Rodinal Stand Dev Issue

EASmithV · Jun 14, 2015

Hey folks,

I stand dev rodinal all the time and sometimes get this in skies or areas of a lot of white,
but it's never really been too much of an issue. But on this shot it was pretty extreme, and I'm wondering what's causing this and how to correct it? Acutance seems extra high in this shot too.

Dev was super dark rodinal (adonal) 1:100 1 hour with an inversion 30 minutes in, film was tri-x at box speed

Jos Segers · Jun 14, 2015

Stand development in dillute Rodinal leads to uneven results.

Ricardo Miranda · Jun 14, 2015

Hi

How is the negative?

What camera? What film?

A bit more info, please.
And a photo of the negative strip would help.
A negative has to be judged technically as a negative, artistically as a positive.

Ricardo Miranda · Jun 14, 2015

Jos Segers said:
Stand development in dillute Rodinal leads to uneven results.

Not necessarily.
All I do is stand development in Rodinal (Fomadon R09):

Chinese New Year 2015 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

Mr_Flibble · Jun 14, 2015

It appears to be bromide drag. I get this when I use stand development of high speed films (400ISO and up) in Ro9 with full hour stand, no agitation beyond the initial 30 seconds.

I'm told that when you do a bit more agitation, like 2 inversions every 15 minutes, it would reduce the effect considerably.

Rollei RPX 400 in Ro9 'One-shot' 1+100, full stand
Dead Link Removed

darkosaric · Jun 14, 2015

I do stand and semi stand in Rodinal. But I see too often that people have problems with it, so I don't recommend this technique to new comers.

One of the problems could be too small amount of liquid in the tank, and on the top you have foam on the negative, not liquid. And this foam will develop negative area but not complete as liquid. If you need 500 ml of developer - then put in tank 650-700 ml, to be on the safe side. With dilution 1+100 it is not a cost problem.

Richard S. (rich815) · Jun 14, 2015

Ricardo Miranda said:
Not necessarily.
All I do is stand development in Rodinal (Fomadon R09):

Chinese New Year 2015 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

No arguing that's a nice result but just curious, why stand development?

Gerald C Koch · Jun 14, 2015

Ricardo Miranda said:
Not necessarily.
All I do is stand development in Rodinal (Fomadon R09):

Chinese New Year 2015 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

Uneven development is more evident in large featureless areas such as patches of sky. With photos with a lot of detail, as your posted example, you may not see it but it may be there.

zanxion72 · Jun 14, 2015

Stand development requires that the surface of the developer solution is well above the top of the reel. Next time use more.

Ricardo Miranda · Jun 14, 2015

Richard Sintchak (rich815) said:
No arguing that's a nice result but just curious, why stand development?

I'm lazy and poor.
A bottle of 250ml Rodinal allows 83 rolls, give or take.

Xmas · Jun 15, 2015

I use stand 1:100 Rodinal 60 mins, in multi tanks cause I never have the correct number of films so I process several different film types at the same time.

I always add liquid to just cover the top reel, cause I invert several times at beginning to remove air bubbles. And you need as much flow as you can get.

Never had a density graduation but was the rebate printing top and bottom different in density? If it was not different and the shutter runs vertically you could be seeing capping symptoms. But I'd not have expected them to be as uniform as that...

EASmithV · Jun 19, 2015

Film is tri-x shot in a barnack leica, in a Patterson tank with the solution mixed to a full liter (10ml + 1L), so there should be plenty of chemical and developer. Was given a full hour development time. I usually do a couple inversions but I haven't in the past but this result is a bit more dramatic.

Also, anyone notice tri-x anti halation dye seems darker than it used to be?

baachitraka · Jun 19, 2015

For me stand development is no magic. I prefer to choose 1+25 or 2+75 or 1+50 dilutions, depending on required contrast.

Xmas · Jun 19, 2015

EASmithV said:
Film is tri-x shot in a barnack leica, in a Patterson tank with the solution mixed to a full liter (10ml + 1L), so there should be plenty of chemical and developer. Was given a full hour development time. I usually do a couple inversions but I haven't in the past but this result is a bit more dramatic.

Also, anyone notice tri-x anti halation dye seems darker than it used to be?

Thanks for details

I'd only use 3mls in 310 mls for a single reel you need the surge if inverting to dislodge bubbles at the beginning.
Never seen uneven like that over nearly 60 years of full stand in paraaminophenol.

Never seen a minimum quantity of developer in instructions for Azol or Agfa Rodinal, so I treat that as web gossip.

The depth of the pink colour does seem to vary I get deepest shades in HCA, only light tints in developer I don't use acid fix.

Is the printing of the rebates top and bottom of film uniform in density?

The light image on positive means you have dark negative ie probably a light leak rather than a development issue.

You need to look at the negative or flat bed scan the 24x36 frame and the sprocket hole rebates.

If the sprocket area is also dark on the negative it is a leak into top or bottom of take up spool area probably...

Gerald C Koch · Jun 19, 2015

Never seen a minimum quantity of developer in instructions for Azol or Agfa Rodinal, so I treat that as web gossip.

Well the instruction sheet for a genuine package of Agfa Rodinal manufactured before their demise lists only two dilutions 1+25 and 1+50. Nothing given for higher dilutions. I personally take this to mean that Agfa did not consider higher dilutions to be useable. So essentially 5.0 ml per roll or equivalent. The 1+50 dilution is even noted as "not recommended" for Ilford HP5+.

Xmas · Jun 19, 2015

Gerald C Koch said:
Well the instruction sheet for a genuine package of Agfa Rodinal manufactured before their demise lists only two dilutions 1+25 and 1+50. Nothing given for higher dilutions. I personally take this to mean that Agfa did not consider higher dilutions to be useable. So essentially 5.0 ml per roll or equivalent. The 1+50 dilution is even noted as "not recommended" for Ilford HP5+.

Ok but my point was different and you have not found a minimum quantity call out.
Don't know were I found the 1:100 stand but I did not do it from experiment.
It was before the web.

Edit and my tank takes 190 mls so that would be 4 mls anyway.
And when I said Azol I meant 1965 timescale.

cliveh · Jun 19, 2015

What do you hope to achieve by stand development?

Gerald C Koch · Jun 19, 2015

Xmas said:
Ok but my point was different and you have not found a minimum quantity call out.
Don't know were I found the 1:100 stand but I did not do it from experiment.
It was before the web.

Edit and my tank takes 190 mls so that would be 4 mls anyway.
And when I said Azol I meant 1965 timescale.

Placing a lower limit to the amount of Rodinal per roll is a bit of placing the cart before the horse. Agfa found that the 1+50 dilution was not suitable for HP5+. If one were to go to higher dilutions then more and more films would fail. So the concept that development time / concentration is constant is only valid for a very limited range of dilutions. Agfa must have thought that film speed, contrast, or some other factor must have suffered.

If we are talking of before the web then we are also not talking about modern emulsions. This is why I take a jaundiced view of older formulas and methods. Without further research the is no guarantee that they work with today's films. As I pointed out in a previous post developer exhaustion is only visible under certain conditions. So the problem may be present but just not apparent.

I'm lazy and poor.

I particularly dislike the justification that some people use for extreme dilutions, cost and convenience. As has been said many times before film is expensive and developers cheap. Being stingy with developer is a false economy. If one is too lazy to occasionally invert a tank then digital photography was made for you.

Xmas · Jun 20, 2015

cliveh said:
What do you hope to achieve by stand development?

Each of

Lower contrast shadow detail
Highlight compression
Bigger grain

Varies with film type of course,...

R.Gould · Jun 20, 2015

Gerald C Koch said:
Well the instruction sheet for a genuine package of Agfa Rodinal manufactured before their demise lists only two dilutions 1+25 and 1+50. Nothing given for higher dilutions. I personally take this to mean that Agfa did not consider higher dilutions to be useable. So essentially 5.0 ml per roll or equivalent. The 1+50 dilution is even noted as "not recommended" for Ilford HP5+.

I use the instruction sheet for a genuine Agfa Rodinal, printed before they went belly up, and it gives a time of 15 minutes for HP5+, at 1/50, I have developed the said film for the Agfa suggested time and it works well, gives very nice negatives, I sometimes find that 17 minutes if the subject was lower in contrast, I haven't used HP5 for at least 8 years, I prefer Fomapan, but I recently bought some HP5 35mm and 120 from my local boots, and developed them in RO9 one shotm 1 in 50 for 15 minutes, and the results are lovely, so sharp that you could cut yourself, and the grain is pretty good, so from my point of view whoever says that Rodinal does not suit HP5 at 1/50 has got it wrong, as far as Stand development, it works for Fomapan 400 for some subjects, if the subject is very high contrast then stand development is a tool to tame the contrast, and should be used as such, but it does not work for 80% of things, but it should be regarded as another tool in a B/W photographers armoury, not as a be all and end all, or some sort of magic bullet, it is of use, but only for some subjects, for instance, I used stand to develop a ro;; of Fomapan last night, I new if I developed in D76 or Rodinal as normal the contrast would be difficult to print as the light was harsh, but with the stand development the negatives will be of lower contrast, with lovely graduation and tones and will print very easily
Richard

Xmas · Jun 20, 2015

Gerald C Koch said:
Placing a lower limit to the amount of Rodinal per roll is a bit of placing the cart before the horse. Agfa found that the 1+50 dilution was not suitable for HP5+. If one were to go to higher dilutions then more and more films would fail. So the concept that development time / concentration is constant is only valid for a very limited range of dilutions. Agfa must have thought that film speed, contrast, or some other factor must have suffered.

If we are talking of before the web then we are also not talking about modern emulsions. This is why I take a jaundiced view of older formulas and methods. Without further research the is no guarantee that they work with today's films. As I pointed out in a previous post developer exhaustion is only visible under certain conditions. So the problem may be present but just not apparent.

I particularly dislike the justification that some people use for extreme dilutions, cost and convenience. As has been said many times before film is expensive and developers cheap. Being stingy with developer is a false economy. If one is too lazy to occasionally invert a tank then digital photography was made for you.

Hi Gerald
Most of your sentences are combinations of

Not applicable
False

I leave them as pleasant exercises for readers. I'm not evangical.

I've never found evangicals ever bothering with logic.

I don't want you or the OP to use 1:100 stand, if it works for me that is all I want.
I've put about five hundred tabular grain films through stand processing.
The only interesting symptom I detected is fixing time is both more temperature and more exhaustion dependent. I do realise I might have missed bad symptoms but if they don't show on a print I am not worried.
Fixing is more critical than developing...
I fix by inspection rather than test strip.
I did like the punch line about digital alas it was as flawed as the other sentences.

Noel

Gerald C Koch · Jun 20, 2015

R.Gould said:
I use the instruction sheet for a genuine Agfa Rodinal, printed before they went belly up, and it gives a time of 15 minutes for HP5+, at 1/50, I have developed the said film for the Agfa suggested time and it works well, gives very nice negatives, I sometimes find that 17 minutes if the subject was lower in contrast, I haven't used HP5 for at least 8 years, I prefer Fomapan, but I recently bought some HP5 35mm and 120 from my local boots, and developed them in RO9 one shotm 1 in 50 for 15 minutes, and the results are lovely, so sharp that you could cut yourself, and the grain is pretty good, so from my point of view whoever says that Rodinal does not suit HP5 at 1/50 has got it wrong, as far as Stand development, it works for Fomapan 400 for some subjects, if the subject is very high contrast then stand development is a tool to tame the contrast, and should be used as such, but it does not work for 80% of things, but it should be regarded as another tool in a B/W photographers armoury, not as a be all and end all, or some sort of magic bullet, it is of use, but only for some subjects, for instance, I used stand to develop a ro;; of Fomapan last night, I new if I developed in D76 or Rodinal as normal the contrast would be difficult to print as the light was harsh, but with the stand development the negatives will be of lower contrast, with lovely graduation and tones and will print very easily
Richard

Before I posted I looked for a date on the documentation that I have. Nothing not even a revision number. I can only suggest that during the publishing of the two instruction sheets that Ilford made some change in HP5+.

Gerald C Koch · Jun 20, 2015

Lower contrast shadow detail
Highlight compression
Bigger grain

My only complaint is the exclusive use of stand development for everything. As you say there are valid reasons for its use but you usually never hear them as justification. What you do hear are all the wrong reasons.

Ricardo Miranda · Jun 20, 2015

Gerald C Koch said:
I particularly dislike the justification that some people use for extreme dilutions, cost and convenience. As has been said many times before film is expensive and developers cheap. Being stingy with developer is a false economy. If one is too lazy to occasionally invert a tank then digital photography was made for you.

Gerald,
As you directed that to me, a few considerations:

1- Not everybody lives in the same country as you, nor in the same social-economic and cultural conditions as you. You have no idea of my income nor my conditions.
Just remember this: statistically, the average room is 3 times smaller in the UK than the average US room. And I share a kitchen with 3 other people and have no space nor conditions for a darkroom. Nor even in the only shared toilet.

2- You are right that developers are cheap, but they still cost money. Every penny I save is for my photography.

3- I don't do the full stand: I do invert 4 times on the initial 10 seconds and twice at the end.
I got the results I like.

4- You are entitled to your dislikes and so do I: I particularly dislike Digitography.

cliveh · Jun 20, 2015

Xmas said:
Each of

Lower contrast shadow detail
Highlight compression
Bigger grain

Varies with film type of course,...

And bromide streaks.

Rodinal Stand Dev Issue

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency