Rollei ATP 1.1 development questions

I have a couple ATP 1.1 starter kits (roll of 35mm film, 20mL Rollei ATP DC developer, and fixer). The instructions say to mix 20mL developer with 230mL water (250mL total) for a 1+11.5 dilution. My Patterson tank suggests using 290mL, so to avoid potentially ruining the top/bottom of every frame on the roll I diluted to 1+13.5 and followed the rest of the directions accordingly, but I did not adjust the development time. In general the negatives look very good overall. However, they seem to be far more underdeveloped than expected. I bracketed a lot, and it looks like the best frames were at roughly EI 12. According to the info packet the ATP DC developer should yield EI 32-40. Is that much of a shift expected when effectively the only difference is a ~7% dilution vs the recommended 8% dilution?

Can I get away with using only 250mL in the Patterson tank in order to use the suggested 1+11.5 dilution, or should I repeat with 1+13.5 and extend development time a little...7 minutes instead of 6? Maybe 8 minutes?

The second roll I shot was also bracketed but this time more in the range of ~8-32 rather than ~12-40. Assuming I do everything exactly the same this roll should turn out fine, but I'm still curious about this because I'd love to use this film more in the future.

I developed it in the Rodinal 1+300 for 12 minutes as recommended on that ATP review article, I only agitated every 2 minutes though... I got damn bleeding halos around dark/light edge transitions, contrast is still too high.

250ml wont cover the film in a patterson. 1+11.5 = 12.5 parts.

300/12.5 = 24mL, so 276mL water, 24mL concentrate for 300mL of developing solution.

I would definately expose it slower than 32, by a few stops and shorten development, or dilute the developer more, contrast is a bit too much - though I haven't used ATP DC with it.

Matt, besides the the short time of 6 min, it might be inaccurate temperature.
I usually let it stay for 8 min @ 20° C.

Athiril, I normally use Rodinal for other films, but from what I've read about Rollei ATP results are more consistent with Rollei developers. Rodinal may have been the culprit in your case. I'm not certain, but I think I read a post from someone reporting similar results (out of control contrast) with ATP + Rodinal.

Thanks for confirming my assumption that 250mL in a Patterson won't work. I'll try to compensate for the 1+13.5 dillution or maybe have a little patience and wait for UPS to deliver more ATP DC since all I have at the moment is one 20mL bottle.

Athiril said:

I developed it in the Rodinal 1+300 for 12 minutes as recommended on that ATP review article, I only agitated every 2 minutes though... I got damn bleeding halos around dark/light edge transitions, contrast is still too high.

250ml wont cover the film in a patterson. 1+11.5 = 12.5 parts.

300/12.5 = 24mL, so 276mL water, 24mL concentrate for 300mL of developing solution.

I would definately expose it slower than 32, by a few stops and shorten development, or dilute the developer more, contrast is a bit too much - though I haven't used ATP DC with it.

Click to expand...

georg16nik, I was very careful to bring the temp down to 20C. I checked the spent developer and it only rose to 20.5C during the 6 minutes it worked on the film. My fix was also in the 20-21C range, as was my final rinse. I used distilled water at every stage. To bring temps down I added ice cubes, so those may have added minimal tap water contamination.

Your 8 minute time is with the normal 1+11.5 dilution using ATP DC?

georg16nik said:

Matt, besides the the short time of 6 min, it might be inaccurate temperature.
I usually let it stay for 8 min @ 20° C.

Click to expand...

Maybe more diluted Rodinal plus a different exposure index would help, or 1+300 with a shortened time and more exposure.

In any case, I plan to try the negative latent image bleaching technique on ATP as well at some point.

matt nalley said:

georg16nik, I was very careful to bring the temp down to 20C. I checked the spent developer and it only rose to 20.5C during the 6 minutes it worked on the film. My fix was also in the 20-21C range, as was my final rinse. I used distilled water at every stage. To bring temps down I added ice cubes, so those may have added minimal tap water contamination.

Your 8 minute time is with the normal 1+11.5 dilution using ATP DC?

Click to expand...

Yes, 8 minutes is how I do it. I am also working only with distilled water.
btw: there is Rollei DC/AB and its 8 min according to specs but I give him a bit longer. imho, It depends on lens I use, accuracy of shutter speeds and all that, so I tweak the times.
Rodinal is great developer, sometimes I use it with slow films.

Athiril, I hadn't considered trying Rodinal (yet). One of the main reasons I decided to try ATP is that review article you mentioned, yet somehow I forgot about it once I shot my first roll. After reading through it again I'm tempted to use Rodinal 1+300, but I'm also reluctant to introduce too many variables in my first attempts with a new film. My subject is only available for a few days each month so I hate to "waste" too many rolls with lots of experimentation. It takes a lot of patience to wait for my next opportunity to shoot when I don't get any printable negatives.

georg16nik, I might try the same method with 1+13.5 again but 8-10 minutes. Do you notice any increase in grain vs 6 minutes? I know it's extremely fine grain, and I want to maximize that benefit because the goal is a 16x20 or possibly larger print from 35mm.

Here's a question for both of you. In the review (link) one point they make is that ATP might blow highlights more than TP. I'm shooting the moon. Overexposure is very easy, which is another reason I bracket over a wide range. Is there anything I can do in development to minimize blown highlights without sacrificing too much contrast, or worse risk underdevelopment of the whole roll? Generally the goal is always a balance, but (I think) very high contrast is welcome for this particular shot as long as its not at the cost of extremely fine grain/details that would limit enlargement.

Rodinal and ATP1.1 has limited possibilities. In 1+150 - 1+300 and an E.I. around 10-15 you can have reasonable results. But the curve fitting is still pretty steep.

Much better is the new (Rollei) ATP-DC A/B developer and the SPUR Modular UR. Both products are from SPUR in Aachen. Here you can expose around iso 32 (ATP-DC) - 20 (UR) and you will get a nice curve fitting (log D) with the ATP1.1 film.

The old ATP-DC developer was also not bad at all but the lifetime was limited. Now it's further improved and divided in part A and B.

For 120 roll film SPUR will make a special version ATP-DC A2/B.

Matt, no increase in grain.

Matt, about the Moon shot. What lens?

After trying both Rollei Pan 25 and ATP 1.1 I must say I like Pan 25 better so far. My first try of ATP 1.1 in Rodinal showed okay results in low contrast scenes, but way to much contrast in contrasty scenes.

Grainy said:

After trying both Rollei Pan 25 and ATP 1.1 I must say I like Pan 25 better so far. My first try of ATP 1.1 in Rodinal showed okay results in low contrast scenes, but way to much contrast in contrasty scenes.

Click to expand...

I understand what You mean.
However, They say films like Rollei ATP, Adox CMS20, Agfa Copex etc etc were not designed to work with developers like Rodinal, D76 etc etc.
imho, Rodinal is generally way too "slippery", while D76 is almost inadequate.
Sure, You might tweak Rodinal to work with them and sometimes it might be the right combination - I have done it many times..
btw:I find Rollei Pan 25 quite interesting with Tetenal Nefoin Blue.

Formulary TD-3 works very well with ATP. It's more economical than the dedicated ATP-DC developer, and can be used with a wide range of dilutions and EI's to vary the contrast.

georg16nik said:

Matt, no increase in grain.

Click to expand...

In that case I think I'll push it to 10 minutes in the 1+13.5 dilution for the 2nd roll.

georg16nik said:

Matt, about the Moon shot. What lens?

Click to expand...

Telescope. 2000mm effective focal length, fixed at f/10. I've also been using a #12 yellow filter. That probably takes away 1/3 (?) stop. My early attempts were very low contrast, probably due to film choice, so I added the filter and got so used to it I forget it's there (despite seeing a yellow moon in my viewfinder). I didn't even think that it may be unnecessary with ATP until now. Is there any chance the filter in combination with ATP is a bigger problem than my development method in terms of reducing EI? It certainly didn't have more than the expected 1/3-1/2 stop impact on films I've used before (mostly Delta 100, FP4, Pan F).

Grainy said:

After trying both Rollei Pan 25 and ATP 1.1 I must say I like Pan 25 better so far. My first try of ATP 1.1 in Rodinal showed okay results in low contrast scenes, but way to much contrast in contrasty scenes.

Click to expand...

Does Pan 25 have the same extremely fine grain as ATP? I'm looking for the best result enlarged to 16x20 or bigger from 35mm. So far after several rolls at various ISOs only a few frames have turned out with critical focus (mostly due to telescope operator error), but HP5 does not enlarge that well without showing huge grain.

I've never tried TD-3. One more variable to consider but I'll add it to my list. It sounds promising if DC does not produce the results I want.

surfotog said:

Formulary TD-3 works very well with ATP. It's more economical than the dedicated ATP-DC developer, and can be used with a wide range of dilutions and EI's to vary the contrast.

Click to expand...

Michael R 1974 said:

I'd also suggest TD-3. It tends to produce a little more contrast in the low values than typical POTA-type developers (which most if not all these dedicated developers are), and you need every bit of low value separation you can get with document films since you have to place shadows very low on the scale in you want any kind of exposure range at all. You also get better speed, a longer scale, and it is far easier to get uniform development, which is a real problem with the POTA-type phenidone based developers typically dedicated to these films.

Click to expand...

matt nalley said:

Athiril, I hadn't considered trying Rodinal (yet). One of the main reasons I decided to try ATP is that review article you mentioned, yet somehow I forgot about it once I shot my first roll. After reading through it again I'm tempted to use Rodinal 1+300, but I'm also reluctant to introduce too many variables in my first attempts with a new film. My subject is only available for a few days each month so I hate to "waste" too many rolls with lots of experimentation. It takes a lot of patience to wait for my next opportunity to shoot when I don't get any printable negatives.

georg16nik, I might try the same method with 1+13.5 again but 8-10 minutes. Do you notice any increase in grain vs 6 minutes? I know it's extremely fine grain, and I want to maximize that benefit because the goal is a 16x20 or possibly larger print from 35mm.

Here's a question for both of you. In the review (link) one point they make is that ATP might blow highlights more than TP. I'm shooting the moon. Overexposure is very easy, which is another reason I bracket over a wide range. Is there anything I can do in development to minimize blown highlights without sacrificing too much contrast, or worse risk underdevelopment of the whole roll? Generally the goal is always a balance, but (I think) very high contrast is welcome for this particular shot as long as its not at the cost of extremely fine grain/details that would limit enlargement.

Click to expand...

I didn't get blown highlights, but very dense highlights, you'd probably find a problem printing the whole range, but simply displaying the entire range linearly looks poor, reducing the highlights down, so that contrast can be expanded looks a lot better, but it's annoying to do so.

If you plan on trying 1+300, agitate every minute, instead of every 2nd minute, I found a building with a dark roof against a cloudy overcast sky had very hard halo'ing at the transition, just like digital HDR done badly has.

Thanks for the tips, Athiril. By halo I assume you mean an undesirable exaggeration of the sharp edge effect Rodinal can produce, particularly with stand development, which is why you advise more frequent agitation. Correct?

matt nalley said:

In that case I think I'll push it to 10 minutes in the 1+13.5 dilution for the 2nd roll.....
Telescope. 2000mm effective focal length, fixed at f/10. I've also been using a #12 yellow filter. That probably takes away 1/3 (?) stop. My early attempts were very low contrast, probably due to film choice, so I added the filter and got so used to it I forget it's there (despite seeing a yellow moon in my viewfinder). I didn't even think that it may be unnecessary with ATP until now. Is there any chance the filter in combination with ATP is a bigger problem than my development method in terms of reducing EI? It certainly didn't have more than the expected 1/3-1/2 stop impact on films I've used before (mostly Delta 100, FP4, Pan F).

Click to expand...

Matt, how long exposures were the last ones?
ATP might run into some reciprocity failure above 1 second, so it might need an extra 1/3 stop (or more) to compensate for that..

georg16nik said:

Matt, how long exposures were the last ones?
ATP might run into some reciprocity failure above 1 second, so it might need an extra 1/3 stop (or more) to compensate for that..

Click to expand...

Definitely nothing that long, georg16nik. I usually bracket at and slower than 1/ISO. The first roll of ATP was bracketed as follows: 1/30s, 1/15s, 1/8s, and the hat trick. The 1/30 and 1/15 frames are definitely underexposed (or underdeveloped), and the 1/8 frames are either perfect or slightly underexposed, too. The hat trick frames probably range from 1/2 to 1/8. When I get back into a dark room next week I can make test prints to determine which exposures are closest to ideal. I'm not great at reading negatives, but compared to my best frames from a roll of FP4 (even those were slightly underexposed) it looks like 1/8 on this roll of ATP is nearly identical.

The second, still undeveloped roll was shot at 1/8s, 1/4s, and the hat trick.

The "hat" trick is used in astrophotography for long exposures. To avoid vibrations from the camera shutter a hat or black cardboard covers the lens/telescope (without touching it of course), you engage the shutter at bulb, wait a few seconds while everything settles, then move the hat or board and time the exposure. Repeat at the end. It's really easy for exposure times that can be counted in seconds or minutes, but at less than 1 second it's a little tougher.

For slower films I needed to add this exposure method because anything longer than 1/250s was capturing shutter vibration as ghosting, for lack of a better work. The film plane shutter is horizontal, so those negatives almost looked like double exposures with one moon slightly to the left of the other. Strangely though, at least in this roll, I'm not seeing that effect at much slower speeds. Either that or it's so subtle that it manifests as slightly out of focus, soft edges.


...looking back at my original post I think my estimated EI is fast.

It will be interesting to see some astro shots on ATP!
That film gives a lot of room, to play with filters etc etc.

matt nalley said:

Thanks for the tips, Athiril. By halo I assume you mean an undesirable exaggeration of the sharp edge effect Rodinal can produce, particularly with stand development, which is why you advise more frequent agitation. Correct?

Click to expand...

I mean something you'd see on a bad HDR, it's more than a mere exaggeration.

Here is an altered contrast example;


Also lenses with bad vignetting become terrible. Eg; even the Olympus Zuiko 28mm stopped down... the vignetting becomes a crop.

Athiril said:

I mean something you'd see on a bad HDR,
Here is an altered contrast example;

Click to expand...

Good examples , the picket fence as it gets further away, by the two windows, really shows the undesired effect.

BTW: Is there any good HDR?

georg16nik said:

It will be interesting to see some astro shots on ATP!
That film gives a lot of room, to play with filters etc etc.

Click to expand...

My next project is a deep sky object...if I ever finish this one :confused: