"Old" Rodinal = pinholes?

timeUnit · Mar 30, 2006

Hello!

Recently I've gotten pinholes on almost every film I've developed. Just two or three holes, but still.

I use different films, but have shot mostly Adox CHM400 Pro and CHM 125 Pro (HP5 and FP4) lately.

I use Rodinal 1+50 for all my processing. The Rodinal bottle is soon empty, and now has something crystalline in it that sloshes around. This substance does not end up in the working solution, at least not in any large amounts. I've heard Rodinal has great storing capacities, but maybe that is only in filled bottles?

Could my old (about seven or eight months since I opened the bottle) Rodinal be the culprit of my pinhole problem?

I use a water stop bath, Ilford Hypam fixer, Kodak HCA and the Ilford method for washing the film.

I will develop a nice roll of Ilford Delta in my old Rodinal soon, and also some Adox CHM 400 in fresh XTOL 1+1. That should shed some light on the issue I guess.

Thanks!

Tom Hoskinson · Mar 30, 2006

Rodinal development (with either old or new Rodinal) should not cause pinholes.

Maybe the pinholes are already present (as defects) in the film emulsion.

Are you seeing the pinholes in the Iford films and the Adox films as well?

If so, you might consider sending a "pinholed" negative to Ilford for their evaluation.

I'd like to see what the pinholes look like at high magnification ( i.e., in a microscope).

reellis67 · Mar 30, 2006

Tom Hoskinson said:
Rodinal development (with either old or new Rodinal) should not cause pinholes.

Maybe the pinholes are already present (as defects) in the film emulsion.

Agreed. I've developed a LOT of Ilford films in AGFA Rodinal (the 'older' one now I suppose, but not the original) and never had any pinholes. I've done a number of EFKE films as well and not had problems like what you are describing.

- Randy

timeUnit · Mar 30, 2006

I agree that the holes could be present from manufacture. But, subjectively, I find that there are pinholes more frequently now than before. Switching developer should definetely rule out or confirm the "old Rodinal" theory. We'll see. Thanks.

*h

Mark Layne · Mar 30, 2006

I have had pinholes in Delta apparently caused by (too) acid stop bath.

I have also had problems with crystals in old Microdol, but they show up as larger odd shaped blotches where a crystal remains in contact with the negative and prevents the developer from reaching the emulsion
Mark

df cardwell · Mar 30, 2006

35 years of rodinal, no pinholes

Bruce Osgood · Mar 30, 2006

SNIP

Mark Layne said:
I have had pinholes in Delta apparently caused by (too) acid stop bath.

I would agree with Mark, if you are using an acid Stop Bath try plain water rinses prior to fix. It has worked for me.

Gerald Koch · Mar 30, 2006

An acid stop bath should only cause problems with carbonate based developers. Rodinal contains no carbonate. But in all practicality an acid stop bath is only needed with FB papers.

timeUnit · Mar 30, 2006

As written before: water stop bath. On first (wet) inspection, the Adox CHM 400 Pro roll I just dev'd in XTOL 1+1 looks free from pinholes.

df,
Do you have a crystalline "slush" in your Rodinal? Do you bottle your rodinal into smaller ones?

Thanks!

Gerald Koch · Mar 30, 2006

I believe that the crystalline slush in some Rodinal is potassium sulfite that has crystalized out due to exposure to low temperatures.

timeUnit · Apr 4, 2006

I'm getting less pinholes with XTOL 1+1. But they're still there. That means that it's either a emulsion problem (more likely) or I'm doing something wrong in processing (less likely, IMO).

I've had so much issues with the cheaper films, Fomapan, Adox/Efke, Adox/Ilford, that I'm thinking of switching to "real" Ilford film. You get what you pay for I guess.

abeku · Apr 4, 2006

CHM400 is commonly used by me too. I develop it in D-76 and I have never had any issues. What are the emulsions numbers you've had problems with?
Is there a difference between Ilford film and ADOX labelled Ilford film, i.e. differences in quality control when manufactured?

Bob F. · Apr 4, 2006

Are you sure they are pinholes? This is a very popular combination. Precipitate from your developer is much more likely to be embedding itself in the emulsion, or it could be particles in your water. I'd look to such possibilities before blaming the emulsion. With a company like Ilford, Kodak, Fuji etc. that is the very least likely explanation - almost impossible if you are getting the same result across different batches and films.

Try some fresh Rodinal and see how it goes.

Cheers, Bob.

timeUnit · Apr 4, 2006

The thing is that I've not had these issues for so long. The XTOL is just three months old, stored in tightly capped, full bottles.

I'll try the old Rodinal on a roll of Ilford Delta 100. If I get pinholes there... I don't know what to do.

timeUnit · Apr 5, 2006

abeku,

my batch nr is 508026 expiry 04.2008. I'd say there is definetely a difference in QC with the Adox-labeled film. Otherwise it would be very strange to have that price.

I just developed a test roll on XTOL 1+1. Once again, pinholes. I developed two 135-format rolls (same film, different format) in the same tank. I'll check them thoroughly when they're dry.

Cliff · Apr 5, 2006

How about air bubbles? Do you tap the tank after you pour the developer in, to dislodge air bubbles?

timeUnit · Apr 6, 2006

I bang it like a madman!

Seriously, I give it a good banging by striking the bottom of the tank three times with the palm of my left hand. I don't bang it against the sink as my neighbors won't like it (I often develop film at night) and as I've heard the Paterson tanks are prone to breaking.

abeku · Apr 6, 2006

timeUnit said:
my batch nr is 508026 expiry 04.2008.

...and I have 508024 (2008-7), so I can't help you there.
Have you physically cleaned your negatives with a lens tissue? I had some problems once with hard water that caused tiny precipitates and at the first glance the negatives looked like having pinholes. Luckily, they were wiped off easily.
Have you tried out Rodinal and Delta 100 yet?

gnashings · Apr 6, 2006

My first attempts at developing were done with Rodinal that was passed down to me from a friend. It was about a 1/3 full, and according to him he "found it under his bed, and has no idea how long it has been there, but probably years" - no joke. No pinholes, either. Usually used at 1+50, but a couple of films at 1+25. Variety of films, many of the ones you mention. Since then, I have not had a bottle that old, and especially not one that was partially empty for that long - but still, no holes. I would put the Rodinal in the very unlikely category of culprits.

Valerie · Apr 6, 2006

I've been getting pinholes in lots of my film as well. Largely the Delta. But I use pcat-hd, 1:1:250 stand. I was chalking it up to air bubbles, despite a good couple of raps to dislodge them..................

Rolleijoe · Apr 7, 2006

I've had problems with Ilford a few years back, and dropped them completely. The Efke films (not the rebranded Ilford ones) have brilliant tones, that Ilford just can't imagine, especially the Deltas.

Drop the Ilford, and the problem should clear up.

timeUnit · Apr 17, 2006

Ok, so now I've souped the test roll of Delta 100 in my old slushy Rodinal at 1+50, 20°C, 15 minutes (I wanted a bit of a push) with my ordinary agitation scheme. Not a single pinhole. Meanwhile, I've found big holes in the emulsion of my CHM400Pro films -- flakes of emusion that has fallen off. They're about 0.5 mm wide. It seems my batch is not so good... I'll write this of as a QC mishap, I guess.

"Old" Rodinal = pinholes?

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency