Rodinal Questions

[Andrew Laverghetta]

Hi! I just recently joined and looked around from a while. I have been a member of BetterPhoto.com and somebody suggested APUG.org because I do a lot of film stuff with college and all. In my photo class we're going to be making large, 30x40 prints for our next assignment and I wanted to be able to keep a relativly sharp image if I didn't get my medium format in time. It's black and white film, and I usually use Kodak 100TMax. I heard that Agfa's Rodinal at high dillutions is really good at keeping the edge of the film grain sharp. I'm not sure quite what to do though.

The box and/or instruction sheet mentions that it gives an effective increase in film speed. Does this mean that I should shoot different films at speed other than their rated speed? It has times written on the box for 100TMax at 1:50 dillution but others suggested a possible 1:100 dillution and, of course, this would give a much longer dillution time (12 minutes at 68 degrees at 1:50). Are there any other threads that I can be referred to that might help me further or can anybody share some of their knowledge about Rodinal and Kodak films? Thanks!!

-Andrew

 

[gnashings]

I have successfully processed TMAX and TriX in Rodinal, mainly 1:50, with standard agitation. I love the look, but, I would have to say I don't think it would be suitable to such large enlargements from 35mm. I understand the even more dilute approaches with long dev times and minimal agitation may account for a different look, but I still think this may not be the ideal combo for this project. You will love the sharpness, but I don't think you will like the grain, even from a TMX type film. I am not a big fan of Tmax, but its a matter of personal taste, as it is a very, very capable, sharp and fine grained film - so I think you are not off on the film choice, but I would consider a different developer.

Best of luck,

Peter.

 

[bobbysandstrom]

Andrew, I'm doing a series of tests with Rodinal stand development. Check em out. I'm using FP4 but my results are super sharp with smooth tonality! I've spent all day today with 2 series of tests. Take a look.

 

[df cardwell]

Hi Andrew

Don't overthink this !

TMX and Rodinal will give you reliable and pleasant results... also, the acute grain and acutance 'effects' will make the 30 x 40s easy to make.

One of the interesting things about BIG prints is they are really no longer 'photographs' but much like big lithos... graphic art, so big the artifacts of the process BECOME the elements of the image... like a Seurat painting, or halftone dots, or gravure aquatint.

That said, the grain of Rodinal is quite lovely... look at the images of Ralph Gibson to get an idea of the look.

I would use the Agfa suggested development time of 15 minutes with 1+50 dilution / 68 - 70 degrees with agitation every 30 seconds as a starting point, and use their speed of 80 as a starting point as well. Simply use and incident reading, bracket the exposures from 50 speed to 200 speed, and see which you like the best.

This would likely make a negative too contrasty to make a delicate 6" x 8" print, but it will enlarge very well.

I first went down the road you're on about 30 years ago, and while I've looked around, I haven't looked back. If you accept my suggestion, you could try 1+ 50 for 20', but only agitate the film 5 seconds every 5th minute. This will give a smoother look, minimize small errors ( ! ) and make a remarkably fine negative to work with. Test this my making the kind of image you like, bracket exposures, and see what prints up the way you like it.

But first, check Gibson: his work is often done big as a house and is just heartstopping in a Paris gallery...http://www.ralphgibson.com/

Of course he has always used Tri X with Rodinal... a classic combination...

all depends on what YOU like

don

 

[gainer]

My theory is that if an 8x10 print viewed from the distance for proper perspective looks good, you can blow it up to your hearts content as long as you put a fence around it to keep the grain sniffers at the proportionately large distance.

 

[df cardwell]

Ansel said to hang the big print over the piano....

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Hi! I just recently joined and looked around from a while. I have been a member of BetterPhoto.com and somebody suggested APUG.org because I do a lot of film stuff with college and all. In my photo class we're going to be making large, 30x40 prints for our next assignment and I wanted to be able to keep a relativly sharp image if I didn't get my medium format in time. It's black and white film, and I usually use Kodak 100TMax. I heard that Agfa's Rodinal at high dillutions is really good at keeping the edge of the film grain sharp. I'm not sure quite what to do though.

The box and/or instruction sheet mentions that it gives an effective increase in film speed. Does this mean that I should shoot different films at speed other than their rated speed? It has times written on the box for 100TMax at 1:50 dillution but others suggested a possible 1:100 dillution and, of course, this would give a much longer dillution time (12 minutes at 68 degrees at 1:50). Are there any other threads that I can be referred to that might help me further or can anybody share some of their knowledge about Rodinal and Kodak films? Thanks!!

-Andrew

If fineness of grain is important while maintaining good sharpness, consider using an extra-finegrain developer such as Ilford Perceptol or Kodak Microdol-X. Using either of these developers diluted 1:1 or 1:3 will help to prevent the grain from from becoming mushy in appearance and allow a high degree of enlargement before grain becomes too obvious.

 

[Andrew Laverghetta]

cool! looks like a bunch of good info and thanks for helping me out! I'll definitly try out a few different films with different developing and bracketing. Would you suggest bracketing a full stop then? What exactly will over developing do? Yeah, I've kind of accepted that there's going to be a lot of grain, but I want it to look unique from the rest of the class. They're probably going to all be using the school's stock of Sprint developer. Being my second semester, I've only been able to use D-76 and TMax developers because of price and not being able to experiment. I might go back and check out some of the differences between those two developers just to look for a difference.

Thanks again!

-Andrew

 

[gnashings]

Well, if you are going for totally out there, you can try developing a roll in Dektol - it can produce some really graphic, contrasty, surreal images. Grain will be like boulders, but I guarantee its not going to look like anything else in the class. As to your question, for the most part, overdevelopment by increasing time will increase contrast and density up to a point. You can also try more or less agitation to increase contrast and density. Look at the massive development chart on digitaltruth.com toget an idea of what the relationship between times and development with various combos.
In my personal experience, I have screwed up more than I have gained by experimenting... but I learned stuff and had lots of fun, so in my books its worth! Hope you keep us posted on the results.

 

[blokeman]

Andrew, this may or may not be of use to you, for many years I used TMax 400 (TMY) developed in Rodinal at 1:100, excellent results for me at between 17-18 minutes with standard agitation 10 sec each minute. This is at 20 deg. Very good edge effects. Not too sure about the enlargement sizes you want with 35mm though, all my films were 120 & 5x4. I have unreliable stats for TMax100 so won't quote them. Good Luck.

 

[df cardwell]

Andrew

There is a lifetime of work you can do with the Sprint developer !

Paul Krot made a brilliant developer, and here is the online spec sheet: http://sprintsystems.com/standard.html#letterchart

It is as capable, if not more so, of all the refinement of technique we talk about here.

With its standard development of 1+9, it is meant to be like undiluted D76: a balance of fine grain,speed, and even contrast.

If you increase the dilution to 1+15, or 1+27... you will get progressively 'sharper' grain, and by adjusting the amount of agitation ( from once per minute to once per five minutes ) you will get fuller shadows and softer highlights. ---- of course, as you increase the dilution you need to compensate by lengthening the development time---

Since you've worked with this developer, and it's availiable for you, I'd suggest you try out all it can do before moving on to something else.

We often assume the 'beginning' developer is just dumb, and as we try more sophisticated stuff ( and the TECHNIQUES associated with the more interesting developers) we seldom realize the techniques we learn is the source of the magic.

SPRINT will suppport experimentation and refinement of your technique as well as any other developer... probably, more so.

Hopefully you'll have a grand 'AHA !" moment when you realize that YOU are the source of the magic, not some commercial product !!

let's see the pictures !

d

 

[Daniel Lawton]

Andrew, I think the most important factor regarding your question revolves around the size of the enlargement you wish to make. 30x40 from a 35mm neg is huge and taxes the abilities of any film/dev combo. It also depends alot on the scene. If it is a street type shot, the grain may add to the atmosphere. Most other scenes would probably not look so great unless the viewer is standing quite far away from the print. That also brings up another point. How large is the room the print will be displayed in? If the viewer has no choice but to stand rather close to the print, they will be forced to view the chunky/gritty nature of the image without being able to see the print in its entirety. You could try a fine grain developer at low dilutions, but of course you lose the compensating effect effect you would get with high acutance developers at higher dilutions. Depending on the scene this may or may not matter.

Personally I prefer sharp grain and high acutance in my photos as opposed to fine grain and high resolution, but there is a point of diminishing returns and for the most part I think a 30x40 enlargement from a 35mm negative developed in Rodinal goes well beyond this point. FWIW, before I went to medium format I usually developed APX 100 or FP4+ in Rodinal 1+100 with minimal agitation. The results were nothing short of stunning for 8x10 but at 11x14 there was a visible drop in image quality when viewing the print at arms length. I think 30x40 would be hopeless unless you are going for a graphic/"grain as art" type of effect. Or, as someone else mentioned, I wouldn't want to hang this print in a place where the viewer is forced to look at it from anything less than several yards away.

 

[Andrew Laverghetta]

Yeah, I wouldn't normally do this, but this is actually one of our photo assignments. Each student will print on a 30x40 sheet of Ilford Pearl paper and that will be our single print that will be graded (I'm hoping it will be lenient for the most part). But yeah, I'm trying to thing of an interesting grain compared to what most people will have with 1:9 Sprint and either tmax, trix 400, either ilford delta 100, possibly tmax 100 or maybe ilford hp5 or something. To my knowledge, not many other people would be thinking about something like this but will this be enough to make a noticible differece? Rodinal and tmax 100? Oh, by the way, thank you for the digitaltruth.com website. I'm sure it will help a lot! I was hoping to get a medium format to use instead but not quite yet. I might put a roll through a rental Holga...might...but probably won't use it unless I get something that would look interesting that big.

 

[Daniel Lawton]

In that case, I'm sure your instructor understands the limitations of an enlargement of this size and I think you should concentrate on making a good image just as you would with any of your other shots. Good luck!

 

[pentaxuser]

Just out of curiosity, has the reason for the assignment been explained? What is the tutor trying to teach/ demonstrate here? It sounds as if the camera format is the pupils' choice. So a 35mm enlarged to 30 x 40(inches I presume) will be a completely different animal from a 4x5 neg. As the comparison will then be between apples and pears, one wonders what the point is, other than to demonstrate that with 35mm there's a limit to enlargement quality compared to MF and the LF. However this is so self evident that it could simply be stated in the course textbook rather than subjecting students to find out for themselves what they probably all already know.

I am all for learning by doing but the tutor's objective in setting this exercise with no apparent guidelines or constraints baffles me. As one who would have been a feisty student in a constructive way, I hope, the words pointless and waste of time spring to mind.

Pentaxuser

 

[Andrew Laverghetta]

we had an assignment before this where we had to print on 11x14 paper or larger and it involved dypdichs and trypdichs (sp?), or two or three images that work together to make one work. Some printed on a single sheet, some printed on 2 or 3 seperate sheets. I think this was to show how some things might look better larger than others. Like a small photo will draw you in to look at some details and other types of photos would look really great enlarged while others wouldn't.

Yes, format, as long as we have two contact sheets of 35mm, is pretty much open to anything. Our enlargers work with up to 4x5 inch negs, but nobody in our class has a way of getting a hold of one of those cameras or probably knows how to develop the way the 4x5 classes do here at the school. Probably the same as many of you, with the trays seperating each negative sitting in a bath of whatever chemistry. Anyway, the instructor has even said that we could try out medium format. Most of the people in the class would only have a Holga if they had medium format at all. I just don't have the money yet (from selling my flute) to buy the Mamiya RB67 that I want. Do you know anybody that wants to buy a Yamaha professional flute for around $1650?

Also, I think this assignment is more about learning how to print larger and more quickly from some negatives that we already have but haven't used yet. This assignment doesn't have any kind of a technical requirment, so the subject matter and whatever comes of it is left totally open. Personally, I'd rather take a photo that looks nice as opposed to the kind of artsy, hidden meaning stuff that we might normally do.

Gee, I hope this makes sense. I kind of babbled a little...

 

[pentaxuser]

Andrew. Thanks for your response on the rationale for the assignment which I presume was in response to my question. Sounds as if the assignment is an exercise in creativity. As you are musical this is probably one of your strengths. Best of luck

Pentaxuser

 

[haziz]

Andrew

There is a lifetime of work you can do with the Sprint developer !

Paul Krot made a brilliant developer, and here is the online spec sheet: http://sprintsystems.com/standard.html#letterchart

With its standard development of 1+9, it is meant to be like undiluted D76: a balance of fine grain,speed, and even contrast.

I agree that Sprint is a great developer. The fact that it is cheap, and often used in schools and colleges and, at least in the Northeast US, easily available, should be regarded as a positive rather than a negative. It is certainly the equal of D76 1:1 (which it is supposed to imitate) or Xtol. It remains my favourite developer for FP4+ despite having dabbled with Xtol, Ilford Ilfotec DDX, Acutol, and others. Though this may be because I seem to have hit on a right combination of metering, exposure, development and printing that works for me using Sprint and FP4+.

I do believe however that the 1:9 dilution is supposed to emulate D76 1:1 rather than undiluted D76.

To the original poster: Did you mean 30x40 inches or centimeters? I am assuming from the fact that you used Sprint that you are in the US and are presumably talking about inches. We should all be aware that APUG is an international community and we should define our terms more carefully. Might not be an issue with the common sizes such as 8x10 and 11x14 but 30x40 inches (centimeters?) is an unusual size at least for me.

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Hany.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

30x40 cm is 12x16 inches. This seems to be a common size in Europe, if you consider J&C Photo and their ADOX papers, which are Efke Emaks from Europe.
30x40" is huge for 35mm, really really huge. Could be a fun experiment. A friend of mine used to print 20x24" from Tri-X / Xtol negs, and they looked great. I agree with the sentiment that a print can be as large as you want, as long as you're viewing it from a proper distance.

Tmax 100 and Rodinal is a good combination, Ed Buffaloe has some really good developing times posted on his website www.unblinkingeye.com - you may want to check that out.
You mentioned in your first post that Rodinal would increase the film speed. It is rather the other way around. If you use Rodinal in very dilute form, you almost have to overexpose your negative.
It sounds like a fun exercise. If I were you, I'd use a few 8x10's and print sections of your negatives at the same magnification your final print is going to be, then you can get an idea of what it'll look like.

My old photography teacher had one print that he would show off every so often, where he took an Agfa APX25 35mm neg, developed in Rodinal 1+300 for God knows how long, put it in the enlarger, and raised the column of his Beseler 45MX enlarger all the way up, and put his enlarging paper on the floor. Then he printed his neg, which showed individual eye-lashes on his model, in a negative where a profile of her face occupied roughly half the full negative. Kodak Tmax 100 is VERY fine grained, and is super sharp. Most people that don't like it I think have problems with its tonality and/or sensitivity to process variations and exposure latitude. Other people swear by the film and wouldn't want anything else.

Good luck with your assignment, I hope you'll show us some pictures of your efforts eventually!

- Thom

 

[Andrew Laverghetta]

Yeah, I don't remember if I ever put what scale but I did mean inches. It is pretty big yeah. I'm hoping to get some good negatives. Maybe exposing the film at ISO 80 and using a 1:100 dilution of rodinal? In this case, should I only agitate every 5 minutes for 20 minutes, or normal agitation every 30 seconds? Thanks for all the replies!

-Andrew

 

[df cardwell]

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

 

[Papa Tango]

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

I have just ordered Formulary's Rodinal substitute. My two primary films are FP-4 and Efke 25. They preferred system of exposure I have settled on is to rate them at 100 & 16 respectively. Never been much on opening the iris a stop or two, shooting at box rated even for filter and changing the shutter speed.

This has worked well with non-solvent developers at recommended times. Certain contrast scene variations may add or subtract a couple minutes from the time. I understand that Rodinal will standardize for films (not considering n comp factors). Are you saying that if I continue to shoot the films at the rated speeds I have chosen, I will not get the density and range results I am looking for?

 

[gainer]

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.

I use the box speed. If the scene is fairly normal, I often use the incident light gizmo. If I am worried about a wide range scene, I set the meter at 4x box speed and read what I perceive to be Zone III. With normal scenes that gives pretty much the same as an incident reading with the meter set at box speed.

 

[avandesande]

It is just easier to work things out if you limit your variables. If you aren't getting enough detail in your shadows limit your agitation and develop for a longer time. Rodinal is flexible this way. You could vary the exposure but it will just take you longer to get to your desired result.

This has worked well with non-solvent developers at recommended times. Certain contrast scene variations may add or subtract a couple minutes from the time. I understand that Rodinal will standardize for films (not considering n comp factors). Are you saying that if I continue to shoot the films at the rated speeds I have chosen, I will not get the density and range results I am looking for?

 

[df cardwell]

Rodinal doesn't alter the curve shape very much as you lengthen the devlopement time. Unlike, say, HC110. If you expose at a given speed, simply develop until you have the density you need.

If your Rodinal negatives are not dense enough, develop longer. Contrast will not change much.

THAT is why so many people, for a hundred years, have used agitation as a contrast control for Rodinal. It simply behaves differently than metol-HQ developers.

.