Rodinal Questions

Getting off topic, but...

gainer said:

People say "I rate xxx film at nnn." They never say how. One man's 125 may give the same result as another man's 73.5 or yet another's 224.75.

Click to expand...

As avonsdale pointed out, this is limiting the variables. "Standard" developing times for D-76/ID-11 and Microdol are manufacturer recommendations. The only variable from a reflected or spot average reading is the film speed. Going with box rated and recommended development has never given me the density of neg I have been looking for since the discontinuance of Pan-x and the old version of Plus-x. I much prefer to look at the meter, shoot the film, use a solid development and agitation time across the board, and be happy with the results. This is my version of keeping it simple. It's worked for 30 years, so...

Dont know if the "rated speed" I have selected is anywhere close to actual. Dont really care either. It's the result that counts.

So, the question was, will doing this cause an adverse effect in Formulary's Rodinal clone? Stock recommended time at 1:100 ought to do the same thing as the aforementioned developers, yes?

df cardwell said:

With Rodinal, ALWAYS expose at box speed, then vary the development time until you have the results you. Why ? That's how it works. other developers can be very different.


d

Click to expand...

I know this is going off topic, as has been mentioned, but thought it worthwhile to say I had problems with D400 and Rodinal( thin negs) using a Jobo rotary processor and was advised to look at Ed Buffalo's site. I then actually e-mailed him and got a very kind and prompt response. He recommended two things:
1. Rate D400 at EI 250
2. Avoid rotary processing if I wanted Rodinal's fames accutance.

Pentaxuser

Back in my Jobo days ( oy ! ) i was always irritated and befuddled by what Rodinal deleivered. Since I had 15 years of Rodinal behind me, I finally figured out there were some problems with constant agitation.

1. You get over developed highlights
2. You get under developed shadows
3. You get a lump around Zone IV

No dilution, no nothing will alter this. You get a weird, though sometimes useful, response from Rodinal.

HOWEVER, everything gets fixed when you take Rodinal OUT of the JOBO.
Even better, agitate once every fifth minute.

1. You get full shadow speed with whatever toe charecteristics the film wants to make.

2. You get a straight line through the shadows.

3. You get the highlights designed into the film.

AND you get brisk acutance, with well modulated grain.

It isn't witchcraft, just suitable technique.

My notes say 18' to 22', 1+50, agitation 5 seconds every 5th minute. EI 400.

don

There is a recent thread where someone did a head-to-head comparison of R09 and rodinal. There was a slight difference in density but not much.

Pragmatist said:

So, the question was, will doing this cause an adverse effect in Formulary's Rodinal clone? Stock recommended time at 1:100 ought to do the same thing as the aforementioned developers, yes?

Click to expand...

avandesande said:

There is a recent thread where someone did a head-to-head comparison of R09 and rodinal. There was a slight difference in density but not much.

Click to expand...

I think you mean this thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I started it, but it took on its own life, as all threads do. Pragmatist posed the same question about how the Formulary version compares in that thread, but I haven't used the Formulary "rodinal", so I don't have an answer for him. I used somewhat reduced agitation in that test, a couple of inversions every three minutes. My main goal for the test was determining which developer, Rodinal or R09, had greater activity.

I find Don's take to agree with my experience, and have started to shift to 5 minute agitation intervals. I have also been trying added sodium ascorbate and borax. This has given me box speed on the films I've tried, but since I've changed 3 parameters (agitation, C, borax) simultaneously, you get to guess the effects of each change. Those so inclined can even argue and speculate about them. Heck, you could even try it with only one variable changed at a time.

I spent Thanksgiving through January teaching a couple of 6th graders the basics of B&W, so I'm just now catching up on my processing, and haven't gotten any printing for myself done anytime recently. So I'm behind on making real world assessments of all these attempts.

Lee

DF. Thanks for the info. This helps confirm that rotary processing and Rodinal is not the best combo to say the least and secondly agitation has to be limited for best results.

With D400 at box speed I had mixed results. Some negs looked OK and printed well. Others were thinish. If I try it again, it'll be hand processing and I'll give your agitation and times a try.

When you decide on a time between 18 and 22 mins, what determines which end of the 18-22 range you go for? Secondly is it 5 secs every 5th min throughout or is the initial agitation different?

Thanks once again

Pentaxuser

I aim for a Zone V at .75. That leaves the shadows and highlights where they will naturally fall with this combination. It OUGHT to be, compared to XTOL or DDX, a lower Zone I, the same from II to IX. From there, Rodinal should run a straight line up to 2.1 or so before gently shouldering off.

Agitating 5 seconds every fifth minute ( allowing about a 15 second slosh at the beginnning ), ( at 5 / 10 / 15 / 20 ) is a good pattern: you get most of the tonal benefit of semi - stand development; you build pleasant but not freakish acutance effects; and you don't risk uneven development in 120 or 4x5.

It also keeps the time short. I've found 10 minute agitation cycles, or 20 minute cycles to increase the effects, but balance is everything, and 5 minute cycles are pretty pleasant, and the time not too long.

Why not go 20' and see what happens. You're unlikely to gain a greater Zone II density to Zone V with longer still periods. Check for Zone V or VI, and see what you think.

I do a lot of faces, and use incident reading for about all of it. My film testing is very sophisticated: shoot a roll of film at the incident reading of my wife, and develop strips until I get a Zone VI density on her forehead.

Please let me know how it works out for you ! If it works, i was inspired by Geoffrey Crawley, if it's a disaster, my fault.

.