Rodinol...what's the deal?

[TPPhotog]

The point is that several developers surpass Rodinal in the traits for which Rodinal is singled out.

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.

 

[modafoto]

What film do you prefer? Acutol works best with conventional-grain films. FX-39 is best w/Delta films.

I shot alot of Tri-X and Delta 100, so I guess I have to try a bottle of each.

 

[hansbeckert]

I shot alot of Tri-X and Delta 100, so I guess I have to try a bottle of each.

If you like Tri-X, try Neopan 400. I develop that in Acutol 1+14 for 8 minutes. You could start with Tri-X at the same time and dilution. Ignore the bottle label developing recommendations. I use a condenser enlarger.

 

[rogueish]

This thread is starting to sound like a lot of threads that made me leave the Ilford site.
Opinions expressed are fine but lets drop the "I know everything and this is best for everyone" attitude. It is most un-becoming of APUGers everywhere.
One person's garbage is another's treasure.
Now behave yourselves gentlemen, and lets play nicely.

 

[bjorke]

So is sex, milk and cookies but I still enjoy all of it!

(Though in all of those particular cases, grain is probably undesireable)

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Well, that's your choice. Don't get confused by the facts.

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!

 

[Max Power]

This thread is starting to sound like a lot of threads that made me leave the Ilford site.

Rogueish:
This is precisely what I was thinking...It sounds an awful lot like the stuff Sir Michael states...I too left the Ilford site for the same reason...Apart from David Carper's insightful and helpful posts, it was getting really oppressive.

The whole 'rodinal' vs 'acutol' cant of hansbeckert makes me wonder if he is only using a pseudonym

 

[hansbeckert]

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!

The document speaks for itself. Read it and understand.

 

[k_jupiter]

Another thread hijacked by Hans.

Guess I'll go find another forum, but this one was so nice.

tim in san jose

 

[hansbeckert]

Another thread hijacked by Hans.

Guess I'll go find another forum, but this one was so nice.

tim in san jose

So, if you believe Rodinal is the best, you don't want to hear anything that might place that conviction in doubt?

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

The document speaks for itself. Read it and understand.

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.

 

[TPPhotog]

So, if you believe Rodinal is the best, you don't want to hear anything that might place that conviction in doubt?

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 me Ooooops sorry nearly forgot to answer the question errrrrrrrrm NO I'm happy with what I'm using!

 

[hansbeckert]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[joeyk49]

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...

 

[Alex Hawley]

Reading through this thread reminds me of what happened when the Daimler executive took over management of Chrysler. The Daimler management quickly issued the edict that:

"Zer iz only Vun Vay to build Auto Mobiles, und zat iz our vay. Your inefficient und careless Amerikaniche vays vill be replaced by effcient und correct vays"

By the end of the same year, most of Chrysler's creative talent had bailed. So, like those Chrysler engineers and designers, I'm bailing out of this little tet-a-tet. Congrats Hans, you are the second one added to my Ignore list.

 

[VoidoidRamone]

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...

I'd definitely recommend starting out with Rodinal... easy dilutions, and it's a liquid (not having to mix a powder is very nice). Plus, it's an awesome developer!!! -Grant

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

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.

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.

 

[hansbeckert]

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.

Yes, I am, of course.

 

[hansbeckert]

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!

Did you read the article? The authors state that they grouped the information the way they did not because there were no quantifiable differences between one film that was rated '3' and another, but because the small differences did not matter for most purposes.

 

[hansbeckert]

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.

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.

 

[hansbeckert]

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.

If you would be so kind as to describe how you would go about such a test, and in what way it would differ, I would be grateful. The test seems perfectly reasonable to me. It's fairly similar to the way I test films and developers.

 

[Art Vandalay]

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.

 

[Art Vandalay]

PS hansbeckert (infamous philosophy student) is legendary over at Pnet.

 

[hansbeckert]

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.

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