Rodinal 10 ml, myth or true?

[Shawn Dougherty]

Five pages of posts and no one has posted a characteristic curve to demonstrate preservation of the toe densities when developing with1/2 or 1/4-capacity solutions of Rodinal.

For me anyway, Thomas has gone a step above, by posting a scan of an actual print he's made from negs developed using only 2.5ml!

My personal experience has also shown that 10ml is not necessary. Many of my best prints have come from negs developed using far less. As always, it's prints and the way they look that interest me.

 

[ic-racer]

For me anyway, Thomas has gone a step above, by posting a scan of an actual print he's made from negs developed using only 2.5ml!

My personal experience has also shown that 10ml is not necessary. Many of my best prints have come from negs developed using far less. As always, it's prints and the way they look that interest me.

You can compensate a speed loss with increased exposure. There needs to be a comparison negative at the same exposure, or lower exposure processed with more Rodinal to the same gamma for any comparison to be made.

Having said that, did you get any good shots at the Ledges?


BTW the reason I bring that up is that 1) exhausted developer can lead to speed loss and 2) when comparing Rodinal (10ml/8x10) to T-max developer (120ml of 1:4/8x10) there is less toe density (lack of speed) with the Rodinal. So, I'd be concerned about using less than 10ml/8x10.

The graphic below shows a greater-than-1/3-of-a-stop loss compared T-max developer (which probably gives a little more speed than an ANSI/ISO standard developer)

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

All I know is it worked for me repeatedly. Over and over again. Over-exposure and under-exposure alike. Rodinal is very potent. You have to develop for a long time, but you will get there. Eventually.

I don't have comparison negs. I only shoot to capture a scene to print.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

You can compensate a speed loss with increased exposure. There needs to be a comparison negative at the same exposure, or lower exposure processed with more Rodinal to the same gamma for any comparison to be made.

Having said that, did you get any good shots at the Ledges?

I do consistently rate tmy2 and fp4 at half box speed with Rodinal. And the lowest dilution I use is 1:75 and almost always 1:100 or higher. So, I assume there is some sort of exposure compensation going on... although with my 4x5 film I am using 15ml for 6 sheets....

I guess what I'm saying is that using less than the recommended amount can be done, and the negs can be used to make fine prints. Exactly what's happening during that process is something else....

----------------------------------

Yes! I exposed 8 sheets before the rain started (earlier than predicted no less!) I developed them when I got home and am really excited about 1 Hopefully I'll be printing it tonight and posting tomorrow. I'll be heading back soon no doubt, hopefully we can hook up with the rest of the crew.

Shawn

 

[pantelis51]

My standard dilution is 1+50 with 6ml rodinal. I also soup 1.8ml for Lucky SHD films.

 

[37th Exposure]

Back in the 1990's I contacted Agfa and got an airmail letter (remember those?) back with numbers that work out to a minimum of 5ml per 135-36 or 120 roll. I had been using as little as 2.5 ml with poor results. Once I bumped it up to at least five, problems solved.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

I'm sure it did. Of course when you're dealing with this sort of thing changing exposure or developing time/temp or even agitation, or, two of those in combination can also be a remedy.

 

[R gould]

Myth, I often develop 35mm films in patterson tanks, which take 300ml per 35 mm film,and use 6ml of rodinal at 50/1 without any problems,Richard