More (mis)adventures with Rodinal

Horatio · Jul 17, 2020

The grain was better with this roll of 135 Arista Edu 400, but... what do you think?

Horatio · Jul 17, 2020

This is Kentmere 400, also developed in Rodinal. I like this grain better. Just need some outdoor shots for comparison.

Paul Howell · Jul 17, 2020

Really hard for me to judge, I need to see on a wall at viewing distance for size of print. Shadows detail look good, seems sharp.

Bormental · Jul 17, 2020

Horatio said:
The grain was better with this roll of 135 Arista Edu 400, but... what do you think?

I think the sample you posted is digitally over-sharpened. It unnaturally exaggerates grain and doesn't really add any detail, and introduces additional artifacts like the halo around the power lines.

eli griggs · Jul 17, 2020

The zoom shows a sand like texture, but grain is questionable.l, on this screen

IMO.

Horatio · Jul 18, 2020

Bormental said:
I think the sample you posted is digitally over-sharpened. It unnaturally exaggerates grain and doesn't really add any detail, and introduces additional artifacts like the halo around the power lines.

No sharpening applied to the first image, just spot and dust removal. I usually turn off the Epson unsharp mask before making a scan, but perhaps I neglected to do that for this image. The "halo" you mentioned is from poor spotting technique, trying to remove dust from that area. Regardless, there certainly is room for improvement with my wet processing, scanning and post processing technique.

My purpose in processing this roll was to determine whether development at proper temperature, with minimal agitation, would improve the appearance of grain, compared to the first roll of Edu 400 I processed back in April. I think the grain structure is better this time around, but it's still too harsh for my liking. I won't know for sure until I can make wet prints from some of these negatives. I've seen some Flickr images of 400 speed 35mm films processed in Rodinal, including Tri-X and HP5+, that look much better than what I'm getting. This film expired eight years ago, which could also be a factor.

The second image was sharpened, BTW.

R.Gould · Jul 18, 2020

I use fomspan 400, in 35mm, printed on 9 1/2 by 12 paper, printed full frame, and always developed in Rodinal/RO9 one shot and have done so for 25 years, in Rodinal before Agfa went, then the above developer, I use 1/50 dilution, constant agitation for the first minute then 1 or 2 inversions every 30 seconds, I get grain, yes, but nothing like I see on the 2 pictures you show,the grain will be most noticable in the skys or smother areas of the print, but I like grain and the Fomapan is ''nice '' grain,

guangong · Jul 18, 2020

Why is grain so disturbing? Without those grains there would be no photograph. What made TriX a popular film choice during 60s and 70s was in large part the dramatic effect of its grain. Just how much grain is desired or tolerated depends upon the photographer and film choice. Printed at same 8x10 size a 35mm or MF negative shows more grain than from an 8x10 negative.
In late 1960s or early 1970s Tetanol marketed a developer that was supposed to suppress grain. It did. But the printed results looked more like syrup than photographs. Never tried it again.

Frank53 · Jul 18, 2020

eli griggs said:
The zoom shows a sand like texture, but grain is questionable.l, on this screen

IMO.

That’s what you get when scanning with an Epson flatbed. You’ll never see the grain, only this. To see the difference in grain, you’ll have to make wet prints (or use a better scanner).
Regards,
Frank

Horatio · Jul 18, 2020

guangong said:
Why is grain so disturbing? Without those grains there would be no photograph. What made TriX a popular film choice during 60s and 70s was in large part the dramatic effect of its grain. Just how much grain is desired or tolerated depends upon the photographer and film choice. Printed at same 8x10 size a 35mm or MF negative shows more grain than from an 8x10 negative.
In late 1960s or early 1970s Tetanol marketed a developer that was supposed to suppress grain. It did. But the printed results looked more like syrup than photographs. Never tried it again.

There’s nothing wrong with grain. I’m just trying to determine why my grain is so prominent and how to make it more pleasing. I’m in the (re)learning phase.

Frank53 said:
That’s what you get when scanning with an Epson flatbed. You’ll never see the grain, only this. To see the difference in grain, you’ll have to make wet prints (or use a better scanner).
Regards,
Frank

I’m beginning to accept this.

Donald Qualls · Jul 18, 2020

I presume this was ".EDU Ultra 400" -- relabeled Fomapan 400 -- as opposed to the long discontinued and expired ".EDU 400" which was relabeled Fortepan 400, an entirely different film (and one more prone to heavy grain even when fresh, in my experience).

This is .EDU Ultra 400 in Parodinal 1:50 (shot in a Canonet 28). Further details aren't recorded with the scan, but in '06, when I processed this, I generally gave extended development (16:30 for this film stock) with agitation only every third minute, in order to bring up shadows without blowing highlights (and in this case, they blew out anyway -- very high contrast scene). And no, I don't recall ever seeing bromide drag with this low agitation level (one-shot developers are less prone to that than reused or replenished stock, I think).

As you can see, even at this resolution level, there's a certain amount of sandpaper texture in the broad areas of light to middle tones. I don't find it unpleasant in the least. If you don't want to see the grain as much, but need 400 speed, use a grain reducing developer like D-76 or Xtol at stock strength (or mix some D-23), or switch to a tabular grain emulsion (TMax 400, Delta 400) or a C-41 B&W film (XP2 Super seems to be the only one still available in the US, and produces results similar to Delta 400 in B&W chemistry or nearly grainless images in C-41).

Horatio · Jul 18, 2020

Here's a rescan at 1200 ppi, warts and all. The only adjustment was in the histogram to bring up the mid tones. Looks better to me. I'm thinking the scanner is more of an issue, and wet printing should be ok. The exposure was 1/250 @ f11. The roll was developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 15 minutes at 20C.

Donald Qualls · Jul 18, 2020

Okay, that's much more reasonable. Might have forgotten to disable auto-sharpening in the first scan. I don't think you'll find the grain a major problem up to 8x10 or so.

Horatio · Jul 18, 2020

Donald Qualls said:
Okay, that's much more reasonable. Might have forgotten to disable auto-sharpening in the first scan. I don't think you'll find the grain a major problem up to 8x10 or so.

I scanned again at 6400 ppi and the results are almost identical. It must have been the high(er) solution temps when I processed the first roll that exaggerated the grain. I had no thermometer then!

Donald Qualls · Jul 18, 2020

I never had much control over solution temperature in my old setup -- the bathroom I used as a darkroom didn't even have ventilation if the door was closed for loading film etc. and it got plenty hot in there during a printing session.

However, overdevelopment can increase grain by a significant margin, and if you don't have a thermometer you can't apply the (rule of thumb) 4% change in developing time for each F degree above or below 68F. I did have a thermometer, so even if it was 85F in my darkroom (and it was, on several occasions), I could grab a calculator and give 16.5 * (0.96^17) = ~8:30 at 85F. As long as the emulsion doesn't soften too much (and modern B&W films are good for at least 90F in my experience), you get the same level of development and little or no increase in grain over canonical 16:30 at 68F.

Happily, my new darkroom is connected to the central heat and air, as well as having separately controlled fan forced flow-through ventilation. Last two times I've pulled out my Xtol, it was between 67 and 68 F. Not enough correction to notice in a 5:30 process.

R.Gould · Jul 18, 2020

I have never had grain problrms with temp increase, in Summer the waterout of my tap is normally 25, I develop at that temperture, following the times for different temps on the Ilford download on the Ilford .com site, also, with fomapan 400, I overdevelop a lot, for camera metered film it is 20 minutes at 20, for hand held metering, such as my MF and Barnack leica's Ect it ois 18 minutes, agitate for the first minute then 1 or 2 inversions every 30 seconds, and I use 250 iso for the 400, but I do not get bad grain, on 35mm, it is there, but not intrusive, I have been using the Fomapan 400 as my only film for 25 years and mainly in Rodinal 1/50 following the above guide lines, and I have been using Rodinal as pretty much my only developer for 60 years, the only film I have had problems with regarding grain is good old HP£ HP4 and HP5,, they just don't like Rodinal, or it's replacement RO0/one shot the print is a scan from a print, Kentmere VC select, from a 35mm neg taken on a canon ae1 program,from a fomapan negative 250, 20 minutes in RO9, and loking at the smooth areas of the print there is grain, but nice grain, and the second print has more smooth areas and again while there is some grain, it is good grain

Bormental · Jul 18, 2020

guangong said:
Why is grain so disturbing? Without those grains there would be no photograph.

It isn't, but grain itself has a character. I am with OP here: some film+developer combinations produce more pleasant grain than others. I like "tight", sand-like grain. It creates a (correct) impression than a picture is built with tiny particles of varying shades of gray. But I dislike large, soft grain, like Delta 3200 in solvent developers.

Donald Qualls · Jul 19, 2020

Bormental said:
But I dislike large, soft grain, like Delta 3200 in solvent developers.

This is the exact reason I quit using D-23. Mixed myself and replenished (with DK-25R), it was almost free to process, a few cents a roll, but I didn't like the mushy grain.

Haven't had Xtol running long enough to pixel-peep much yet, but despite similar sulfite levels to D-23 or D-76, I don't see that "mushiness" with Xtol (stock). End of the day, though, (Pa)Rodinal gives you whatever grain your film already had, no modifications. If you don't like the grain you're getting in Rodinal or work-alike, try a different film.

NB23 · Jul 19, 2020

Where does the concept of “grain being bigger with more agitation” come from?

And why is it so persistent??

This persistent belief creates a whole new set of problems such as the plethora of “stand” methods.

grain is not a function of agitation.

Horatio · Jul 19, 2020

NB23 said:
Where does the concept of “grain being bigger with more agitation” come from?

And why is it so persistent??

This persistent belief creates a whole new set of problems such as the plethora of “stand” methods.

grain is not a function of agitation.

Please elaborate.

Paul Howell · Jul 19, 2020

Increased agitation may lead to an increase in contrast which may give the appearance of larger grain. I use a Unicolor film drum with a motor base, constant agitation, reducing development time compensates for the constant agitation and contrast remains withing what I think as a normal range, meaning I can print grade 2.

eli griggs · Jul 19, 2020

Chosing a film for grain is something basic to photography and though many great films have disappeared since the age of digital began, there are still plenty of choices to be made.

When I started in photography, but long before I started compounding my own developers, I chose to use Tri-X rather than HP5, for this very reason, using only D-76 for film Dektol on both good fiber and RC papers.

You do no need to be a devotee of the Zone System to cast about for film/developer/paper/developer combinations, and nuances of each, for your shooting needs and final image product.

Perhaps you should go back to basics, and make an observation of your topics, desired look, in one film, and how you process both film (and film type) and paper that will give you what you want, and use these, with notes, to approach a second set of film and paper, and beging to change only one thing at a time, until you find your most satisfied combination(s) or standard, and then start again with a new film, etc, until you have you full set of standards, with good notes, giving you a solid position from which to venture into new films/developers/papers/developers and methods, etc.

I hope this helps, and
Best Hope for all.

IMO.

Horatio · Jul 19, 2020

eli griggs said:
Perhaps you should go back to basics, and make an observation of your topics, desired look, in one film, and how you process both film (and film type) and paper that will give you what you want, and use these, with notes, to approach a second set of film and paper, and beging to change only one thing at a time, until you find your most satisfied combination(s) or standard, and then start again with a new film, etc, until you have you full set of standards, with good notes, giving you a solid position from which to venture into new films/developers/papers/developers and methods, etc.

That's the general plan, as I'm re-entering film photography after 25+ years. I like Rodinal with slower films in larger format (120 and 4x5). 135 is just more portable, and a little cheaper in bulk.

eli griggs · Jul 19, 2020

I used Rodinal with Tmax 100, professionally, freelancing with one main studio, where I did Assisting and the Darkroom work.

On of the major clients was a major manufacture of yard and garden and professional building equipment, and this is the combination that gave the most pleasing results for the many publicity and product shoots and the many photographs on RC papers their top sells rep to pass out to vendors and companies that used such products.

When all is said and done, that very large corporation was very happy with the products that came from that studio and my darkroom work.

We also used this combination for many other topics and people shoots, and it was always well received.

I also used this combination for much of my own work, with models, for my portfolio and their books/agencies, and thought Tri-X was also in my kit, for a low to medium speed film, shot at box ISO, I could find no complaints, and when I simply wanted Tri-X grain, (ISOs 200 - 400) I had that hand and used D76 1:1. and Dektol with Gallery and Seagull fiber based papers, and some RC, for toning, preservation and/or colour shift.

As you reeducate yourself in the ins and outs of your quest, please share more of your work in this thread and the critique gallery, together with your goals, so we may also actively think about our own work, as well as yours.

Cheers

Paul Howell · Jul 19, 2020

Tmax 100 and Rodinal is an excellent combination, the very fine grain, best resolution out side of repackaged microfiche with Tmax 100 coupled with the acuity of Rodinal, just need to find the sweet spot to avoid high contrast.

More (mis)adventures with Rodinal

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency