Rodinol...what's the deal?

[Art Vandalay]

Actually, all developers provide this effect, but some more than others.

Rodinal certainly does it well. Even though I'm not always pleased with the grain there is something about Rodinal that grabs your attention.

 

[hansbeckert]

Rodinal certainly does it well. Even though I'm not always pleased with the grain there is something about Rodinal that grabs your attention.

But this is true with virtually all non-solvent developers. That's all I'm trying to say.

 

[Aggie]

No what you are doing is attacking rodinal. Evidenced by every single recent thread dealing with it you come on and blast it.

 

[hansbeckert]

No what you are doing is attacking rodinal. Evidenced by every single recent thread dealing with it you come on and blast it.

Hmmm...no. I'm simply trying to say it's not all it's cracked up to be, and that its popularity has more to do with its cheapness and longevity than its image charcteristics.

 

[Art Vandalay]

And all I'm saying Hans is that there's something that I like about the way Rodinal develops my films. I'm not always happy, because of the grain, but when it works well it shows. I don't use it often and had no information on it before I started. I certainly didn't use it because it had a cult status because I had never heard of it.

Aggie, I think you have Hans figured out pretty well

PS if you want to have one of the most frustrating evenings of your life just ask Hans if he thinks photography is art.

 

[hansbeckert]

PS if you want to have one of the most frustrating evenings of your life just ask Hans if he thinks photography is art.

Please, don't ask me that.

 

[hansbeckert]

And all I'm saying Hans is that there's something that I like about the way Rodinal develops my films.

Have you used any other acutance-type developers? Rodinal does look good UNTIL you compare it to the others in the same product category.

 

[Aggie]

Have you used any other acutance-type developers? Rodinal does look good UNTIL you compare it to the others in the same product category.

If you are such a Know it all, Why can't you get the hint that no one is going to change because you are going on more and more ignore lists. Soon you will be talking and posting to just yourself.

Most I know who study philosphy also know enough to recognize people are different therefore going to do different things. I personally like PMK and HC 110. Becasue of you I would never try a developer you have endorsed.

 

[Ed Sukach]

I still don't follow you. The methodology is clearly stated. Whatever you're try to say, it has nothing to do with this test or with 'science'. I am a philosophy major and I do well understand the scientific method.

The methodology is poor. That's all *I'M* tyring to say.

You understand the "scientific method"??? So far from what I've seen --- you don't. You are sure fooling me ...

Let's see ... I have no valid criteria - so I'll squint at a few negatives, projected on a screen ... I'll give this one --- oh ... a "3", that one a "2" ... that one a "3" ... and then I'll average all these values, and get 2.8560340563. That's a LOT of decimal places, so it must be "accurate." Yeh, right ...

*SUBJECTIVE* That means "Not Scientific". What does it take to get through to you??

 

[hansbeckert]

If you are such a Know it all, Why can't you get the hint that no one is going to change because you are going on more and more ignore lists. Soon you will be talking and posting to just yourself.

Most I know who study philosphy also know enough to recognize people are different therefore going to do different things. I personally like PMK and HC 110. Because of you I would never try a developer you have endorsed.

I endorse:

D76
Microdol-X
Xtol
DK50
DK60
D61a
PMK
FX-1
FX-2
FX-3
FX-4
FX-5
FX-5a
FX-7
FX-8
FX-9
FX-10
FX-11
FX-15
FX-18
FX-37
FX-39
Acutol
Rodinal
Ultrafin
Neofin
Atomal
D-1
ID-68
ID11
Microphen
Perceptol
Ilfosol
DDX
HC110
Polydol
Acufine
Diafine
UFG
TEC
FG7
TG7

 

[hansbeckert]

The methodology is poor. That's all *I'M* tyring to say.

You understand the "scientific method"??? So far from what I've seen --- you don't. You are sure fooling me ...

Let's see ... I have no valid criteria - so I'll squint at a few negatives, projected on a screen ... I'll give this one --- oh ... a "3", that one a "2" ... that one a "3" ... and then I'll average all these values, and get 2.8560340563. That's a LOT of decimal places, so it must be "accurate." Yeh, right ...

*SUBJECTIVE* That means "Not Scientific". What does it take to get through to you??

Hmmm...subjective does not mean 'unscientific' at all. It simply means 'made by observation'. Have you ever made two prints that are all but identical? Ever hear of 'borderline cases'? Have you ever made any film or lens tests? It is difficult, nay impossible, to make absolute pronouncements. Kodak uses something called 'Print Grain Index' to describe the graininess of their color negative films, precisely because what matters is how films print, and the best criterion for how to evaluate negatives' graininess is by printing them. If you wish, please describe how YOU would conduct such a test.

 

[Art Vandalay]

Hmmm...no. I'm simply trying to say it's not all it's cracked up to be, and that its popularity has more to do with its cheapness and longevity than its image charcteristics.

It's amazing that you seem to have your pulse on the heartbeat of the photographic world but yet you've totally ignored what most on here have said. The longevity is just a bonus to the majority on here. Developers are cheap and I don't think there's many starving students on this site, yet they love the look of Rodinal and have said so in many different ways. I think you really need to start learning from others because you are missing the boat by a mile.

In answer to your question about trying other developers in the same class the answer would be no. I've only tried Rodinal, D-76, X-tol and Accufine. But the one thing that I noticed about this site is that most are chemical freaks and have tried many developers, films and different combinations. Yet you chose to just brush their opinions aside. Why is this? Why are you trying to tell these intelligent, committed people what they are really feeling about Rodinal?

 

[Aggie]

Art it is a matter of him being so insecure he has to sound the expert. He doesn't need an audience, he needs therapy. Use the ignore option it works wonders.

 

[hansbeckert]

It's amazing that you seem to have your pulse on the heartbeat of the photographic world but yet you've totally ignored what most on here have said. The longevity is just a bonus to the majority on here. Developers are cheap and I don't think there's many starving students on this site, yet they love the look of Rodinal and have said so in many different ways. I think you really need to start learning from others because you are missing the boat by a mile.

In answer to your question about trying other developers in the same class the answer would be no. I've only tried Rodinal, D-76, X-tol and Accufine. But the one thing that I noticed about this site is that most are chemical freaks and have tried many developers, films and different combinations. Yet you chose to just brush their opinions aside. Why is this? Why are you trying to tell these intelligent, committed people what they are really feeling about Rodinal?

What I'm saying is that Rodinal is a cult developer whose status has no basis in its performance, which is demonstrably inferior to others in its class.

 

[Art Vandalay]

I haven't used the ignore button on him because in some ways it's entertaining to see him make a mockery of himself

 

[hansbeckert]

I haven't used the ignore button on him because in some ways it's entertaining to see him make a mockery of himself

The article is there for you to use as you see fit. Say 'Thanks, Hans'.

 

[Art Vandalay]

Please, everybody who has hit Hans with the ignore button have a look at his posting in the Standard Gallery. See the proof of his proclamations. You'll learn something.

 

[Mateo]

OT

I'm a bit of a country bumpkin so could someone define Troll for me. If I didn't like Rodinal, I would answer the original question by saying: I don't care for it. Nothing more to be said. But something seems fishy about a philosopher who hasn't been here a month and would probably offer imperical evidence of why white is not a good color to paint the outside of your house.

Back on topic

Guess it's time to dust off the Rodinal and try it again.

 

[Jorge]

OT

I'm a bit of a country bumpkin so could someone define Troll for me. If I didn't like Rodinal, I would answer the original question by saying: I don't care for it. Nothing more to be said. But something seems fishy about a philosopher who hasn't been here a month and would probably offer imperical evidence of why white is not a good color to paint the outside of your house.

Back on topic

Guess it's time to dust off the Rodinal and try it again.

No my friend is time to use the ignore list, trurst me if anyone is deserving of it is this buffon....

 

[hansbeckert]

Please, everybody who has hit Hans with the ignore button have a look at his posting in the Standard Gallery. See the proof of his proclamations. You'll learn something.

What will they learn, George, I mean 'Art'. Did you always want to pretend to be an architect?

 

[Aggie]

I haven't used the ignore button on him because in some ways it's entertaining to see him make a mockery of himself

Maybe Sean can add a forum for the delusional. I'm sure a auto response of, "You are great, We are not worthy!" can be added to appease him.

 

[Aggie]

Mateo, a troll is an internet term used to describe those who delight in causing trouble and add little of reality to any discussion.

 

[Jorge]

Maybe Sean can add a forum for the delusional. I'm sure a auto response of, "You are great, We are not worthy!" can be added to appease him.

You know, Sean has a global ignore. If he puts you in that list you are really, really SOL. You think we can bribe him into using it? maybe this one time....how about it Sean, pretty please????

 

[Art Vandalay]

What will they learn, George, I mean 'Art'. Did you always want to pretend to be an architect?

Actually I always wanted to pretend to be a philosopher

What will they learn? That your photo is quite flat in appearance and average in every sense of the term. It's unfortunate though that we are trying to compare images, from scans that have been horribly compressed. It's a bit futile.

 

[hansbeckert]

Actually I always wanted to pretend to be a philosopher

What will they learn? That your photo is quite flat in appearance and average in every sense of the term. It's unfortunate though that we are trying to compare images, from scans that have been horribly compressed. It's a bit futile.

Flat? That's a surprising comment! How so? The day was hazy-bright, and the uniforms were white with black stripes and the other team wore this hideous green. The print shows a full rage of tones. The green uniforms are probably what's giving you that impression. 'Average'? Have you ever used a VERY long lens? This is actually quite a good capture. The ball is bouncing right out of their reach, and the boys are in sharp focus. This ain't easy, not by a long shot...