Rodinal 1:200!

[kier]

Hi All -
I'm sharing this here to see what other experiences folks may have had. Today on my blog, I shared a photo by Croatian photographer Marko Umicevic. It's a pinhole on paper negative, with some great results: http://fslashd.com/2015/05/get-inspired-under-the-trees/

His dev technique for this photo? Rodinal 1:200, developed under inspection, for about 8 to 10 minutes. The resulting contrast and tonal range are, to me, some of the best I've seen in a paper negative in harsh light (it was contrasty direct sun in the distant buildings in the scene).

Has anyone else experimented with high dilutions of 1:100 or 1:200 for paper negatives? Marko says he normally does 1:100, but because this scene was especially contrasty, he took it a little further.

Cheers!

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I am agree with you , print looks like palladium. And one of the best pinhole image I have ever seen , no vignetting , no middle sharpness and contrast increase nor the ugly aberrations.

What was the brand of his paper ? And how is his camera looks like ? Did he contact printed on another paper or is this direct positive ?
Rodinal is something , an very very intelligent person formulated.

 

[roy]

I have used a high dilution in the past with Kodak Technical Pan but that, of course is film.

 

[kier]

Mustafa - in answer to your questions:

Camera: homemade curved plane panoramic pinhole with 3.5x10" negative plane
Paper: Fomabrom double weight grade #2 fiber based paper
Printing: after developing the negative, he scans it, inverts it to make a positive, and then applied a light split toning

Roy - yeah I always use Rodinal 1:100 for my film dev as well. most resources that discuss using Rodinal for paper dev usually recommend a 1:10 or 1:20 dilution, certainly nothing close to 1:100 or 1:200.

 

[Xmas]

Mustafa - in answer to your questions:

Camera: homemade curved plane panoramic pinhole with 3.5x10" negative plane
Paper: Fomabrom double weight grade #2 fiber based paper
Printing: after developing the negative, he scans it, inverts it to make a positive, and then applied a light split toning

Roy - yeah I always use Rodinal 1:100 for my film dev as well. most resources that discuss using Rodinal for paper dev usually recommend a 1:10 or 1:20 dilution, certainly nothing close to 1:100 or 1:200.

Beg to differ while lots of people use 1:100 or 1:50 for film.
Paper or RC 1:7 - 1:10 is more normal or that used to be on the bottles of para amino phenol (Rodinal) clones eg Azol, as far as my memory goes.

 

[kier]

Xmas - what are you differing with? I think everything you wrote is more or less in line with what I stated.

 

[Xmas]

Two apologies

1:7 and 1:10 is more concentrated than yours.

http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Johnsons_of_Hendon/JoH_Chemicals.html
Azol instructions are in your bracket.

So sorry twice but Ive used 1:7-1:10... for chlorobromides.

 

[kier]

OK - right, traditional dilutions are 1:7, 1:10, and I've heard a lot of people recommend trying 1:20. The link I was posting at the start of this thread was to show some amazing results when using an extreme dilution of 1:200. I just wanted to share it cause the highlight details and the tonal range he was able to develop out are quite stellar

 

[Xmas]

You are not alone with 1:200 I've tried that too.
More normally use 1:100 60 mins stand.
Mainly cause use multi tanks and every film type gets the same.
Reasonable shadow detail and shoulder.

 

[kier]

Xmas - I see the disconnect in our conversation now - I'm referring to paper, not film. That's what I found surprising - that this was 1:200 Rodinal for paper

 

[Jerevan]

I've used Rodinal as a paper developer at 1+50 in a drum, constant agitation for 2-3 minutes. But I suppose extending the time when doing the 1+200 would yield good results as shown above. The lower contrast negative helps keeping things from going out of control when printing, since this stage also adds a bit of contrast.

 

[kier]

Jerevan do you have examples? I'd love to see

 

[Xmas]

Me to

 

[Jerevan]

Here is one from the gallery:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

and here is the negative, inversed in LR:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jerevan/8751647896/in/dateposted-public/

I have others but nothing that I feel being worthwhile showing at the moment.

 

[kier]

Very cool! Thanks for showing!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mkillmer]

I use paRodinal (Rodinal made from Paracetamol) at 1+100 in my Jobo for 3 minutes to develop paper negatives.
I rate the paper at ISO 3 and find the process fairly fool-proof.
I get very nice results this way on fresh and expired RC paper.
Expired fibre paper can be exquisite, but development is slightly more difficult for me as I use the Jobo (not trays) and the fibre paper goes limp in the tubes. To solve this problem I have moved to a smaller (15xx series) 2 part Jobo tank normally only used for 120 film, with a home made internal baffle to keep the sides smooth.

 

[Russ Young]

8x10 paper negative, Imagon 300 mm (pre-war model), Fluorescent light bank, one second exposure.

 

[NedL]

I've experimented with overexposing the paper negative ( by 1.5 stops is a good starting point ), and then developing in old, well used dektol diluted 1:8 in ice water. By inspection with development times between about 8 and 15 minutes. It was the first time I've ever seen good cloud definition and a well exposed landscape in the same paper negative. Hopefully nobody will complain too much about the di61tal aspect of this comment, but another interesting "feature" of developing paper negatives this way is that you end up with a warm negative and when the colors are inverted you get some blues and greens and they fall where blues and greens are in real life. Here's an example:


Petaluma Hills par Ned, on ipernity

I wrote a little bit about it over at f295 ( since the "inversion" is not analog ). These negatives also contact print nicely, and sometimes you actually need to boost the contrast when printing onto VC paper....

So yes... I think exposing a little more and using dilute developer is a good thing to experiment with for paper negatives

 

[TheToadMen]

I've experimented with overexposing the paper negative ( by 1.5 stops is a good starting point ), and then developing in old, well used dektol diluted 1:8 in ice water. By inspection with development times between about 8 and 15 minutes. It was the first time I've ever seen good cloud definition and a well exposed landscape in the same paper negative. Hopefully nobody will complain too much about the di61tal aspect of this comment, but another interesting "feature" of developing paper negatives this way is that you end up with a warm negative and when the colors are inverted you get some blues and greens and they fall where blues and greens are in real life. Here's an example:


Petaluma Hills par Ned, on ipernity

I wrote a little bit about it over at f295 ( since the "inversion" is not analog ). These negatives also contact print nicely, and sometimes you actually need to boost the contrast when printing onto VC paper....

So yes... I think exposing a little more and using dilute developer is a good thing to experiment with for paper negatives

Interesting method and a great result! I like the "colours" a lot.

 

[Xmas]

Interesting method and a great result! I like the "colours" a lot.

so do I!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I always expose paper negatives through a yellow #8 filter, assuming ISO 3 and develop in dilutedDektol 1+ TO CONTROL CONTRAST

 

[scheimfluger_77]

I've experimented with overexposing the paper negative ( by 1.5 stops is a good starting point ), and then developing in old, well used dektol diluted 1:8 in ice water. By inspection with development times between about 8 and 15 minutes. It was the first time I've ever seen good cloud definition and a well exposed landscape in the same paper negative. Hopefully nobody will complain too much about the di61tal aspect of this comment, but another interesting "feature" of developing paper negatives this way is that you end up with a warm negative and when the colors are inverted you get some blues and greens and they fall where blues and greens are in real life. Here's an example:


Petaluma Hills par Ned, on ipernity

I wrote a little bit about it over at f295 ( since the "inversion" is not analog ). These negatives also contact print nicely, and sometimes you actually need to boost the contrast when printing onto VC paper....

So yes... I think exposing a little more and using dilute developer is a good thing to experiment with for paper negatives

That has exquisit tonality, what are you using for starting point ISO?

 

[NedL]

That has exquisit tonality, what are you using for starting point ISO?

Just like Ralph mentioned, that would have been pre-flashed then shot through a yellow filter at about ISO 3. Since it was overexposed by about 1-1/2 stops, that would make it around ISO 1. This was either Adorama VC RC or Ilford MGIV VC RC, I don't recall, but I could look it up if you want....

 

[scheimfluger_77]

no need, i'll do some experimenting. What do you think about using a green filter on VC paper to hold the exposure to the low contrast part of the emulsion?

 

[NedL]

I've never tried it, but it seems to me like it should produce a similar control of contrast by blocking some blue light. The paper negative above reminds me of using a yellow-green filter with pan film: the grass was bright light green and the photo looks like Sonoma county in the summer when the grass is straw-colored. Sounds like a good idea to me!

I have tried an orange filter, and it was hard to see much difference from the yellow except that it made exposures incredibly long.