Making the Most of Rodinal

[Richard Jepsen]

This thread has gone a bit off topic. After trying two rolls of HP5 I decided I liked FP4 much better in Rodinal. I could keep experimenting with HP5 but I decided to use Tri-X if I needed the speed. Just a few questions remain

1. What others think is the unique look of Rodinal?
2. How can I improve low tone/mid tone separation?

 

[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.

May I know, what agitation scheme do you use for the mentioned developing times.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

May I know, what agitation scheme do you use for the mentioned developing times.

Three full inversions every 5 minutes. The Delta 3200 roll should have probably been developed longer.

 

[baachitraka]

Three full inversions every 5 minutes. The Delta 3200 roll should have probably been developed longer.

I follow the same inversion scheme for Delta 100 and PanF+, after reading 'shaping the tone curve...' article.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

I'm using the guidelines in the following article and adjusting from recommended starting points.

http://forum.mflenses.com/1979-pop-photo-rodinal-article-t37502.html

I only use roll film with Rodinal.

My best negatives which still need tweaks have been with FP4, EI 64, Rodinal 1:75, 11 min, 20c, light conditions winter Oklahoma sun, (4) to (5) inversions the first 20 seconds. (4) gentle inversions each 60s. My developing tank is steel with a (4) or (5) 120 capacity. I load (1) 120 reel and use a 35mm reel for as a spacer. One inversion provides complete mixing of the solution. If I had a smaller tank my agitation would be more frequent to achieve the same results.

My Rodinal is at least 4/5 years old and recently turned a darker honey from light honey tint.

I have both a LPL 670 diffused and condenser enlarger. My existing Rodinal negatives print better on the condenser light source. I also take into consideration the lens contrast difference between my Rollei TLR or Bronica RF645.

Looking over negatives I've used a narrow band of time and agitation. Tweaks are all I need for increased shadow and mid tones.

For FP4 I plan to increase agitation by adding (1) inversion each 30s for 40 - 50% of the developing time or add (1) min stand development. I just need a little tweak. My FP4 and Tri-X Rodinal negatives are much closer to being calibrated for my process than HP5. I'm sure HP5 can produce good results but I decided to remain with my familiar two films.

 

[baachitraka]

Seems, this article was printed on the month/year I was born. I will print this out.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Nice article. The info regarding the films used is of course outdated, as all of those films tested have either vanished or have been substantially updated since.
But regarding technique and universal concept - the article shows very well the difference between solvent developers and surface developers, for example. Today the difference is likely to be less, due to improvements in film.

I'm glad you've found your films you like to work with. If you have something you like, keep using it. I'm spending some time cleaning up the scan of the article, and can send you a copy in PDF format when I'm done, if you like.

- Thomas

I'm using the guidelines in the following article and adjusting from recommended starting points.

http://forum.mflenses.com/1979-pop-photo-rodinal-article-t37502.html

I only use roll film with Rodinal.

My best negatives which still need tweaks have been with FP4, EI 64, Rodinal 1:75, 11 min, 20c, light conditions winter Oklahoma sun, (4) to (5) inversions the first 20 seconds. (4) gentle inversions each 60s. My developing tank is steel with a (4) or (5) 120 capacity. I load (1) 120 reel and use a 35mm reel for as a spacer. One inversion provides complete mixing of the solution. If I had a smaller tank my agitation would be more frequent to achieve the same results.

My Rodinal is at least 4/5 years old and recently turned a darker honey from light honey tint.

I have both a LPL 670 diffused and condenser enlarger. My existing Rodinal negatives print better on the condenser light source. I also take into consideration the lens contrast difference between my Rollei TLR or Bronica RF645.

Looking over negatives I've used a narrow band of time and agitation. Tweaks are all I need for increased shadow and mid tones.

For FP4 I plan to increase agitation by adding (1) inversion each 30s for 40 - 50% of the developing time or add (1) min stand development. I just need a little tweak. My FP4 and Tri-X Rodinal negatives are much closer to being calibrated for my process than HP5. I'm sure HP5 can produce good results but I decided to remain with my familiar two films.

 

[Jerevan]

Thomas,

could you make it available here on APUG or somewhere else? I liked the article, sent the link to a good few people but a cleaner pdf would be great.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas,

could you make it available here on APUG or somewhere else? I liked the article, sent the link to a good few people but a cleaner pdf would be great.

I don't think I have the appropriate permissions from the publisher to do so. I believe in adhering to copyright laws, and while the risk is very small, I protect myself.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I apologize. I gave misinformation.

The first two scans are on TMax 3200...

I've been scanning so much film lately that I forget which is which sometimes.

Sorry about that.

- Thomas

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.

 

[Jerevan]

I don't think I have the appropriate permissions from the publisher to do so. I believe in adhering to copyright laws, and while the risk is very small, I protect myself.

Ach so. I didn't think of that aspect. Of course. It's a bit annoying that the first page is not in the 150 dpi size, but it's better than nothing.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Ach so. I didn't think of that aspect. Of course. It's a bit annoying that the first page is not in the 150 dpi size, but it's better than nothing.

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20113/big_517_majg374_1.jpg

 

[Jerevan]

Thank ye, Thomas!

 

[Richard Jepsen]

I'm spending some time cleaning up the scan of the article, and can send you a copy in PDF format when I'm done, if you like.

- Thomas

Thomas, I have the actual magazine. Bob Schwalberg's article on Rodinal is famous; as is the author who no longer is with us. Good this information does not get lost.

I found the published times remain good starting points for Tri-X and FP4 regardless of emulsion changes. I can't comment for other films. I think its good your sharing information and keeping knowledge alive. I'm completely non digital so can't post images or scans.

Note the article gives a wide spacing of Rodinal development times adjusted for different light sources. This alone is useful. I've also seen the times categorized for quality of light (bright - high contrast; dim - low contrast).

Rodinal has a certain romance to it. A few of my images are stunning....they look different; but many more miss the mark. Part of the reason is I am hit or miss using Rodinal. Develop a few rolls and then back to D-76/XTOL.

In the past I saw Rodinal as a fun accent vs a general purpose developer. I'm going to dedicate this year to FP4/Pan F roll film in Rodinal for landscape projects.

Rodinal negatives printed with a condenser light source have a micro-contrast punch which projects on paper through glass frames. How many times do you place an image behind glass and it loses its expressiveness. Similar to looking at wet prints and then experiencing disappointment when they dry down.

 

[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.

May I know what was the effective speed when pushing with Rodinal? Before that, is there any speed lose at 1+25?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

May I know what was the effective speed when pushing with Rodinal? Before that, is there any speed lose at 1+25?

I don't have a way of measuring with a densitometer. It's all visual inspection, and I would wager an EI of 800 with Delta 3200 or TMax 3200 is about the maximum you can get while retaining full shadow detail.

Speed loss compared to what? Xtol? With Xtol 1+1 you can probably shoot at EI 1,600 and retain full shadow detail. So compared to Xtol I would say yes, but compared to something like Ilfosol-3 or Microdol-X I would say no.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

May I know what was the effective speed when pushing with Rodinal? Before that, is there any speed lose at 1+25?

I know this thread ended some time ago. I would not push film with Rodinal if your seeking traditional image quality. Grain would increase. I don't recommend Rodinal with 135 unless you want a special effect.

What I know and read indicate Rodinal works best with a ISO 125 or slower film. Pan F is frequently recommended. I got better results with FP-4 (1:50) vs HP-5. Rodinal and HP-5 may not be the best combination at 1:75, the dilution I tried. Maybe it works at 1:25 but I have no experience with that ratio.

 

[jonasfj]

http://forum.mflenses.com/1979-pop-photo-rodinal-article-t37502.html

 

[jonasfj]

In my experience Rodinal delivers 1/2 to 2/3 box speed.

Without a darkroom or densitometer, you can not do film calibration.

There is tons of misinformation about how to develop film on the internet. You do not know if the persons thermometer is is correct, water quality, tank type, enlarger type , and contrast of his enlarging lens, if his paper was fresh, or even if the paper curves matches the film or if his safe lights fog the paper.

My results match Kodak and Ilford recommendation to the second. Yet other places are far off. The only conclusion I can come to is test you own.

I completely agree. If you take the effort to work out your individual optimal ISO and development times you will consistently get good results. There are so many sources of "error" in the process, e.g. how you meter the light, calibration of the meter, calibration of shutter speed, age of film, calibration of thermometer, agitation, type of tank/spiral, water quality, etc. It would just be coincidence if what works for someone else works for you. The recommendations on the box is hopefully done with calibrated gear, so that may be the best starting point.

Kodak has outlined a very simple method if you have a darkroom and Tom Halfhill has refined this and written a simple to follow instruction: http://www.halfhill.com/speed1.html

If you do not have a darkroom, but access to a densitometer, I recommend the method described by Ken Rockwell: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-speed-calibration.htm

Ok, against my own advice: If you do not have a darkroom or a densitometer. Rate your film at 1/2 or 2/3 of the box speed and reduce the development to 80% of the recommended nominal time. The basis of this is Tom Halfhill's essay where he claims that, this is where you often will end up.

Have fun!

Jonas

 

[jonasfj]

This thread has gone a bit off topic. After trying two rolls of HP5 I decided I liked FP4 much better in Rodinal. I could keep experimenting with HP5 but I decided to use Tri-X if I needed the speed. Just a few questions remain

1. What others think is the unique look of Rodinal?
2. How can I improve low tone/mid tone separation?

Discussion on developers can evoke a lot of emotion. ;-) But in my opinion Rodinal has two features that separate it from most other developers (grain-refining/compensating developers).

1. The grain: Rodinal is one of few developers that does not refine the grains (because it contains no sulfate). Therefore you get this grainy structure (think pushed Tri-X in Rodinal in portraits of rock musicians from the seventies) that some love and some hate. I personally do not like it for most images, but sometimes it feels appropriate
2. The highlights: Rodinal renders details in highlights better and is less prone to blow out them out than grain-refining developers (check out the highlights in the Popular Photography article that has been linked in earlier posts.) The reason is that part of the silver from the dissolved grains tend to re-precipitate evenly over the emulsion (therefore grain-refining developers are sometimes called compensating), which helps the shadows, but not the highlighs. This is also the reason that you get a lower film speed with Rodinal compared to e.g. Xtol

I see Rodinal more as a special effect developer in cases when you prefer the grain or when the highlights (e.g. in cases when you shoot into reflecting water or the sun) are the main subject. I use Xtol as my standard developer for more normal contrast subjects. D-76 (or ID-11) gives similar results. Liquid developers (such as HC-110) give less grain-refining/compensating effect, because (for some reason I do not understand) they use a less efficient grain-refiner.

Regarding improving the tone separation, see my earlier post on individual ISO and development times.

But there are as many opinions on this as there are darkroom enthusiasts.

Cheers,

Jonas

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I would not characterize HP5+ as an acutance film. Rodinal is a poor choice when it comes to high speed films unless you want large grain. If you want a long lasting concentrate then use HC-110.

 

[Xmas]

May I know what was the effective speed when pushing with Rodinal? Before that, is there any speed lose at 1+25?

Donno about your query but you get

- good toe speed
- reasonable grain
- good micro contrast
- but high contrast

@1+100 20C full stand 60mins

 

[baachitraka]

Donno about your query but you get

- good toe speed
- reasonable grain
- good micro contrast
- but high contrast

@1+100 20C full stand 60mins

I have asked that question in 2012 and to be honest I really do not what I was asking.

Now I don't push with Rodinal, instead shoot at half the box speed and develop @1+50.

Recently I have mixed PC-TEA and it is a very interesting developer.

 

[baachitraka]

Donno about your query but you get

- good toe speed
- reasonable grain
- good micro contrast
- but high contrast

@1+100 20C full stand 60mins

I have asked that question in 2012 and to be honest I really do not what I was asking.

Now I don't push with Rodinal, instead shoot at half the box speed and develop @1+50.

Recently I have mixed PC-TEA and it is a very interesting developer.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I would not characterize HP5+ as an acutance film. Rodinal is a poor choice when it comes to high speed films unless you want large grain. If you want a long lasting concentrate then use HC-110.

I wonder if it would be better with a spoonful of sufite?
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)