears to be less valid than I thought).

Making the Most of Rodinal

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency