Rodinal & 320TXP?

[cdowell]

I just picked up a bottle of Rodinal at the camera store and am looking forward to giving it a try. Previously, I have only developed with Ilfosol S, DD-X and Kodak T-Max, with Ilfosol being my standard. I found T-Max to be kind of finicky.

Lots of attractive grain is one of the things I've admired about Rodinal negatives, so I'm not worried about that at all.

I've got a few 5-packs of Tri-X 320 around and thought I'd try the Rodinal with that, since I haven't had much luck with T-Max and only use one-shot developers. Anybody else using that combo?

Looks like the BigDevChart says: Tri-X 320 & Rodinal, 1+50, 15 mins, 20C. Sound about right?

For what it's worth, I'm using the 320 indoors, MF, with a strobe flash and softbox. I was pretty impressed with the first roll I shot last night (even developed in Ilfosol). Seemed to hold the skin tones pretty well. I actually ordered the film years ago by mistakes thinking it was normal Tri-X, because, yes, I am a genius

 

[Bosaiya]

Sure, it'll work. You could also dilute less for shorter dev times or more for longer times.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I've shot tons of TXP320 sheets and I process them
always in Rodinal. My recipe: Expose at EI 160,
prewash, process in Jobo tanks with 1:25 Rodinal
@ 20C for about 8 minutes. Works like a charm.

 

[Colin Corneau]

I know it will be diverting the topic but...I wouldn't have thought to expose a relatively-fast film quite that low..I'm assuming to lower contrast a bit or gain shadow detail?
I ask because I have seen your work in the past and greatly admire it.

 

[cdowell]

Divert away. I, too, looked at Sanders' work and was blown away. I'm interested to hear anything anyone has to say about not 'fearing the grain' and letting it give B&W such depth and body.

 

[Colin Corneau]

I'm not so sure Rodinal is a grainy developer, per se...acutance and sharpness, yeah. I have a good buddy who is wise in the ways of silver who LOVES Rodinal in regular Tri-X.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I know it will be diverting the topic but...I wouldn't have thought to expose a relatively-fast film quite that low..I'm assuming to lower contrast a bit or gain shadow detail?

Shadow detail. Traditional B+W emulsions can take
a lot of overexposure but are most unkind to even a
small want of light. As a rule, I expose most films
at half their box speeds -- insurance that I will get
all the detail I want in the image. I process the film,
however, as if exposed at the box speed. I'm not
pulling the film, just "overexposing" it.

As for grain, it is not much of an issue when shooting
TXP in sheets. In rolls, I shoot 400TX, not TXP, and I
usually process it in HC-110 because I find that Rodinal
gives a more pronounced grain that is discernible in the
smaller negatives.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

You stated that you were using T-MAX developer with TXP 320?? Can you let us know what went wrong with that combination? I am using that film and developer right now with no problems whatsoever.... I rate the film at box speed, and for the developer, dilute it 1:4 and develop for 7.5 minutes @ 68deg F. I also replenish the developer. I've had a small 2 litre batch going for a few months now and it is working great.

 

[cdowell]

You stated that you were using T-MAX developer with TXP 320?? Can you let us know what went wrong with that combination? ...

I should have said that I had not had much luck using T-Max developer in general. I've never used it with TXP 320 at all.

I'm sure my issues with T-Max developer resulted from my slackness of methods, not any problem with the product. I think maybe processing tmax films in tmax requires a little more temperature control than I was used to providing. My normal combination (Tri-x and Ilfosol) seems pretty forgiving in comparison.

But I haven't used tmax much at all; I'm sure it has great things to say as soon as I learn the language.

 

[Shangheye]

I use Rodinal with TXP at the conditions you described 1:50 15 mins and it is perfect (it is my preffered developer for LF simply because it is so economical). It also provides a more controlled contrast with not that much more grain.

For MF I use TXP 320 in T-Max at the same conditions described by Andrew. It produces fine grain, great sharpness, and as long as you are managing your exposures well (i.e. not over-exposing...I also use box speed) then the contrast is great...check out Andrews recent work.

Rgds, K

 

[mrred]

I used Rod 1:50 @ 13 mins. A little dark for me and I was going to try 11 next time (and shoot a frame with a grey card).

 

[cdowell]

Just wanted to let you guys know that I tried out my Rodinal and was happy with the results. I'm still getting used to the broad mid-tones of the TXP320. But I shot a roll of my second favorite film, FP4+, and was blown away.

I posted samples (scientifically imperfect samples, I realize) in the technical gallery with the title listed below. I'm counting freckles in both shots, and my son's freckles are not that pronounced. I'm wildly enthusiastic about Rodinal so far.

Rodinal - Txp320
Rodinal - FP4+

 

[Colin Corneau]

There's definitely lighter midtones in the TXP image - to the point where it looks like you used a fill card on the shadow side.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Just wanted to let you guys know that I tried out my Rodinal and was happy with the results. I'm still getting used to the broad mid-tones of the TXP320. But I shot a roll of my second favorite film, FP4+, and was blown away.

I posted samples (scientifically imperfect samples, I realize) in the technical gallery with the title listed below. I'm counting freckles in both shots, and my son's freckles are not that pronounced. I'm wildly enthusiastic about Rodinal so far.

Rodinal - Txp320
Rodinal - FP4+

They do look quite different but I see from your two posts
that you exposed both at 1/125 @ f/8, even though the TXP
is more than a stop faster than the FP4 -- is that right?

 

[cdowell]

They do look quite different but I see from your two posts
that you exposed both at 1/125 @ f/8, even though the TXP
is more than a stop faster than the FP4 -- is that right?

That is right. I adjusted the flash output until it metered at f/8 in an effort to keep as much as possible the same. Not sure that's the best approach. I'm new to artificial light. I have to say I'm digging working indoors on these cold gray days, even shooting after dinner when the sun is long gone.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

You can't go wrong with Rodinal, so many options are available with it. Have a look at DF Cardwell recent article.
I almost process everything with Rodinal.

 

[edtbjon]

It's possible that you've overcooked the TXP a little, as it should hold the highlights better than it does in your sample. Try e.g. 12 minutes next time if everything else is the same. On the other hand you seem to have nailed the dev.time for the FP4 exactly right.
(My reasoning for this is that the FP4 is a typical "short toe - long shoulder" film, which if anything should suffer from burnt highlights. The TXP on the other hand is "long toe - short shoulder" and should in theory perform better with the highlights.)
I guess that you've scanned the negatives and posted the adjusted scans in the image forum. If so, I recon that the scanner performance plays its part too. I.e. it could be that there is good highlight separation, but that the scanner cannot pick it up that well. (I'm guessing again, that the TXP is more dense and haves a bit more b+f to begin with.)
Apart from that and possibly more important, I like your portraits.

//Björn

 

[markbarendt]

That is right. I adjusted the flash output until it metered at f/8 in an effort to keep as much as possible the same. Not sure that's the best approach. I'm new to artificial light. I have to say I'm digging working indoors on these cold gray days, even shooting after dinner when the sun is long gone.

It looks/sounds to me like you are correctly adjusting the strobe output to match the aperture and film speed but the shutter speed still controls the ambient exposure so using a 320 shutter speed with TXP should help you match the shots better.

I'm betting the difference in the photos is that the TXP is just catching more of the ambient light and/or some flash bounce that the FP4 isn't.