Modern Rodinal Substitutes Part II

Ian Grant · Aug 30, 2009

Only at 1+2 or 1+3

I can't comment on the grain, except yes it's fine with Perceptol, but I always got fine grain with Rodinal too using APX1oo, APX25 and Tmax 100.

Ian

Anscojohn · Aug 30, 2009

[---- "Try Zero-Grane 999. Non-poisonous. Enlargement to 999 diameters, miraculously discovered by George Gizzlewski after 84 years of painstaking research. If it won't develop your negative, take two teaspoonsful after each meal. It puts spring in your step and a light in your eye. $10 per 2 oz. bottle sufficient for 89 rolls of film."[/I]

Edmund Lowe, 1939
******
Made my morning. Lowe had a sense of humor. I must needs now chuckle each time I use some FG-7.

Ian[/QUOTE]

cmo · Aug 30, 2009

Mike1234 said:
Sorry to butt in but I've never used Perceptol and am interested in its "high actance / fine grain" properties. I million years ago when I was processing my own film I used Rodinal and LOVED the acutance but had to put up with the grain.

Does Perceptol possess as much acutance as Rodinal?

Is the grain truly that much finer than Rodinal?

Perceptol has a LOT less grain than Rodinal. Well, so do XTol and all other developers. If you want grain try APX 400 in Rodinal and push it to 1600.

Ilford Perceptol alias Kodak Microdol-X is not too bad in terms of acutance, and it becomes pretty good at 1+3. But with most films you lose some speed. And of course it is not as comfortable to use as Rodinal and does not last for centuries.

gainer · Aug 30, 2009

Alan Johnson said:
Patrick,

The rate of aerobic oxidation of ascorbic acid has maxima at pH 5 and 11.5 (google ascorbic acid oxidation pH lester packer).
If that is true the ascorbate version at pH 14 will probably not be as resistant to oxidation as Rodinal.
However it may show considerable increase in film speed.
Is there a formula to test yet?

I wasn't thinking of such a high pH. I want to stay below the point where ascorbates alone are active. Ascorbate will still serve to regenerate oxidized Metol at pH = 8.7, at which pH it produces results like those of sulfite. This is the reason it works in place of sulfite in the Pyrocat developers that are dissolved in glycol. Its function there is to allow Phenidone or p-aminophenol or Metol to interact synergistically with the catechol when water is added to the glycol stock as sulfite does in the water stock.
We think of Metol-hydroquinone as a superadditive pair, but the superadditivity does not work without sulfite or ascorbate.
The developing agent in Rodinal is potassium aminophenolate with sulfite preservative. It is more an analog of D-23 than anything else, if you choose to look at it that way. If we could buy (maybe we can) potassium p-aminophenolate, we could probably get the same result as Rodinal by putting it in a solution with sulfite, and not worry about how the phenolate was manufactured. Now substitute potassium ascorbate for the sulfite and see what happens.

Mike1234 · Aug 30, 2009

cmo said:
Perceptol has a LOT less grain than Rodinal. Well, so do XTol and all other developers. If you want grain try APX 400 in Rodinal and push it to 1600.

Ilford Perceptol alias Kodak Microdol-X is not too bad in terms of acutance, and it becomes pretty good at 1+3. But with most films you lose some speed. And of course it is not as comfortable to use as Rodinal and does not last for centuries.

That's just it though. I want the best of both worlds... extremely high acutance and fine grain. By far, I care most about acutance and would never give that up for fine grain. I'll just shoot the biggest film I can carry the equipment for.

If there is a very high actance developer (at least as good as Rodinal) but with finer grain then I would certainly give it a try.

Ian Grant · Aug 30, 2009

Barry Thornton in The Edge of Darkness raves about Perceptol 1+3, it does give high acutance and fine grain. It's a good combination brilliant with FP4.

But I have to say that the APX100 / Rodinal combination produces some of the finest grain 35mm images I've seen with superb tonality, this is because the two are designed for each other by Agfa.

Crawley makes a point of saying certain Ilford developers give outstanding results with Ilford films but weren't as good with some Kodak films. Ron Mowrey (PE) has said much the same in this thread Or the other half) in a slightly different way.

Manufacturers tweak films & developers to match their products.

Ian

Mike1234 · Aug 30, 2009

The last B&W combo I used was Agfapan 25 and 100 in Rodinal 1:50 and toned in selenium. I LOVED the results. Now that I'm getting back into LF I must give the APX100/Rodinal combo a try.

Ian Grant · Aug 30, 2009

My first combo wth Rodinal was AP100 & AP25. I had to print an old neg for an exhibition about 4 or 5 years ago and the AP25/Rodinal combination was just incredibly sharp and tonal, that was 129.

With LF there's no APX100 until Fotoimpex begin to coat it again, under the Adox brand name, when stocks of 35mm run out. But Tmax 100 in Rodinal is equally as good, just use at 50 EI and the times for APX100 @ 100EI.

I'd add also suggest you look at Sandy King's Pyrocat HD, it's a very versatile developer and gives excellent acutance and fine grain. It's a modern developer with an old twist - it's a staining developer.

Ian

Photo Engineer · Aug 30, 2009

I should remind you that you can only get 2 out of 3 properties at their peak from any film or developer combination. You have speed, sharpness and grain to consider. Pick two of the above and then pick your developer accordingly.

Kodak has published a chart of this for their developers which has been referred to many times here on APUG. IDK if anyone else does.

PE

Mike1234 · Aug 30, 2009

Ian: I tried T-Max a l-o-n-g time ago and hated the results (muddy and blocked simultaneously) but I never really experimented with it because it was so bad. I'll try sanking's formula. That's with T-Max 100? I'll be shooting 4x10.

Photo Engineer: I don't care about speed... only acutance and grain... in that order.

Ian Grant · Aug 30, 2009

Certain developers may get closer to the three

Barry Thornton makes much of that triangle in the Edge of Darkness.

I'm not a fan of Barry Thornton's writing but some is very sound, but as Voltaire said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Staining developers seem to be a modern key to achieving the optimal balance, in many ways it's a neglected area. Edwal was once pre-eminent in this field, Johnson's the oldest of all photo-chemical suppliers another and had one of the best with Meritol, the PPD/Pyrocatechin developing agents but our own Sandy King has (along with GH & PMK) revived the staining developer with Pyrocat HD which is like Rodinal on Steroid

Some of the very best developers were made by smaller companies with some superb formulae. But even Agfa with Atomal, and M&B's Promicrol were nudging into the magig triangle.

My own feelings are that at the moment Pyrocat in it's various forms is the best optimised developer for modern films

Ian

Photo Engineer · Aug 30, 2009

Mike1234 said:
Ian: I tried T-Max a l-o-n-g time ago and hated the results (muddy and blocked simultaneously) but I never really experimented with it because it was so bad. I'll try sanking's formula. That's with T-Max 100? I'll be shooting 4x10.

Photo Engineer: I don't care about speed... only acutance and grain... in that order.

If you are serious about this, I suggest you use ISO 12 with an ISO 25 film and develop accordingly.

PE

Mike1234 · Aug 30, 2009

Ian: Rodinal on steroids? Ohhh... I LIKE that!!

Mike1234 · Aug 30, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
If you are serious about this, I suggest you use ISO 12 with an ISO 25 film and develop accordingly.

PE

That was my norm many years ago. I overexposed Agfapan 25 and 100, underdeveloped in dilute Rodinal, then selenium toned to add contrast. Overexposure opened the shadows, underdevelopment precluded highlight blockage, and the selenium toner extended the straight line portion of the gamma curve. I toned via visual inspection aiming to print on Gallery grade 3. I underexposed the prints very slightly and toned them in selenium too. This had a similar effect on the prints... great tonal range, wide open shadows, wonderfully detailed highlights, and gorgeous print color to boot. Not speaking of my work... but tonality and acutance were spectacular, IMHO.

Keith Tapscott. · Aug 30, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
I should remind you that you can only get 2 out of 3 properties at their peak from any film or developer combination. You have speed, sharpness and grain to consider. Pick two of the above and then pick your developer accordingly.

Kodak has published a chart of this for their developers which has been referred to many times here on APUG. IDK if anyone else does.

PE

OK, I will take the bait. I want good sharpness and definition of detail without emphasising graininess for my chosen film stock and I am happy to sacrifice some effective film speed if necessary to obtain that. Which developer(s) do you suggest? Xtol, D-76/ID-11, Ilfotec DD or others? This would be for Ilford`s Plus series films and Kodak`s T-Max films please, I am not bothered about the other B&W films available.

Photo Engineer · Aug 30, 2009

Kodak is the only one that publishes such a chart. Go here:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...wFilmProcessing/selecting.jhtml?pq-path=14053 and take your pick.

PE

Mike1234 · Aug 30, 2009

^^^ Going by Kodak's chart... what about XTOL 1:1 or 1:2? Wouldn't diluting the developer open up shadow detail? How would this affect acutance?

Keith Tapscott. · Aug 30, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Kodak is the only one that publishes such a chart. Go here:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...wFilmProcessing/selecting.jhtml?pq-path=14053 and take your pick.

PE

I have seen that chart many times, although I am not sure that there is an absolute "Best developer" available, even though there are some particular B&W film and developer combinations that seem to be very well matched for each other.
I have always liked the "LOOK" of FP4 Plus and HP5 Plus in D-76 1:1, although I sometimes get the urge to try something different like Pyro or dilute Perceptol/Microdol-X. I think it is for the best that I simply stick with what I am familiar with though.
BTW, Ilford provide a similar chart.

Photo Engineer · Aug 30, 2009

If you look at the chart, you see quite a bit of "room" for moving the tokens around. There are developers that I know of that can do what XTOL does or even better. There was lots of R&D room left even though there is no magic bullet that can move all 3 tokens to the highest position.

Rodinal is probably in the range of XTOL and HC-110, IDK not having done a direct comparison. It does suggest though that there are few old time developers that are really top notch and I know of modern ones that are better. If you wish to make a subjective comparison then look at XTOL vs Microdol-X or D-76. This compares films with modern and old style developers.

PE

Photo Engineer · Aug 30, 2009

Keith Tapscott. said:
BTW, Ilford provide a similar chart.

Keith;

I provided the URL to Kodak. Would you please supply the Ilford equivalent?

Oh, and I appreciate knowing that Kodak is not the only one to publish that type of chart.

Thanks.

PE

Keith Tapscott. · Aug 30, 2009

Pyrocat-P and Pyrocat-PC look like interesting alternatives to Agfa-Photo Rodinal.

gainer · Aug 30, 2009

I could supply potassium p-aminophenolate, but it is so sensitive to oxidation that I would have to ship it in concentrated potassium sulfite solution. Would that be alright?

Ray Rogers · Aug 31, 2009

What developers/dev. agents do you know to be better?

Photo Engineer said:
There are developers that I know of that can do what XTOL does or even better... I know of modern ones that are better. PE

What films do these data apply to, most strictly, in your knowledge/opinion?

(How were these charts actually constructed?
The developers are mentioned, but on what films?
Was there any "weighting" of the results that you know of? (80% modern 20%traditonal... or some such? )

BTW
What developers/dev. agents do you know to be better?

Ian Grant · Aug 31, 2009

gainer said:
I could supply potassium p-aminophenolate, but it is so sensitive to oxidation that I would have to ship it in concentrated potassium sulfite solution. Would that be alright?

Would you buy it as R09 from Calbe and sell it as Gainerol

There's an interesting cemical called "Oxygen Scavenger" which is sold by a bulk photographic chemical supplier.

I've never seen it in any published formulae but it's sold in liquid form in sizes up to 1000 litre IBC's - Ammonium Bisulphite

Ian

Keith Tapscott. · Aug 31, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Keith;

I provided the URL to Kodak. Would you please supply the Ilford equivalent?

Oh, and I appreciate knowing that Kodak is not the only one to publish that type of chart.

Thanks.

PE

I looked on Ilford`s site, but I can not find it there now. The publications that I have are rather old, so perhaps they are updating them.
There is one for FILM CHEMICALS-LOW VOLUME (no mention of DDX, as it wasn`t introduced at the time this publication was made available) and another for FILM CHEMICALS- HIGH VOLUME for use in Deep-Tanks and Processors with replenishment.
I found the one for low volume chemicals on another website. See page 3 (2.2).
http://www.darkroom.ru/info/manuals/ilford_film_chemicals_manual_eng.pdf

Ilford also provide information for choosing film developers in the technical information publications for their films, i.e. Maximum Sharpness, Finest Grain or Best overall image quality etc.

Modern Rodinal Substitutes Part II

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency