Rodinal 1+100 develop time is 20 minute or an hour?!?

[anoldsock]

I've recently become interested in using Rodinal but I am a bit confused over the development times, so please excuse my n00bish question. I've been doing some research for the last two hours over standing development and it has gotten late and I'm tired and still confused, but I keep running across two dev times for 1+100 dilution. It seems that people use a 20 minute dev time or a 45-60 minute dev time for the same dilution. Well...which is it?!!? 20 minutes or 45-60 minutes? Can someone provide me with some additional information as to why there are difference for the dev time even though the dilution hasn't changed?

FYI - I am interested in trying this dilution for Tri-X

Thanks in advance!

 

[Ian Grant]

Some use little or no agitation which is known as Stand Development for obvious reasons, the loger times are for this method. Normal agitation gives shorter times.

It's better to start with the 1+50 dilution until you have plenty of experience.

Ian

 

[Luc]

Have you seen this?
http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00C0U2

rgs
Luc

 

[SMBooth]

Agfa's puts the process time for Rodinal 1:100 and TriX at 20min. Constant agitation for the first 30 sec then 5 sec every 30 sec after that

 

[df cardwell]

It's better to start with the 1+50 dilution until you have plenty of experience.

Ian

And when you HAVE plenty of experience,
you'll see the there is no need in going to 1+100.

d

 

[pierods]

And when you HAVE plenty of experience,
you'll see the there is no need in going to 1+100.

d

Hum?

Less grain, compensating effect, low contrast? Not true?

 

[Ian Grant]

Rodinal at 2+75 (1+37.5) and 1+50 gives exceptionally good fine grain with Tmax 100 & APX100. It was my only developer for personal work from the mid 80's until I switched to Pyrocat HD.

I found 1+100 only had uses for N-2 development which is rarely needed in the UK, I actually found that 1+50 was ideal for N-1, 2+75 for N, and 1+25 for N+1 & N+2. Rodinal is unique in the way different contrasts re best handled by dilution & dev time rather than just by dev time alone.

Ian

 

[pierods]

Rodinal at 2+75 (1+37.5) and 1+50 gives exceptionally good fine grain with Tmax 100 & APX100. It was my only developer for personal work from the mid 80's until I switched to Pyrocat HD.

I found 1+100 only had uses for N-2 development which is rarely needed in the UK, I actually found that 1+50 was ideal for N-1, 2+75 for N, and 1+25 for N+1 & N+2. Rodinal is unique in the way different contrasts re best handled by dilution & dev time rather than just by dev time alone.

Ian

Yeah, my friend, but we'talkin tri-x, and hp5 for me, gotta big grain, wanna small grain! Wanna compensate sloppy metering!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You're going to get some really nice grain with this combination, and you'll get very sharp looking prints once you nail the development.

In my very limited experience, and I have only ever used 1+75 or greater dilutions to any serious extent, is that if you have the time you'll use less developer at higher dilutions without any real benefit to the looks of the negative. I use 1+200, but that's just me. I don't want to necessarily recommend it to anybody else. I use Rodinal a lot with pinhole shots, and I use that high dilution to prolong development to aid shadow detail and film speed somewhat, and to reduce highlight density by agitating less. The more I dilute, the longer I can develop, and by necessity I will have to agitate less = that gives me what I need.

- Thomas

 

[fschifano]

You want finer grain? Then change your developer. No matter what you do with Rodinal, it will never magically transform into a fine grain developer. Sloppy metering? Stand development won't fix that either. There's a whole lot of hoopla made about stand development that, in my experience, is a lot of bulls**t. Uneven development, more evident with medium format than with miniature format, can rear its ugly head. Compensation? Not nearly as much as you might think.

 

[BobNewYork]

If you want fine grain then Rodinal is definitely the dev. of choice. If you want fine grain you can't expect the "bite" of a Rodinal neg. I used Xtol or Rodinal exclusively - depending on the "feel" I wanted, and will do again as soon as I'm set up. 4x5 Tech Pan in Rodinal 1+150 for 6 minutes, (agitation for first full minute then 2 inversions every minute thereafter) has some very interesting qualities. Rodianl 1+100 - same agitation, different dev. times - for TMX, Tri-X, Delta 100 - wonderful stuff. Xtol - 1+1 or greater for everything. I do intend to try tanning devs but they'll have to be exceptional to beat the results, (my personla opinion only, of course) that I got from R & X.

 

[df cardwell]

The point about 1+50 is that it allows a long enough development time to be able to reduce the agitation to control your highlights.

While there are those who advocate greater dilutions, 1+50 is sufficient. There is no quantifiable difference between 1+50 with agitation every 5th minute and whatever you get from 1+100. The principle with Rodinal is to develop long enough to gain the shadow density you need, and apply enough agitation to:

a) place your highlights where you need them to be, and
b) give enough agitation to eliminate potential development errors

1+50 does a fine job on both counts. Safe, dependable, flexible.

Rodinal is NOT for everybody. It IS for some. That is one of the axioms of photo technique.
Many other developers do very well with the principles of 'minimal agitation',

Which is simply a 21st century formula for what they called 'standing development' 100 years ago,
and which, according to my informants (40 some years ago) seldom was ever practised with no agitation.

Now, I intend to walk over to a deli near Schwab's house,
and eat half a fine Reuben, and a cup of chicken soup.

I'm sure some of you will think that what I choose to eat is as unacceptable
as what I do in the privacy of my darkroom,
but tough boogers

peace

 

[BobNewYork]

Can I have the other half??

 

[r-brian]

My standard Rodinal dilution for Fuji Acros (don't shoot much 400 film in New Mexico) is 1+100 for 18min @ 20C with standard agitation (continuous for the first 30 sec, 2 inversions on the minute). I've also tried stand development for 1 hour at 1+200 for a roll shot at mid-day in the NM sun. The negatives came out great. Most of what I've heard for stand development and Rodinal has been in the 1+200 dilutions range.

 

[George Collier]

Stand, or semi-stand works for me with Rodinal (different dilutions and times, but all weaker than 1:50) and 35mm Tri-x, Delta 400, and FP4, but I cannot eliminate surge effects with 120 film, and I tried many things.

 

[calexg]

1+200 dilution and stand development sound great. A bottle of Rodinal could last a long time if this was your primary method of developing.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned checking out the Digital Truth website. http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html

 

[Colin Corneau]

Thomas Bertillson gave me a great recipe for 1:200 semi-stand w/Rodinal...agreed, at that dilution one small bottle would last several lifetimes.

 

[anoldsock]

soooo no one really seems to have an answer why I find two development times for 1+100 dilution........ It sounds like maybe everyone is saying there is less grain with standing development. but I guess I'll just experiment with 1+100 for 20 minutes with agitation and again with standing for an hour to better understand the differences.

 

[rwyoung]

soooo no one really seems to have an answer why I find two development times for 1+100 dilution........ It sounds like maybe everyone is saying there is less grain with standing development. but I guess I'll just experiment with 1+100 for 20 minutes with agitation and again with standing for an hour to better understand the differences.

You did get an answer but not the simple and concise one you wanted.

Different films react differently to developer formulation, temperature, concentration and agitation. This even extends to films with the same name but different format.

In your original question you didn't say for what films you found the different times/dilutions. You only stated that you wanted to use Tri-X.

So the short answer is that Rodinal will work as a stand/semi-stand for anything from 1+50 and greater dilutions and times from 20 minutes to asleep in front of the TV for hours.

My suggestion to you is try 1+50 at 20 minutes with a bare minimum of agitation. Let us say continuous agitation for the first 30 seconds then tap well to dislodge bubbles (I'm assuming you are using a small tank here, 35mm or 120 size film) and let it rest on the counter for 10 minutes. Then agitation again for about 10 seconds, tap and rest for another 10 mintues. Stop, fix, HCA and wash per instructions for the various formulas.

Try printing these, if you like it, stay with it. If you (and I'm assuming you are going to be consistent in your exposure and metering technique) don't like it, then start to research the ideas behind longer times and greater dilution and altered agitation methods. Make ONE change and re-test. Preferably with the same subjects, lighting conditions and film.

See how this gets very complicated very quickly? Also intensely fascinating for some of us...

Oh, and don't forget, that the recommended amount of stock solution for each 80 square inches of film (ie one 8x10, 4 4x5s, one roll of 120 or one 36 exposure 35mm roll) is between 2.5ml and 5ml. Depends on who you ask and which "Rodinal" formulation (classic, T09, new, etc). Err on the side of caution initially and plan on 5ml. In this case you need to have a tank that holds 505ml without making a huge mess. Most 2-reel 35mm tanks should hold that much.

FYI, my personal preference for stand developing with roll film is 1+100 (3ml stock T09) for 1 hour with 30 seconds agitation at the start and about 10 seconds at 30 minutes. Not shooting much lately but I was using this with Foma 200 rated at 125 (I think, don't have my notes) and pretty happy. Arrived at this combination after two tries and just decided it wasn't, for me, worth any more testing.

 

[anoldsock]

Well...to be technical, yes and no, my question wasn’t really answered. Although I do appreciate everyone’s input as to what their different dilutions and techniques are, as well as what worked and what didn’t work for them, my original question wasn’t addressed.

I am sincerely trying not to be rude here, and understand that this comment may seem that way, so please do not take this the wrong way, but while I also appreciate the time you took to respond to the thread, your answer didn't really address the original question either.

I was just simply wondering, assuming all things equal, why I kept finding two development times for the same dilution, and not whether each one will work. If you took my question to mean if it's possible to do develop film with both dev times then I apoligize for the confusion.

That’s why I mentioned that I will experiment on my own to see what the differences are between a 20 min dev time with a 60 min dev time. The only thing I have derived from everyone’s answers are that, in general, the different development times are attributed to having different agitation techniques, with each technique resulting in different outcomes. As I mentioned, it's just something I'll have to experiment on my own to figure out.

Anyway, again, I’d like to thank you and everyone else for taking time to provide some insight on using Rodinal. Everyone's comments has been very helpful in aiding my understanding of Rodinal, and will help me while I'm experimenting with the different dev times and agitation techniques. If you took this response to be rude or condescending, I apologize in advance. That was not my intention.

 

[df cardwell]

"why I kept finding two development times for the same dilution"

Because there is a diversity of experience, and capability, reflected in all Forums.

Perhaps you need to change your question ?

 

[anoldsock]

"why I kept finding two development times for the same dilution"

Because there is a diversity of experience, and capability, reflected in all Forums.

Perhaps you need to change your question ?

Yeah, you're right. I probably needed to rephrase that question. I'm just not sure how else I would have asked that :confused:

 

[Lee L]

Variables that aren't often mentioned in time/dilution recommendations:

Target gamma (contrast) and whether it's aimed at a condenser or diffusion enlarger, and which brand and what grade of paper. (BTW, Agfa's own recommendations are for a gamma of 0.65, and I usually aim for about 0.60.)

What amount of concentrate in what volume of water for how much film. One roll of film with 2.5 ml in 250 ml may give you different results than one roll with 10 ml in 1 liter. The 2.5 may be exhausted and limit contrast and maximum density.

Agitation routines.

Water used for mixing developer.

Photographer A prints like Bill Brandt and Photographer B prints with lots of mid tones.

A likes a long toe and rolled shoulder and B likes a straight H&D line.

----------------------
Digital Truth and many other sources of lists for development times don't give completely specific info. Most manufacturers give good specifics in their tech info sheets, but then they don't list stand times.

That's why you're getting the "ambiguous" answers, and recommendations to test for yourself.

Lee

 

[df cardwell]

Exactly so, Lee.

Another variable, which is probably the most important,
is what is the source of information about standing development ?

If a 'lore tradition' comes from a magazine article written in the 1940s,
which might be a breezy account of a photographer's work in the 1920s,
there might have been the common understanding amongst the readership (60 years ago !)
that 'standing development' involved a slow working developer for glass plates in a large tank,
and a photographer who took a peek at the plates every 15 minutes or so, each inspection providing adequate agitation.
In THAT case, and I'm think of Atget in particular, the writer might have said,
"Oh, Atget just put the plates in the tank and kept them there until they were ready."

Again, when the article was written, there probably was an understanding of how the process worked.

But if the 'lore tradition' connects to that primary source through 2 or 3 intermediary steps which, through time and misunderstanding, the details of the actual process fall away, leaving a 21st century student the understanding that old time photographers really DID just drop the film in the tank and didn't do anything for hours, days, weeks, months...

THAT lore, spreading like a dose of salts through photo forums, tweaks the imagination of photographers,
and sheer luck often determines whether the results will be any good or not.

Some of us connect recently to a photographic lore tradition many iterations from the primary source, while some can be still considered a primary source themselves, having begun to learn their craft in their youth from old photographers.

When photographers connect directly, one generation to another, to women and men who were making pictures one hundred years ago, or one hundred and fifty years ago, a different point of view might emerge in a discussion than from a photographer who has come recently to photography, and is interested in this thing called 'standing development'.

If photography is to survive and have energetic and strong photographers in 5 years or 25 years from now, our conversation has to encourage learning from each other. New things must always be tried, but wisdom is often ignored which might have supported the adventurous photographer. Forums tend, however, to (I'm searching for an accurate way to describe the process) reward enthusiasm, and has no real way to measure the veracity of an opinion.

WELL, it's the community we have, so we should take every chance we can to actually meet each other !

And always try to remember that a question might turn up a different type of information than you are expecting !

.