Rodinal in a Jobo

[coriana6jp]

Hi,

I am trying to remember something I read once, but no longer can find. I want to use Rodinal at 1:00 in a Jobo tank. Somewhere I remember, or at least I think I remember, someone said this was not a good idea. I cant recall the reason why I should not attempt this.

If anybody has any thoughts on this I would love to hear them.

Thanx!

Gary

 

[JeffD]

Hi,

I am trying to remember something I read once, but no longer can find. I want to use Rodinal at 1:00 in a Jobo tank. Somewhere I remember, or at least I think I remember, someone said this was not a good idea. I cant recall the reason why I should not attempt this.

If anybody has any thoughts on this I would love to hear them.

Thanx!

Gary

I haven't tested it, but I think it eliminates the possible "compensating effect" that Rodinal is supposed to have with stand, or minimal agitation developing. It should work, though, but you would have to work out the development times on your own through testing, as I think Rodinal might be more sensitive to vigorous agitation, and your times will be definately less than what they quote for periodic or minimal agitation.

 

[Gerald Koch]

I believe that there was an article on the Jobo website stating that one should not use Rodinal at high dilutions in a rotary processor.

 

[Fotohuis]

Rodinal will give you high accutance, sharpness and acceptable grain with slow agitation. When you are going to shake it the first and the last characteristics are gone.

Same for PMK, Tanol and these kind of developers.

best regards,

Robert

 

[df cardwell]

Rodinal makes a perfectly long, straight line negative when used with minimal agitation.

When given constant agitation, it's shadows are depressed, and there is an abrupt transition from the lower to middle midtones.

Rodinal is a very powerful, but slow, developer. A dilution of 1+100 is insufficient induce a any 'compensating' effect in a Jobo.

Still, it can be a useful curve, emphasizing midtones in a nearly spectacular way.

Give it a shot ! I'd base my exposure and development on the overall look of the print, rather than upon .10+fbf.....

d

 

[coriana6jp]

Hi All,

Thanx for the helpful replies. Everyone pretty much confirmed what I had suspected. I am guess that the article I read was on the jobo site. I will have to take a look and see if I can find it.

Again thanx for all the help.

Gary

 

[Rolleiflexible]

These canards kill me. People repeat the same stuff over and over, based on hearsay.

I've processed thousands of 4x5 and 5x7 TXP sheets with Rodinal at 1:25 and 1:50 dilutions in Jobo rotary tanks for years without problems.

Before then, I processed 4x5 TXP sheets with the same Rodinal dilutions in a Combi-Plan tank with minimal agitation, and found no perceptible difference in results.

Can any contributor to this thread claim, based on their own observations, that Rodinal is an inferior developer in a Jobo tank when used in accordance with Jobo's instructions? And if so, can he or she post JPG examples so we can see what the fuss is about?

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net/portraits

 

[John_Brewer]

With negs that needed extra development, either because it was a flat scene or because I wanted a neg for an alt process, I could never get anywhere near the density with Rodinal using the only sheet film I regularly use; J and C 100 in 400 5x7 and 8x10. When I did BTZS testing I found I had all sorts of problems. I had to do different dilutions from 1+12 to 1+50 just to get from n-1 to n+2! I think longer development times (in my testing over 40 minutes in a CPE2 with the fast rotation) may have oxidized the developer. I didn't have this problem with tray development. I still use Rodinal, I love it in small tanks but not in my Jobo.

Just my tested tuppence worth

 

[erikg]

I have processed hundreds of rolls of TMX 120 in Rodinal 1:75 in a Jobo ATL. I have found it to be a great combination. Try it for yourself before you decide it's not a good idea, you may be pleasantly surprised...

 

[JosBurke]

I'm another Rodinal and Jobo user--120, and 4x5 through 8x10 in Expert Drums---1:50 is my norm as I read myself to not use rotary at 1:100 somewhere, sometime ago. Fabulous developer and I have the rotation as slow as it'll go !!!!!

 

[df cardwell]

These canards kill me.

Can any contributor to this thread claim, based on their own observations, that Rodinal is an inferior developer in a Jobo tank when used in accordance with Jobo's instructions? And if so, can he or she post JPG examples so we can see what the fuss is about?

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net/portraits

yes, sanders

no, sanders

the ONLY problem is if you are trying to reproduce what you get with RODINAL with a jobo that you get by hand, you won't get it.

but the JOBO will do a fine job, and as your pictures show, suit the vision to the technique and vice versa

Like everything in photography, it isn't the WHAT, it's the HOW

Rodinal especially, suits a vast palette of technique, with reliable and repeatable variety from a JOBO to standing agitation. It's all a different curve shape, and a different look.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

the ONLY problem is if you are trying to reproduce what you get with RODINAL with a jobo that you get by hand, you won't get it.

df, greetings.

I don't claim to be an authority. But, again, I distrust all of the hearsay that gets repeated here and elsewhere, when I can't see it with my own eyes. And I've yet to see any differences from the two approaches with Rodinal in my own negatives.

Can you please post examples that bear out your claim? Or point me to pages on the web with examples that bear it out?

Best,

Sanders.

 

[hka]

Jobo Instructions what are they?

These canards kill me. People repeat the same stuff over and over, based on hearsay.

I've processed thousands of 4x5 and 5x7 TXP sheets with Rodinal at 1:25 and 1:50 dilutions in Jobo rotary tanks for years without problems.

Before then, I processed 4x5 TXP sheets with the same Rodinal dilutions in a Combi-Plan tank with minimal agitation, and found no perceptible difference in results.

Can any contributor to this thread claim, based on their own observations, that Rodinal is an inferior developer in a Jobo tank when used in accordance with Jobo's instructions? And if so, can he or she post JPG examples so we can see what the fuss is about?

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net/portraits

Sanders,
I was not lucky with my developments in Rodinal. I tried at different dilutions from 1:25, 1:50 and 1:100 and also different speeds and develop times but still de highlights are completely blocked. Above you mentioned something like the Jobo instructions can you explaine what the are and how do you do it? Maybe it will help to understand what's going wrong by us. Thanks.

 

[Denis P.]

Above you mentioned something like the Jobo instructions can you explaine what the are and how do you do it? Maybe it will help to understand what's going wrong by us. Thanks.

It's simple, really...

Depending on the tank/drum you're using, having Rodinal in 1:100 dilution would simply make a quantity which would soon exhaust. In short, you are facing two dangers:

a) make Rodinal 1:100 in the usual quantity recommended for the tank, and you're still running the risk of not having enough active substance to develop without the developing agent being exhausted before the completion of development;

b) you make Rodinal 1:100, providing enough "soup" to be sure the developing agent won't exhaust as in a) above - BUT, then you're probably pouring too much liquid into the drum, and are running the risk of damaging the processor! (Remember that JOBO always states MIN and MAX quantities of chemicals to be used with each particular drum!). JOBO processors have plastic gears, and the lift (particularly the handle) is relatively fragile, so if you pour too much liquid in the drum, you're asking for trouble! The drum is simply too heavy for the processor....

The third problem is, as others noted, that Rodinal doesn't work as well with constant agitation.

However, with my JOBO processor I use ONLY Rodinal - 1:50 for 35mm and 120 (medium format) films, and 1:60 for LF (4x5 and 5x7). A prewash of at least 5 minutes helps - as stated by JOBO in their instructions - as the counter-measure for the constant agitation. I still reduce the developing times, though - 10% to 20%, as compared to manual tank times.

BTW, I'm happy with my negs in Rodinal developed in a JOBO processor. Any errors/failures are usually my own

Regards,

Denis

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Sanders,
I was not lucky with my developments in Rodinal. I tried at different dilutions from 1:25, 1:50 and 1:100 and also different speeds and develop times but still de highlights are completely blocked. Above you mentioned something like the Jobo instructions can you explaine what the are and how do you do it? Maybe it will help to understand what's going wrong by us. Thanks.

Sure. First, equipment: I process 4x5s on reels in Jobo 2500-series tanks, and 5x7s in Jobo 3005 and 3006 expert tanks. (I squeeze 10 5x7s into a 3005 tank by taping two negatives along their long edge, on the base side, and slipping them as if a single sheet into one of the 3005's 5 cylinders. You have to rinse them longer outside the tank to remove the antihalation dyes under the tape but it works.) And I spin them on roller bases from Unicolor, Beseler and Chromega. So, I am not gentle with my film!

Film: Over 95 percent of my work is in TXP. But on occasion I will shoot Bergger. I expose the TXP at EI 160, and the Bergger at EI 80. Typically, I'll proccess the TXP in a 1:50 Rodinal solution for 12 minutes, and reduce the time for Bergger by about a minute.

Process: Jobo recommends that you prerinse the negatives for five minutes before developing. Jobo thinks that the water soaks the emulsion and slows and evens out the development. I like it because it washes off the antihalation dyes. (Except under the tape on those 5x7s in the 3005 tank.) Jobo advises that, if you prerinse, you should start with your usual b+w development recipe, without adjustment.

I prerinse and stop with tap water. Developer and fixer get mixed with tap water. I reuse the fixer until it exhausts. Final rinse is out of the tanks -- the 4x5 reels go into the sink, and the 5x7 sheets get washed loose in my print washer.

It works for me. The results are indistinguishable from what I get using minimal agitation in the Combi-Plan tank.

Another poster talked about the problems of exhausting out Rodinal at high dilutions with the small volume of developer used in the tanks. That might be a problem, but it is not a problem induced by the mechanics of constant agitation.

Over the years I've come to conclude that a lot of the advice floating around on processing film is voodoo. You can't see inside the developing tank. You pull out the negatives one day and something's gone wrong. You take a guess. It's probably wrong. But you come up with a solution to the problem you've imagined, and pass it around, and soon enough it passes as Truth. Enough already.

As I said at the beginning, I am not an expert at this. And I remain open to the possibility that my experience is not representative, and that others have seen real differences in their own darkrooms. But in all the years I've seen people opine on this topic, I've yet to see anybody offer any examples of the supposed benefits of intermittent agitation of negatives in Rodinal.

Please, if I am mistaken, educate me.

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net/portraits

 

[argus]

Dear Sanders,

thanks a lot for your info and pointing earlier contributors to their misunderstanding.

If I read correctly, you use JOBO containers for developing but not a JOBO processor (CPA, CPE...). Even if you use a roller base, you still control agitation manually.
Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Gary's question has been answered incorrectly by al lot of the others: they think that the question was aimed at developing with Rodinal in a JOBO tank, on a JOBO automated rotary system.

Thanks for clarification.

To answer Gary's question: developing film is a combination from developer, exposed film, time and agitation. The container in which you put it, or the material of the reels don't matter.

Even if you want to put your film rolled on an empty toilet roll in a tin can, if it is light-tight, you will eventually have a developed film.

To all others that have misread Gary's question: please read carefully befor answering and besides, what setting on a CPAII could I use?

Greetings,
Geert

 

[df cardwell]

Sanders,

I hate the BS and 'old wives tales' at least as much as do you. Probably more. My observations are from 30+ years of work, and diaries kept of what worked and what didn't. I've never taken the same picture twice in a row, and so problem solving has become more important for me than for normal studio shooters.

I mean, somebody sees a portrait from an 8x10 under a hazylight and a cove, and likes it, and the next thing you know you're in a barn 200 miles away with a Leica trying to duplicate the look the client liked. So you shoot the shot on one roll, then shoot 6 rolls of test film, and go home to find a way to develop the stuff to make it look right. Jobo, semi-stand, pressure looker or microwave, it's all grist for the mill. Screw what the books say, get the look right and get paid for the job.

But that's all rubbish, because it doesn't produce real evidence. It's just some context for anecdotal evidence. But for a craftsman, anecdotal evidence might be more useful than an apparently 'objective' and 'scientific' demonstration.

The gist of my suggestion to Kino was to TEST, and proceed. And simply to warn him there may be a different look than the one with which he was familiar. He knows his stuff and I knew a 'heads up' would be sufficient.

If you want to explore different looks, PM me and I'll share starting points. But like you, I'm a working photographer and can't stop working to pull a demonstration out of my hat. I pretty much think .jpgs are useless, because they are incapable of illustrating differences which are apparent in a print. We're all working at different levels here, some folks trying to make an OK print, some folks trying to get the nuance. So, examples are tricky. But why should you change a thing ? The work is lovely.

don

 

[df cardwell]

Second thought, after reading your newer posts

I like the fact you get similar results with Jobo and a Combina tank,
while my results differ. That's great, because as we can nail down what happens and - possibly - why, we can build a better knowledge base than we had before.

'Science' just has too narrow a focus to do this.

This has usually happened in small communities of photographers,
which is pretty much what APUG is. Harder to drink beer with each other, though.

don

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Don, are you trying to distract me with flattery?

I agree with pretty much everything you said in your last two posts. And while I share your remorse that we can't sit over a beer and swap prints to illustrate our thoughts, it is a miracle of our age that we are able to connect and exchange ideas like this. People growing up today just can't wrap their heads around how the Internet has revolutionized the sharing of knowledge.

Two more thoughts regarding the discussion:

Materials change over time. Rodinal, I gather, has not changed much over the years. But modern film emulsions sure have. Maybe newer emulsions are less sensitive, somehow, to differences in agitation.

Second ... a confession. My eyes are not so good. And I am partly color-blind. It is entirely possible that I simply cannot see the differences that others perceive. Which is why I asked for examples -- it was not meant as a rhetorical request.

Be well.

Sanders.

 

[df cardwell]

"it was not meant as a rhetorical request."

Good. I'm out of rhetoric.

Trying to get some color prints out,
and I wish Callow wasn't leaving Detroit.
My brain hurts and it will have to come out.

The cool thing about the choices we have with film,
developer, and technique is that we can do pretty much anything
we want to accomplish.

It might be TXP is resistent to the little variations that TMX is.
We can use that information. Anyway.
Thinking about it, I suspect the strong response of TXP in the midtones
IS impervious to whatever Rodinal does in different agitation patterns.

As for distracting you with flattery, well, no.
But I'm happy to tell the truth about good pictures.

It's cool to see you using different lenses. For some time, my basic lens was a 10" Commercial Ektar. I had my studio tweaked to make results that looked like a Type 52 Polaroid. So, I didn't do much variation in processing: the Polaroid had to be accurate.

SO, If I needed a tiny bit more shadow density, a wee bit less 'zip' in the image, I shot with an uncoated 10" Protar. Fun.

Here's an image that is from TMY in Rodinal, with 5' agitation cycles. I was looking for a very flat rendering of hot window light, very much the opposite of the TXP signature. It's an old gravure kind of look,
which is disgustingly heavy in a monitor's rendering, I hope the idea comes across. Lots of shadow detail, but the brights are squashed down to midtones. Neat print: good old RODINAL.

 

[Ed Sukach]

... In short, you are facing two dangers:
...
b) you make Rodinal 1:100, providing enough "soup" to be sure the developing agent won't exhaust as in a) above - BUT, then you're probably pouring too much liquid into the drum, and are running the risk of damaging the processor! (Remember that JOBO always states MIN and MAX quantities of chemicals to be used with each particular drum!). JOBO processors have plastic gears, and the lift (particularly the handle) is relatively fragile, so if you pour too much liquid in the drum, you're asking for trouble! The drum is simply too heavy for the processor....

In researching "Maximum Liquid Quantities", I finally came upon "The Journal of Rotary Processing - A Collection of All Issues from Fall 1984 - Fall 1988", published by JOBO.

JOBO does not "always state a "MAX" quantity - note that only Minimum quantites are presented on the tank labels.

I've heard that there is a weakness in the lifting mechanism in the JOBO "Lift", but I have never had a problem with it, and I would suspect that most breakage problems are really caused by overzealous lifting in trying to time processes to split seconds.

The ony reference to "Maximum" quantities I could find in all of my JOBO literature came from this publication, on pages 50-51, in the article "Options In Sheet Film Processing for the Lower Volume Lab.". It states a "Maximum" of 760 ml for processing "4 sheets, 7 x 10" to 8.5 x 12" ", but I think that is for economic reasons rather than the physical strength of the "Lift" or Tank Rotation Motor/ Geariing.

In the section "Questions and Answers, by Paul Rowe", page 52, an answer is directed toward a question involving dilution of D-76 developer. I'm "truncating" some here to concentrate on the "strength" issue:

"... One more example: you want to process 18 sheets of 4 x 5 film in one run, and have chosen the JOBO 2523/2500 combination tank. The required developer is 18 x 37.5 ml = 675 ml. If you want to use a 1:1 dilution on the developer, you add 675 ml of water, and use the full 1350 ml in the tank. The tank chart calls for 850 ml to give coverage of film and reels, so you are fine with 1350 ml. Please note: on larger runs where the solution quantity is greater than 1000 ml., we suggest that the film be run with full strength rather than diluted developer. This keeps the solution quantitiy under 1000 ml and prevents undue stress on the processor and lift."

Other than that, I can find nothing, but I do NOT have an absolutely complete library of JOBO information, so I'd really be interested in any other references.

 

[bart Nadeau]

About 10 years ago I bought a gizmo for my CPA that relieves the strain on a 3000 series tube with a lot of fluid in it. It is a simple stainless steel angled handle that bolts on to the end of the tubes that carry the rollers for the developing tube - the Jobo Lift. It enables you to give a manual boost to the far end while you are raising the tube to drain with the main handle.
Don't know if it is still available but it works very well. I think I saw it in a tiny ad in the back of Darkroom Techniques. Even if no longer commercially available it would be relatively easy to make one.
Bart

 

[Denis P.]

Ed, re: "maximum quantities" - there is (or was) a web page on JOBO site called "Instructions, Miscellaneous, Tank and Drum Capacities".
It states:

======== QUOTE

"Never use a tank or drum loading that exceeds the processor's specifications.

Do not use any combination of chemicals, tanks, reels, drum, and amount of film or paper, that is going to require more volume of solutions than the maximum recommended volume stated for your processor. Doing so will shorten the life of the processor's rotation motor and other components.

When using extended dilutions of the developer, you may need to limit the number of films put in some of the larger tanks or Expert Drums. This prevents the resultant volume of solution from being more than the recommended maximum safe capacity of the processor.

See the 'Footnotes' for specific warnings about over capacity."

====== END OF QUOTE

I have experience only with older JOBO CPE-2, which is what I have - and I can tell you that there's a real danger in using excessive quantities of chemicals.


Bart:

No need to purchase those gizmos and whatnot. I just tied a piece of string to the end of the lift "cradle", and I just pull on that when raising larger drums

Denis

 

[Denis P.]

Anoter thing - I found those "Footnotes" referred to in the JOBO text above:

====== QUOTE

"Footnotes

The CPE-2 and CPE-2 Plus should not be used with more than 600 ml of solution. Excess volumes will limit the useful life of the rotation motor.
The CPA-2 and CPP-2 processors should not be used with more than 1000 ml of solution. Excess volumes will limit the useful life of the rotation motor. The ATL's 1, 2, 2 Plus and 2000 cannot be used with more than 1000 ml of solution.
The ATL's 3 and 3000 cannot be used with more than 1500 ml of solution.
This tank or drum requires a Cog #1505 to be installed before using it on a JOBO Lift or an ATL processor, or a Magnet #1504 for use with a magnet drive processor.
This tank or drum is too large to fit the CPE-2 or CPE-2 Plus processors.
All Modules must be used with a tank or drum. They cannot be used alone.

====== END QUOTE


HTH,


Denis

 

[bart Nadeau]

Bart:

No need to purchase those gizmos and whatnot. I just tied a piece of string to the end of the lift "cradle", and I just pull on that when raising larger drums

Denis[/QUOTE]


What! and get my fingers wet!

bart