Rodinal stand development questions

chuck94022 · Apr 7, 2005

I've got a couple of FP4 and HP5 rolls (all 120) that I'd like to try developing using highly dilute Rodinal and stand development. First, is it possible to develop them both at the same time, or do they require radically different times? And speaking of times, what are good starting points for each?

I also have a 35mm roll of Tri-X, that I exposed slightly below the advertised ISO - I had the camera set at 320. What would be a good time for this roll in Rodinal?

I'm assuming at least a 1+100 dilution and stand development, but am willing to try higher dilutions, or not, as folks with experience with this might suggest.

Oh, pretty much all the images on the rolls are landscape, mostly normal contrast shots - nothing really contrasty or flat.

Thanks!

-chuck

George Papantoniou · Apr 7, 2005

Hi Chuck,
The Rodinal stand development matter was discussed recently in the thread titled "Efke 25, Rodinal, stand development". Take a look, there might be something there for you.
Apart that, I have to recommend you to use at least 2,5 -3 ml of concentrate for each film in the tank, whatever the dilution and not to dilute more than 1:400. DO NOT EXCEED DEV TIMES OF 1 HOUR. DICHROIC FOGGING WILL DESTROY YOUR NEGS.
Diluted Rodinal may work, but there are other soups better suited for stand development than Rodinal, I guess.

jim appleyard · Apr 7, 2005

Chuck, If possible, try some test rolls of each film in stand dev. before you commit to some good stuff.

Another suggestion I have would be to do both of these films together in D2D. I think this is a great dev for most films. It is the 2nd formula in Anchell's "Darkroom Cookbook'. You'll have to mix it up yourself, but you can certainly do both kinds of film at the same time.

Dean Williams · Apr 7, 2005

I've done stand development with Tri-X in 35mm and Rodinal 1+300. I agitated gently for the first minute and let it sit for two hours. It worked quite well, with some fog apparent, but in no way were the negs "destroyed". They were easy to print, needing a little more contrast than my normally developed negs and about 50% more exposure in the enlarger. Give it a try with a short roll of unimportant negs and see for your self. There's nothing like first hand experience.

titrisol · Apr 7, 2005

1+200 for 2 hours gives very printable negatives....
the base+fog level is not bad at all.
I used more solution than the mininum (400ml or so for 35mm)

Caution: it worked for me... it may not work for you

George Papantoniou · Apr 7, 2005

Dean, I am afraid you didn't understand what I meant with "Dichroic fog". It happens when the film lies in the dev bath for too long a time and it actually is "The nonimage-forming density produced when some of the silver halide in an emulsion is dissolved during the development process, migrates to a different location, and is subsequently reduced. The resulting silver deposit often appears to change color with changes in viewing conditions" (from Focal Press Encyclopedia of Photography).

I also quote the late Barry Thornton, who suggested to me that what I had on my negatives I developed in Rodinal for 12 hours was Dichroic Fog :

"I can't really explain the brown colour of the fog. That's the sort of thing that happens with dichroic fog, not a common phenomenon these days."

And Ted Kaufman that had the same opinion:

"I believe you experienced dichotic fog with your 12 hour development cycle. That's what that brown color sounds like."

I believe that negatives that have a brown deposit on them should be considered "destroyed", for even if they may be printable, the image quality and stability is questionable...

chuck94022 · Apr 8, 2005

Well, I did a test roll of HP5 (120) in a 1:200 Rodinal dilution. I also threw in a bunch of other variables - hey, film's cheap, why not? Instead of my usual acid stop, rapid fix, hypo clear, I did a water stop, Photographer's Formulary TF-4 alkaline fix, no clearing agent.

I souped the HP5 in the Rodinal for a little over two hours. It could have gone longer, but the negatives came out fine. They are certainly very printable. There is grain, but nothing unexpected. There is either a slight fog or more likely I didn't fix as long as I should have - either way, it isn't enough to affect printing. It is only when I put it side by side with another roll that I notice the base of this roll is just slightly darker overall.

I must say it is an odd feeling to pour in the developer and, after the initial agitation, just walk away and do something else for a couple of hours...

Thanks all for the kick start.

-chuck

Dean Williams · Apr 8, 2005

George, what I don't understand is what your second post has to do with your first.

First you said: "DO NOT EXCEED DEV TIMES OF 1 HOUR. DICHROIC FOGGING WILL DESTROY YOUR NEGS."

Then: "I also quote the late Barry Thornton, who suggested to me that what I had on my negatives I developed in Rodinal for 12 hours was Dichroic Fog".

Twelve hours is a far cry from your first prediction of disaster after just one hour.

What you get after a two hour stand is a bit more base fog. Easily printed through with a small bump in contrast filtration. The negs not only print fine, but the prints look like what you would expect. Perfectly normal.
See Chuck's report on the process, just after your last post.

George Papantoniou · Apr 8, 2005

Hey, Dean, OK. You're right and I'm wrong, if you put things this way... In fact, I'm not able to know EXACTLY WHEN dichroic fogging will destroy your negatives. So, to be on the safe side and give a helpful advice I decided to make a point about an 1 hour limit. I might have been too cautious, but I was just trying to help someone avoid ruining his films. As you've seen, it has not prevented chuck from trying a two hour cycle. So, one hour is OK and two hours is OK too. You see, it also depends on the specific conditions under which the test takes place. Another guy at another time could have done the 12 hour cycle and not experience dichroic fogging. But there is always a danger that it may happen, and I think that the photographer should be aware. In the bibliography it is also mentioned that fast films are more prone to it and the type of fixer used also plays some significant role.

chuck94022 · Apr 8, 2005

I must say this process felt like cheating. Rodinal is easy to mix, I didn't have to mix up any stop, the fixer is a quick mix, and no hypo clear to mix. I didn't have to monitor the development and agitate (except the first minute), and time wasn't particularly critical on any of the other steps.

While it took a long time, I spent almost no time, and ended up with pretty nice negatives at the end. I don't intend to use Rodinal 1:200 for everything, but it's a nice addition to my palatte. Thanks for all the advice.

-chuck

titrisol · Apr 8, 2005

Works great when you want to watch a soccer or a basketball game!
IIRC after 3 hours all the activity of the Rodinal is go-go-gone!

chuck94022 said:
I must say this process felt like cheating. Rodinal is easy to mix, I didn't have to mix up any stop, the fixer is a quick mix, and no hypo clear to mix. I didn't have to monitor the development and agitate (except the first minute), and time wasn't particularly critical on any of the other steps.

While it took a long time, I spent almost no time, and ended up with pretty nice negatives at the end. I don't intend to use Rodinal 1:200 for everything, but it's a nice addition to my palatte. Thanks for all the advice.

-chuck

chiller · Apr 8, 2005

Does temperature play a significant role in this process?

For example it is summer here in australia and the ambient temperature of everything in the darkroom is at least 30 + degrees [C]

chuck94022 · Apr 9, 2005

chiller said:
Does temperature play a significant role in this process?

For example it is summer here in australia and the ambient temperature of everything in the darkroom is at least 30 + degrees [C]

I can't speak from experience but I'd bet that much variation would certainly make a difference.

-chuck

gnashings · Apr 9, 2005

Please humour a relative new comer - why would one want to do this? I'm not being snide, I actually don't know. Please fill me in.

George Papantoniou · Apr 9, 2005

"Please humour a relative new comer - why would one want to do this? I'm not being snide, I actually don't know. Please fill me in."

- Just for (more) fun....

Mongo · Apr 9, 2005

gnashings said:
Please humour a relative new comer - why would one want to do this? I'm not being snide, I actually don't know. Please fill me in.

There are two main reasons why one would use stand development: contrast control and sharpness enhancement.

The mechanism for the first is pretty easy to understand. In very light areas of the scene (which are very dark areas on the negative), a lot of developer activity occurs converting the silver halides to silver. In the very dark areas of the scene (light areas on the negative), very little developer activity occurs. If you dramatically reduce the amount of developer in your solution and increase the time the film sits without being disturbed, the highlight (dark) areas will exhaust the developer that's close to them, but won't be able to get fresh developer because there's no agitation going on to move the developer around. In the shadow (light) areas of the negative, development can continue for a long time, as the amount of silver halide being converted is small so the developer that's close to the shadow parts of the scene doesn't get worn out. The highlights can't over-develop because the developer wears out...the shadows can keep developing but they do it very slowly...so over a long period of time you can get all of the parts of a high-contrast scene to develop detail without blowing out the highlights or blocking the shadows.

The second reason (sharpness enhancement) is a harder to explain and more controversial. The theory is that the chemical reaction that's taking place when the silver halide is converted to silver can cause some migration of silver from the edges of less dense areas on the negatives to the edges of more dense areas, thus increasing the appearance of sharpness. (A dark tree against a bright sky appears sharp...if you outlined the tree just a little darker and outlined the sky a little lighter, the tree would look even sharper.) I won't delve into the different opinions on whether or not this happens, how important it is if it does happen, or anything else to do with it...search this site and you'll find plenty of information on this.

How dilute should your developer be? How long should your film sit in the developer? How long is too long? When might fog appear or other problems come up? These are a few of the questions some of us want to answer, so we share information hoping that we can figure out some rules that work for all of us.

Perikles · Apr 9, 2005

my gratitude to anyone will suggest me some generic guidelines with stand developing of fp4 in rodinal. I mean, approx. dilution, time, agitation and most of all, eventual loss of film speed.
Warm regards

gnashings · Apr 9, 2005

Mongo,

I thank you for your exhaustive explanation - now I can follow this discussion with some degree of understanding!

I may even try, I have a roll of 120 HP4+ (400) that has that exact composition on it (trees silhouetted against the sky) and I might give it a shot!

Perikles · Apr 9, 2005

also, what about adding some potassium iodide as antifoggant?

Perikles said:
my gratitude to anyone will suggest me some generic guidelines with stand developing of fp4 in rodinal. I mean, approx. dilution, time, agitation and most of all, eventual loss of film speed.
Warm regards

Mongo · Apr 9, 2005

Perikles said:
my gratitude to anyone will suggest me some generic guidelines with stand developing of fp4 in rodinal. I mean, approx. dilution, time, agitation and most of all, eventual loss of film speed.
Warm regards

I haven't tried Rodinal with FP4+ yet, but my basic starting rules for testing stand development are:

68 degrees F, 1:200 (i.e., 3ml of Rodinal in 600ml of water), pre-rinse for five minutes (with lots of agitation), agitate for the first three minutes the film is in the developer, knock the bubbles loose, let stand for 30 minutes, agitate for 10 seconds, another good knock to release the bubbles, then let stand for 60 minutes. 90+ minutes is a long time to wait to see if your negatives turned out, and I definately recommend against trying this with negatives you care about unless you've done some experimentation first.

I have yet to have this process give me negatives that are unprintable. I've done this with Pan-F+, J&C 100 Pro, J&C 200, Efke 100, and FomaPan 200 (all in 120 size). All were shot between 1/3rd and 2/3rds of a stop slower than box speed. The negatives have all been sharp and have held highlight detail while not blocking the shadows. But it may be that I've been lucky...experimentation is definately called for with stand- and semi-stand-development.

Perikles · Apr 9, 2005

nice thank you for the infos
let's see if someone wants to add something, especially about iodide..

Perikles · Apr 9, 2005

btw, mongo, negatives were 'not unprintable' or 'good' ?

Mongo · Apr 9, 2005

Perikles said:
btw, mongo, negatives were 'not unprintable' or 'good' ?

Good. Very good, actually. Easy to print (grade 2 - 2.5 mostly). Nice tonality. Sharp. I'll probably be waiting 90 minutes for a lot of negatives in the future.

Perikles · Apr 10, 2005

nice thanks, I will try it soon. It seems that the adiacency effect is more evident with slow/medium films. Your opinion?

Mongo · Apr 10, 2005

Perikles said:
nice thanks, I will try it soon. It seems that the adiacency effect is more evident with slow/medium films. Your opinion?

I can't speculate on the difference with faster films, as I no longer shoot anything faster than Fomapan 200 in 120, and I develop all of my sheet film in a rotary processor (pretty much the exact opposite of stand development).

Rodinal stand development questions

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency