Mass Dev chart, versus...?

[jay moussy]

Wanting to check a Rodinal development spec detail, I visited the Mass Dev Chart, and realized it did not have the user extra notes that I had seen on my Android app "Dev it" - I had the two mixed up, in my mind somehow..!

At my level of (in)experience, I rely on user comments and remarks, so, then are there other sources than MDC with such?

 

[Paul Howell]

Have not seen any, when I checked Adox web page for development times they provide a link to the MDC. You can filter here, there is a lot, almost too much insights, recommendations and love hate posts on Rodinal.

 

[Truzi]

I've not used the app you mention, but have used the Massive Dev Chart as a starting point. One thing worth mentioning is many entries are contradictory, so it can be difficult to figure things out. As Paul mentioned, you can search here for information. You'll still get many different opinions, but the advantage is you can ask questions and get clarification... and that is basically what your thread is doing.

What is it you are looking for? Be specific and you'll get a lot of responses - though not from me, lol, I rarely use Rodinal and would be in the same boat as you.

 

[drkhalsa]

If you are using an Ilford film, e.g. HP5 Plus, FP4 Plus, Delta 400 Professional (I haven't looked at their other film data sheets), their technical data sheets give developing times for Agfa Rodinal in 1+25 and 1+50 dilutions.

If that helps?

 

[jay moussy]

Well, I have two 135 rolls of Foma 100, and wanted to recheck my Rodinal options.

- I should look at the information from Foma itself , as they make a Rodinal clone(?)
- Indeed, I had collected many related posts found here - maybe too many, as it gets quite granular (heh), after a while.
- Yes there can be contradicting information from user to user, so filtering to a common core is in order.

These two rolls are tests of two older SLRs so I do not need perfection.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

If you're looking for user comments on different film/developer combos, you won't find them on the Mass Dev Chart. A good thing, in my opinion. Not only would it make it unbearably crowded and dense, but it would also end up being an endless circle of confusion - pun intended - with all the contradictory remarks you would find for any single combo. No two people look at a photograph the same way, and no two people look at a film/developer combo the same way. That's why the Mass Dev Chart is so practical: it give you a basic starting point, most often based on the film's or developer's manufacturer's recommendations - i.e., the people who should know. After that, you like, or you don't like. But at least, the taste is yours.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Well, I have two 135 rolls of Foma 100, and wanted to recheck my Rodinal options.

- I should look at the information from Foma itself , as they make a Rodinal clone(?)
- Indeed, I had collected many related posts found here - maybe too many, as it gets quite granular (heh), after a while.
- Yes there can be contradicting information from user to user, so filtering to a common core is in order.

These two rolls are tests of two older SLRs so I do not need perfection.

Best to check info on the Adox website: https://www.adox.de/Photo/adox-film-developer/rodinal-adonal/

Personally, when I'm testing a film in Rodinal, I go with middle-of-the-road 1+50 dilution. Gives me a good general idea what the film looks like in that developer. After that, if I like it, I either stay there or go 1+25 or 1+100 depending on the modifications I want to bring to the negs.

 

[gone]

I used the same scheme initially. Googled for hours to find how others did things, looked at the MDV chart, asked for help, etc. It's really a good idea to examine all the written information that's available, although it's not that easy for me to find.

After only a short time you'll have a nice a pile of illegibly scribbled and crumpled notes regarding your results w/ the films, which you'll carefully store some place so crazy that even Scotland Yard couldn't find them. At which point you can start googling, searching through the MDV chart, etc all over again.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

These days if I'm trying a new developer / film combination I tend to check my own notes, maybe the MDC, plus what I know about the developer, and then take a hunch or best guess - this has worked well. Attempting to calculate from the massive development chart can cause confusion and sometimes lead to suspicious development times.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've not used the app you mention, but have used the Massive Dev Chart as a starting point. One thing worth mentioning is many entries are contradictory, so it can be difficult to figure things out. As Paul mentioned, you can search here for information. You'll still get many different opinions, but the advantage is you can ask questions and get clarification... and that is basically what your thread is doing.

What is it you are looking for? Be specific and you'll get a lot of responses - though not from me, lol, I rarely use Rodinal and would be in the same boat as you.

the MDC always got me close enough to get usable negatives; the rest is fine-tuning.

 

[markbau]

Some of the stuff on the MDC is nonsense. Last time I looked at it I noticed that for a 1:1 dilution it gave a time and for a 1:3 dilution it added just 2 minutes. (I think it was for D76, can't recall the film) The MDC is a nice idea but it has too much bad data to trust. Better to come here and ask questions.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Some of the stuff on the MDC is nonsense. Last time I looked at it I noticed that for a 1:1 dilution it gave a time and for a 1:3 dilution it added just 2 minutes. (I think it was for D76, can't recall the film) The MDC is a nice idea but it has too much bad data to trust. Better to come here and ask questions.

The MDC gives too simple answers to too simple questions asked about a complex subject but provides a reasonablestarting point and that's all it wants to do.

 

[otto.f]

https://filmdev.org/

 

[radiant]

The MDC gives too simple answers to too simple questions asked about a complex subject but provides a reasonablestarting point and that's all it wants to do.

I read your book about film development adjustments last night and I can understand your statement completely

 

[bernard_L]

I don't waste any time looking up the MDC. Keep your film/dev combination to the essentials, do your own test (doesn't have to be technical or fancy) and you're done.

 

[Nitroplait]

Water quality, temperature stability, agitation movements, measuring precision (many measuring devices are inaccurate) are all aspects unique to your situation and unpredictable by manufactures and other users.
Therefore, as stated by others, first use the manufacture recommendations, if none given for your specific combo, then refer to an online source applying due diligence - and use it as a starting point from where you adapt the process to your personal preferences - and they will be uniquely your preferences,
and if you are like most photrio users, you will then preach your preference as if it is the only truth ;-)

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Some of the stuff on the MDC is nonsense. Last time I looked at it I noticed that for a 1:1 dilution it gave a time and for a 1:3 dilution it added just 2 minutes. (I think it was for D76, can't recall the film) The MDC is a nice idea but it has too much bad data to trust. Better to come here and ask questions.

best to do yourown customized dev test, which is less of a waste with a starting point from the MDC

 

[Don_ih]

The best plan, and one I find I'm completely unable to do, is stick with a single developer. Every film you get, clip a few inches off in the dark and load it in a camera and take a few shots and test that in your developer. Write down the result. That would be so sensible. I just won't do it....

 

[radiant]

That would be so sensible. I just won't do it....

Another tip that I won't do: buy some very common film from big manufacturer and their own recommended film developer. Read the instructions and develop by the book.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The best plan, and one I find I'm completely unable to do, is stick with a single developer. Every film you get, clip a few inches off in the dark and load it in a camera and take a few shots and test that in your developer. Write down the result. That would be so sensible. I just won't do it....

it takes a day or two to conduct an organized film exp and dev test including the data analysis;Two days which will save you endless hours of frustration.

 

[Don_ih]

it takes a day or two to conduct an organized film exp and dev test including the data analysis;Two days which will save you endless hours of frustration.

Well, when you consider my data analysis is "see how it enlarges", it doesn't take long (a glance at the negative normally answers that). The fact is, I have developers and times for all the films I use so I can get what I want. But I do like to try new things to see what I'll get. So, there aren't any hours of frustration.
Well, there were two exceptions: it took a lot of film to figure out the best way to expose and develop Rollei Superpan 200 and I never did figure out the best way to develop Foma Retropan 320.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

https://filmdev.org/

Problem with filmdev is there is no way of knowing how much manipulation was done to the negatives post-development. Change the levels of exposure, contrast, high and low values, acutance, etc., in a program such as Lightroom before posting, and the "recipe" becomes totally useless data for other users. If you want to give a good, objective idea of what a film/development combo looks like, you can't show a finished product.

 

[otto.f]

Problem with filmdev is there is no way of knowing how much manipulation was done to the negatives post-development. Change the levels of exposure, contrast, high and low values, acutance, etc., in a program such as Lightroom before posting, and the "recipe" becomes totally useless data for other users. If you want to give a good, objective idea of what a film/development combo looks like, you can't show a finished product.

Yes, the value of this site is as relative as MDC when you expect certainty of the figures, let alone for your own working environment and conditions. You can get a first global impression of what a developer does with your film compared to others in terms of grain, contrast, muddiness, clarity and perhaps a bit of sharpness too. Do you want it neat and sophisticated or coarse and gritty and what would fit the most with your subject is the idea.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yes, the value of this site is as relative as MDC when you expect certainty of the figures

There is no certainty with development time figures. Different darkroom workers like different contrast levels and shadow detail densities, so will expose at different EI and develop the same film in the same developer at different time/temp, with different agitation.

The best you can hope for is a starting point that will produce "usable" negatives on the first try and get you where you can adjust to get your own personal film/developer/time/temp/agitation/exposure combination to produce your preferred negatives. The better trained your eye and the more experienced you are with printing or scanning/post, the more likely to have a personal preference for your negatives -- and know how to get it.

 

[Paul Howell]

If you have already shot your rolls of Foma 100 then use Foma's times for Rodinal, R09 1:50 8 to 9 minutes at 68 degrees. If on the hand you have not exposed the film then you test using Ralph method or shoot a ring around and develop at manufacture's post time and dilution to determine working ISO for you camera and meter. Best advice given in pervious posts is to stick to one film and one developer until you that film down pat, then think about moving on other films if you are not satisficed or want a fast film such as Foma 400, Tmax 400 or TriX. But work on getting Foma 100 down, and in my experience Foma 100 does rather well in Rodinal.