Rodinal - and thoughts

[mitchins]

Hi All,
I've been using Rodinal (for the past 12 months), and I have some thoughts - I'm kind of thinking out loud here and would like to see where people agree/differ:

1. It really does NOT like Ilford (HP films, low speed) as they come out very low resolution and motley.
2. It gives acceptable results for Fomapan although I feel perhaps it is still not optimal, certainly for 4x5 Fomapan 100 I could get better resolution but it isn't to bad and the tones are decent (grain isn't fantastic).
3. It seems to give rather good results for Shanghai GP3 in 120, I find it quite sharp with a pleasant grain.
4. This applies to point 3 the most, and may infact make point 1 worse but stand developing gives very nice results (GP3 loves it, Foma is bleh, Ilford is woeful) - it seems to simply magnify the results you already get with agitated normal process.

Again, this is just me seeing how your milage may vary, I could dig up some specific examples if conversation requires it, but at first I'm keeping this more high level.

I'm considering trying XTOL to get the most out of Fomapan as I use it for 4x5, I may have thought GP3 would have been a better choice as in 120 it gives clearer images, again it might just be that it loves Rodinal.
I went with Rodinal because it was easily available (And cheap), has a good shelf life and easy to mix up.

 

[cliveh]

Rodinal is one of the best developers available and if you are not getting the results you want, I would suggest you are not using it properly.

 

[mitchins]

Thanks, I'm very happy with the results in GP3. Do you think agitation instead of inversion may change results with certain films?

 

[Rob Archer]

I'm surprised you're not getting good results with the slower Ilford films. Whilst it's probably not the best developer for HP5+, FP4+ and PanF+ are excellent, both in 35mm and 120.
Try PanF+ rated at 25 in Rodinal 1:100 for 15 minutes at 20°C - the best results I've had with this film with a full range of tones and excellent sharpness.

I'd love to try the Shanghai films but they're not available in the UK (unless anyone knows better?)

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

 

[mitchins]

I'm surprised you're not getting good results with the slower Ilford films. Whilst it's probably not the best developer for HP5+, FP4+ and PanF+ are excellent, both in 35mm and 120.
Try PanF+ rated at 25 in Rodinal 1:100 for 15 minutes at 20°C - the best results I've had with this film with a full range of tones and excellent sharpness.

I'd love to try the Shanghai films but they're not available in the UK (unless anyone knows better?)

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

Thanks, I guess I should try again, I've done about three rolls of Ilford.

I've had a good experience buying GP3 on eBay, it comes in good time and condition out of Hong Kong.

 

[baachitraka]

Rodinal is rather very good but speed loosing developer and you may need to rate the film lower than box speed.

Sent from my GT-I9301I using Tapatalk

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Rodinal is a good developer for slow and medium speed films. You do lose a bit of film speed however.

It really does NOT like Ilford (HP films, low speed) as they come out very low resolution and motley.

If you are experiencing mottling then you need to look at you agitation method. BTW what dilution are you using?

 

[mitchins]

Rodinal is a good developer for slow and medium speed films. You do lose a bit of film speed however.



If you are experiencing mottling then you need to look at you agitation method. BTW what dilution are you using?

I believe I was using 1+25 (for higher contrast) with inversions. From memory development time was about 7 minutes with minutely agitations by inversion after the initial interval.

 

[Chrismat]

I love Rodinal for Rollei Retro 80s (softer lighting, like cloudy days) and Acros, both 1:50.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I believe I was using 1+25 (for higher contrast) with inversions. From memory development time was about 7 minutes with minutely agitations by inversion after the initial interval.

Agitation sounds conventional. Dilution does not determine contrast, development time determines contrast. I use Rodinal at 1+49 as do many others. The only time that I have observed mottling in any film is with old roll film never in 35mm. With outdated roll film there is sometimes a reaction between the film and the backing paper which causes mottling.

 

[rrusso]

Here's a couple of goof off test shots to compare if you'd like. The dog is Kentmere 100, the wall/bush is Kentmere 400. Stand dev in Rodinal 1:100 for one hour, 10 sec agi every 20 min.

I was just shooting whatever I came across for testing purposes.

Maybe not the greatest film/developer combo, but I think it's pretty good, especially given the cost.

Scanned with an Epson Perfection V500, which I'm borrowing from a friend, and still fiddling with. No digital ICE, or processing - just straight out of the scanner. They could be cleaned up and made to look better I'm sure.

 

[mitchins]

Agitation sounds conventional. Dilution does not determine contrast, development time determines contrast. I use Rodinal at 1+49 as do many others. The only time that I have observed mottling in any film is with old roll film never in 35mm. With outdated roll film there is sometimes a reaction between the film and the backing paper which causes mottling.

I see, would it be right then to say, that development time is a function of concentration? (perhaps that's how I had it in my head - stronger concentration, less development time).

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Yes, development time depends on developer concentration. A rough estimate is that doubling the concentration would halve the development time.

 

[mitchins]

Here's a couple of goof off test shots to compare if you'd like. The dog is Kentmere 100, the wall/bush is Kentmere 400. Stand dev in Rodinal 1:100 for one hour, 10 sec agi every 20 min.

I was just shooting whatever I came across for testing purposes.

Maybe not the greatest film/developer combo, but I think it's pretty good, especially given the cost.

Scanned with an Epson Perfection V500, which I'm borrowing from a friend, and still fiddling with. No digital ICE, or processing - just straight out of the scanner. They could be cleaned up and made to look better I'm sure.

Wow very sharp and lovely contrast on the dog!
Well, I need to keep on the Rodinal Wagon then. Thanks a lot. It is the most convenient developer too.

 

[gone]

I liked it a lot w/ GP3 too, but it had more tonality in stock Mic-X. It was sharper in Rodinal, but not that much. If you don't agitate it too much, Rodinal at 1:25 gives great negs, even with 35mm. Try it like that w/ Tri-X some time. The grain is there if you give it a Tri-X and D76 type of agitation scheme, but wow, it's a beautiful sort of overall grain. Kinda like a metal flake custom paint job, only in B&W.

 

[Colin Corneau]

I've never had great luck with it on HP5+ but I used it for FP4+ and PanF+, and really liked the results. For me, it seems to be an ideal film for slower films (400 being the cutoff, basically) whereas for faster films I use other developers...YMMV

 

[Patrick Robert James]

To the OP- How are you evaluating your results?

I have been using Rodinal since I started photography which is a long time ago. I have never had "mushy" results with it with any film which probably is on the far side of 20 by now.

My guess is your are evaluating negs by scans or your enlarging lens is pretty bad.

 

[rrusso]

I knew I'd tested some HP5 + using the same stand method I mentioned before, but I couldn't seem to find the negs before I made my post. Of course I'd been looking without seeing...

I bought a bulk loader on the bay a while back and it came with some HP5+...old stuff based on the seller's remarks.

I chalked the results up to it just being old, but I wonder how it compares to what you've gotten?

 

[Athiril]

I usually prefer Xtol replenished. It gives the same resolving power as Rodinal 1+25, but with more film speed, and much finer grain. I've also tested that stand developing loses resolving power in Rodinal compared to 1+25.

You can improve resolving power on a lot of films by addition of 5mg of potassium iodide per litre of working developer (nb: this works just as well in Xtol) - this also works for stand developing and seems to negate the resolution loss I found with it. You can make the grain fine as well with thiocyanate in Rodinal, but some films greatly speed up in developing time, possibly gaining back the lost film speed as well.

 

[mitchins]

I knew I'd tested some HP5 + using the same stand method I mentioned before, but I couldn't seem to find the negs before I made my post. Of course I'd been looking without seeing...

I bought a bulk loader on the bay a while back and it came with some HP5+...old stuff based on the seller's remarks.

I chalked the results up to it just being old, but I wonder how it compares to what you've gotten?

Nowhere near that bad, it just seems to be a lessening of "resolution" rather than graininess. I'll try and find an example, Fomapan when zoomed in too closely can appear like a turtleshell, weird I know I'll find a scan at home.

 

[mitchins]

I usually prefer Xtol replenished. It gives the same resolving power as Rodinal 1+25, but with more film speed, and much finer grain. I've also tested that stand developing loses resolving power in Rodinal compared to 1+25.

You can improve resolving power on a lot of films by addition of 5mg of potassium iodide per litre of working developer (nb: this works just as well in Xtol) - this also works for stand developing and seems to negate the resolution loss I found with it. You can make the grain fine as well with thiocyanate in Rodinal, but some films greatly speed up in developing time, possibly gaining back the lost film speed as well.

Many Thanks this sounds interesting and worth a go!

 

[John Bragg]

I really wanted to make Rodinal work for me, especially with Tri-X, but I have never gotten the look I was after. I havent totally given up, but since it keeps so well, I may bave a dabble with it again some day. After all, the botle is only approx 20 years old.

 

[baachitraka]

I don't really understand about the lack of look, from Rodinal, that many of us are talking here.

- Lack of details in high-lights? Other words blown highlights.
- Suppressed mid-tones?
- Lack of local contrast?

 

[Xmas]

I'm surprised you're not getting good results with the slower Ilford films. Whilst it's probably not the best developer for HP5+, FP4+ and PanF+ are excellent, both in 35mm and 120.
Try PanF+ rated at 25 in Rodinal 1:100 for 15 minutes at 20°C - the best results I've had with this film with a full range of tones and excellent sharpness.

I'd love to try the Shanghai films but they're not available in the UK (unless anyone knows better?)

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

I threat PanF+ as an ISO50
In a multi tank with everything else
Rodinal 100+1 full stand 50-60 minutes @20c the contrast is high but that is scene not film, I can only use PanF on bright sun days, once a year.

 

[ValoPeikko]

Rodinal is a good go-to developer to use. But it has it's limits. I mainly use it for stand developing for higher acutance and compensating contrast. For speed, I use Diafine. There are plenty of developers and if one doesn't suite your needs and desires, try others. There's no right and wrong in looks, but plenty of options to go for