Rodinal 1:200 vs 1:300 for stand development of FP4 and Acros?

I wish to start experimenting with stand development of sheet film. I intend to start with 2 sheets of 4x5 (maybe one each of FP4 and Acros or just two sheets of the FP4) in an HP Combi tank (approx 1100 to 1200 ml total volume). My initial thought was to do it using 6 ml of Rodinal for a 1:200 dilution, agitating for 30-60 sec then let it stand for 2 hours. I will be doing this at room temp (approx 75 F (24C))

This dilution would actually still maintain the 10 ml per roll minimum recommended by Agfa since 2 sheets of 4x5 equal half a roll of 35 mm (also half of an 8x10).

On the other hand I began wondering if this would be too much developer leading to overdevelopment if used for 2 hrs since the overall developer will not completely exhaust.

What about 4ml (1:300 dilution) for two hours?

My main aim is to achieve an edge effect, acutance and to influence microcontrast rather than control a very contrasty scene. I was intrigued by Steve Sherman's presentaion and by seeing his negatives at the LF conference in May, but wish to avoid use of pyro based developers.

At what EI do you shoot FP4 or Acros intended for stand development? What about HP5, Tmax 100, Tri-X 400 (in 120) and Bergger 200, which I occasionally use?

Any experience with use of very dilute Xtol or HC-110 for the same? How is the image different form that done in very dilute Rodinal?

Any feedback is welcome. Thanks a lot in advance.

Sincerely,

Hany.

Some feedback; I broke down and did the 2 sheets of 4x5 FP4 using the 200:1 dilution using a total of 6 ml of Rodinal in 1200 ml in the HP Combi tank, with 60 sec agitation and then stand development for 2 hrs. I have not made contact sheets yet, but the sheets look good with even development and probably maintainance of film speed (at least maintainance of some shadow detail). The sheets were shot at EI 125 since they were originally intended for development in another developer (Sprint Standard developer 1:9, a D76 1:1 clone which uses phenidone rather than metol). This setup maintained the 10 ml of Rodinal per roll minimum suggested by Agfa.

Just for fun I also separately developed a noncritical 120 roll of Delta 100 (shot at EI 50) in 200:1 Rodinal using only 2.5 ml in a regular 500 ml tank, agitate for 60 sec then stand for 2 hrs. Here development was extremely uneven with streaking (the roll is probably unusable) and while I have not done any testing or even printed a contact sheet yet, have probably not achieved maximum development of the highlights. So I guess 2.5 ml of Rodinal is probably not enough for a roll of film.

Sincerely,

Hany.

hany

good experiment

based on long experience (not to say I'm a genius, just determined) you probably won't see any advantage to 1+200 over 1+100 dilutions. You will also probably find that minimal agitation cycles of 5 seconds of agitation every tenth minute will maximize various acutance effects while maintaining even density across the negatives. An hour's development, or half an hour, is pretty much the same. See Sandy King's agitation methods.

You can use 1+200, but I've found little, if any, advantage for normal work. The only exception has been in using Technical Pan for pictorial results, and 1+300 slows the process down to a comfortable pace. But TP is the exception to every guideline.

Your experience with 120 shows the liability of standing development. A few agitation cycles will cure that.

ON THE WHOLE, I THINK RODINAL IS ALMOST PERFECT. If you would like an alternative which avoids pyro, and is even better than Rodinal for your purposes, use TFX-2, from the Formulary. It adds some shadow speed, is more acute, and has no flaws.

good luck

df cardwell said:

based on long experience (not to say I'm a genius, just determined) you probably won't see any advantage to 1+200 over 1+100 dilutions. You will also probably find that minimal agitation cycles of 5 seconds of agitation every tenth minute will maximize various acutance effects while maintaining even density across the negatives. An hour's development, or half an hour, is pretty much the same. See Sandy King's agitation methods.

Click to expand...

Can you provide more details regarding the 1:100 method, including volumes involved. What is your opinion re minimum amount of Rodinal needed? My tank allows upto 6 sheets at a time. 1:100 would be attractive esp if I can develop 4-6 sheets at a time. Assuming 12 ml in 1200 water, I would have somewhat less than 10 ml/"roll" if I use 6 sheets but I am assuming would probably be still safe.
One advantage of no agitation at all was that I could be really lazy, set an alarm, and just forget about the film for 2 hrs. I will do a search regarding Sandy King's agitation method but I would appreciate it if you could provide more details.

Thanks a lot in advance.

Sincerely,

Hany.

Hi Hany

This is based on my experience, and was arrived at by controlled testing, and confirmed by shooting. But is is MY way. I'm jumping into this because you might get to your results quicker, not trying to preach MY way.

Volume
There is an assumption that Rodinal is a weak developer, but that is absolutely not true. There is no reason, to me, that there need be any practical concern about minimal volume of concentrate in the solution. In a Combi tank, I've relied on 1:100 for all Kodak T Grain films, as well as Tri X and FP4. I routinely use 1:100 for roll films, often developing 35mm rolls back to back, to get 8 rolls in a 1000 mk tank. Plenty of developer. That would equal 8 sheets of 8x10 in 10 ml of Rodinal. The thought of this will make some folks scream, but it works for me. And my densitometer. But I don't use 1+200 for sheets, and it may be that volume can be issue at that point.

Agitation
I advocate agitation cycles of ten minutes because I've yet to find density variations at that time. Hour long cycles without agitation cause variation in 35mm rolls. Half hour cycles don't seem to, but variations appear in 120 roll film. Ten minutes cycles seem fine for me.

Sandy King
There are many developers that are good for semi-stand development. The agitation cycle Sandy describes for Pyro Cat is applicable for Rodinal, FX-2, FX-1 and others. But I won't paraphrase them, I think a primary source should always be read. But he uses shorter cycles than I. He also processes film in a different manner than do I. And he writes particularly well about it.

Lazy Agitation
Well, yes. I love the idea of tossing the film in a tank and going for a walk.
But you have to BE involved and attentive. You'll always get better results at 30 minutes to 60 minutes, because you'll more more attentive to what's going on.

haziz said:

Can you provide more details regarding the 1:100 method, including volumes involved. What is your opinion re minimum amount of Rodinal needed? My tank allows upto 6 sheets at a time. 1:100 would be attractive esp if I can develop 4-6 sheets at a time. Assuming 12 ml in 1200 water, I would have somewhat less than 10 ml/"roll" if I use 6 sheets but I am assuming would probably be still safe.
One advantage of no agitation at all was that I could be really lazy, set an alarm, and just forget about the film for 2 hrs. I will do a search regarding Sandy King's agitation method but I would appreciate it if you could provide more details.

Thanks a lot in advance.

Sincerely,

Hany.

Click to expand...

df cardwell said:

Hi Hany

This is based on my experience, and was arrived at by controlled testing, and confirmed by shooting. But is is MY way. I'm jumping into this because you might get to your results quicker, not trying to preach MY way......

Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for the thorough reply. Any insight regarding semi-stand (or other) development with TFX-2. It sounds interesting. I already did a quick web search and did stumble across Photographer's Formulary info sheet which is sparse overall and does not however include any times etc.

Any insight as to it's use including dilutions, times etc with your various films. I will do my own tesitng eventually including a formal densitometer based film speed test etc. but would appreciate info that I can use as the starting point. You seem to imply it is better than Rodinal. How does it also compare to traditional (non-acutance) developer for e.g. with tonality.

How is it different from a practical standpoint from FX1 and FX2? I realize it is supposed to be a modification of Crawley's FX2 formula.

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Hany.

I just hung a roll of FP4 to dry from my first attempt at semi-stand developing with Rodinal. So what follows is practically worthless on its own but might be a useful anecdote. I used 5ml + 500ml for a roll of 120 in a plastic tank; everything stayed at 20C. I used a 4 minute presoak, gentle agitation for 1 minute, then 5 seconds of inversion at 15 minute intervals, for an hour. The last period was more like 25 minutes because I was reading my daughter a naptime story

Based on a cursory inspection while hanging the film to dry, contrast looks very strong. I shot this roll in a Diana (~f/11, ~1/60) on a mountaintop under clear skies at noon, so I was hoping for a speed decrease. It's hard to tell much other than good shadow detail and very even density where there's solid sky.

Anyway, I wonder if I could have just done 30 seconds of initial agitation to hold back the highlights? I chose this method because (a) I was curious and (b) I figured it would give less overall density than Diafine. In any case, it made an image, and that's cause for celebration when there's a Diana in the equation

Rodinal does not need, nor benefit, from a pre-soak. It doesn't streak, and it is absorbed into the emulsion quickly.

It does not require half a minute of agitation at the start. Think of agitation as being additive, that every second of agitation counts, and it really doen't matter when you do it.

I think 45 minutes to an hour at 1+100 would be a good place to start. But with a TOTAL agitation of 25 seconds ( 45 minutes development ) to 30 seconds ( 60 minutes of agitation ). Five seconds at the start is fine. Look at an EI of 125 - 200 if you measure at Zone V.

This combination will give you an incredibly long scale negative. Since FP4 has a long straight line, making highlights that don't block (shoulder) until they have a density of 2.10 or so. Mix up some Ansco 120 or Selectol Soft and have a crack at those negs.

What happens when you do standing development, or semi stand, or minimal agitation, with Rodinal is you are 'pushing' the shadows and 'pulling' the highlights. The effect is to make a long straight line. With TMX, a film with a shoulder, you get strong shadow and midtone separation. With FP4, or TMY, you get a really long straight line. FP4 is pretty resistant to making the highlights shoulder with any developer.