Rodinal vs. FX39 II

[Minox]

Same as mine, same producer and label.

 

[Sanug]

I used FX-39 II with Fomapan 100, Fomapan 200, Kentmere 100 and Adox CHS-100 II. Good sharpness and contrast. The contrast can be reduced by using the high dilution 1+19. This is especially useful for Fomapan 100.

About FX-39 II, I disliked the grain. Both Fomapan 200 and CHS-100 II came out with grain I did not like. For high ISO films it may be even worse.

I switched to Adox XT-3. Overall very good results with all films I used. I am very much satisfied with it. Even Adox HR-50 can be developed in XT-3 (1+3, 16 Min.)

 

[250swb]

None of this matters. Agitation intensity is akin to temperature or development time. You increase one, make sure to reduce another to compensate. Forget cocktail shakers. You can agitate in a blender all day long. With the corresponding reduction of development time or temperature you'll get same results. With all films and all developers.

Of course it matters, personal techniques during development are generally not described when people recommend development times or techniques, for example in the Massive Dev Chart. It is largely assumed that agitation follows a normal practice doesn't it? It's pretty pointless somebody asking for a development time or tweak if the person giving it doesn't conform to some sort of norm as we know it on the forum or in a wider darkroom context. How else does communication happen unless we accept a certain level of 'I know what you mean' instead of somebody deciding to be a pedant?

 

[Steven Lee]

@250swb I see your point, it doesn't hurt to mention the agitation technique when sharing development time+temperature advice. Although I've always felt that Ilford-style agitation is what assumed by default on places like MDC or forums. Sorry, looks like I wrongly assumed that you're suggesting the specific agitation regime.