LOL again the end result / look of the picture is what is important to the photographer. No soup is special it's all down to personal taste. A Harley Davidson is a wonderful motorcycle on long straight roads but around here where I live it would be a paperweight. It's all down to what the person using the Harley or developer / film combination likes which is subjective.hansbeckert said:The point is that several developers surpass Rodinal in the traits for which Rodinal is singled out.
hansbeckert said:What film do you prefer? Acutol works best with conventional-grain films. FX-39 is best w/Delta films.
modafoto said:I shot alot of Tri-X and Delta 100, so I guess I have to try a bottle of each.
(Though in all of those particular cases, grain is probably undesireable)modafoto said:So is sex, milk and cookies but I still enjoy all of it!
hansbeckert said:Well, that's your choice. Don't get confused by the facts.
rogueish said:This thread is starting to sound like a lot of threads that made me leave the Ilford site.
Tom Hoskinson said:You have published no facts.
What you have published is a set of numbers that imply that there is no numerical discriminator between the different developers used.
Your arguments are not logical, they are emotional.
Using precisely the same emotional, illogical arguments that you use against Rodinal, you propose that everyone jump on your personal bandwagon and switch to your "magic bullet" Acutol.
No thanks!
k_jupiter said:Another thread hijacked by Hans.
Guess I'll go find another forum, but this one was so nice.
tim in san jose
hansbeckert said:The document speaks for itself. Read it and understand.
I think we've already discused at length that it is personal choice. If those of us like the "Rodinal Look" and have nailed the way we work with it then why bother looking at alternatives! That's like having the perfect partner / wife / husband / lover and going out to pick up others to see if there's anything better out there. I'm off to the Lens and Tripod where I hope Hans (clogz) has a Large Single Malt waiting for mehansbeckert said:So, if you believe Rodinal is the best, you don't want to hear anything that might place that conviction in doubt?
Tom Hoskinson said:I did and it says to me very clearly that it is not scientific and that it contains no useful information. If you carefully read it yourself, it will tell you the same.
hansbeckert said:What do you mean by 'scientific'? The procedures of the test are well-described. The tests seem as rigorous as any I've ever seen described. Perhaps you could enlighten us.. It's much like any product comparison. Tires, batteries, etc., are put through similar comparison testing.
joeyk49 said:Hmmm. It appears that I need to add rodinal to the topics that I don't bring up at a coctail party...along with religion and politics...just kidding.
Although I have to admit to being entertained by the banter, I simply wanted to find out if I should be starting with Rodinal (as I haven't yet developed my first roll) or using it as a specialty developer. Now, keep in mind that I'm green and knew nothing about the chem before this thread...
I have to thank all of you for providing quite the primer on Rodinal. It will definitely be one of the first chemicals I use AND I suspect that it will always be in my cabinet.
The thing I love about this site is that everyone has a valid opinion and is willing to share their experience. I hope that I am in a position to do the same, in due time.
Look for Pan F developed in Rodinal in the critique gallery in the not to distant future...
hansbeckert said:What do you mean by 'scientific'? The procedures of the test are well-described. The tests seem as rigorous as any I've ever seen described. Perhaps you could enlighten us.. It's much like any product comparison. Tires, batteries, etc., are put through similar comparison testing.
Jorge said:Well for one they did not specify why they change from 1+50 to 1+75, I guess it could be so they could get the same CI and densities. But overall the table shows that Rodinal does as good or better as the others in some areas and not as good in others, just like any developer. Did you actually read the table? seems to me your conclusion as to rodinal's performance is way off. To me it looks like it does just as good as the others. BTW, if you are going by the position in the charts, please notice it is an alphabetical order, not a performance order.
PS, I dont know if you are the same beckert as the one on PN, or if you also are the same as Scarpatti, all I want to say is dont come to this forum and mess it up, I will make your life miserable, ask simmons.
Tom Hoskinson said:You have published no facts.
What you have published is a set of numbers that imply that there is no numerical discriminator between the different developers used.
Your arguments are not logical, they are emotional.
Using precisely the same emotional, illogical arguments that you use against Rodinal, you propose that everyone jump on your personal bandwagon and switch to your "magic bullet" Acutol.
No thanks!
Tom Hoskinson said:I did and it says to me very clearly that it is not scientific and that it contains no useful information. If you carefully read it yourself, it will tell you the same.
Tom Hoskinson said:Whoever you are: Please go away and carefully read the document you posted, it is obvious that you have not yet done so. Look up the definitions of science and the scientific method before you read it.
Failing that, just go away.
Art Vandalay said:What I like about Rodinal is the illusion of greater sharpness, especially in strong lines, I believe some called this 'accutance'. From what I understand it's due to the phsyics of the developer working at the border between hi and low silver density which causes an increase in contrast at the very edge of the border. I don't think there is any physical proof of this but my sources are way out of date. Oddly enough when I first read about how unsharp mask works in PS I immediately thought of Rodinal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?