Stand development - first attempt - blank film

[removedacct1]

i don’t think so. I’ve come across people using 50 year old bottles of Rodinal with no knowledge of how it was stored and it works fine. I know I read somewhere that someone was getting excellent results with a bottle of Rodinal that was made in the first few years of production, so nearly 100 years old.

I’ve been using Rodinal stand 1:100 in 500ml tanks on and off for 8 years with no issues. I’ve probably developed 150 rolls of film this way and I’ve never had a failure. My most recent results were a few months ago with a bottle of Rodinal purchased in 2013.

HC-110 has great longevity as well. The first bottle I bought was in 2015 but the shop owner who didn’t normally stock HC-110 said she knew for a fact it had been sitting there since the late 1980’s. I never had any issues with it either.

Maybe the issue is that the OP is using R09? I’ve always used Rodinal. I have bottles from 2013-2014 that say “Adox Adonal” newer bottles I have are labeled “Adox Rodinal.”

Kyle, I specifically addressed the fact that the OP was using R09, not Rodinal. That R09 stuff does NOT have good shelf life. Please note that I also stated I have a 1/3 bottle of original Agfa Rodinal from 1984 and it still works. R09 rarely lasts 2 years once opened, in my experience.

 

[Jarvman]

Was only 15 shots I lost so not too worried. Couldn’t have been too important but would’ve been nice to know what it was.

It’s one or two frames on the roll rated 1600 developed in hc110 that came out with featureless blacks that made me try this method in the first place. Could the detail have been squeezed out with another developer like XTOL?

 

[pentaxuser]

Was only 15 shots I lost so not too worried. Couldn’t have been too important but would’ve been nice to know what it was.

It’s one or two frames on the roll rated 1600 developed in hc110 that came out with featureless blacks that made me try this method in the first place. Could the detail have been squeezed out with another developer like XTOL?

Featureless blacks suggest that either the frame was subject to a bad light leak or was so heavily overexposed that it turned black or do you mean that the consequent print was black such that the negative was almost clear?

What was the roll rated at 1600 and what was the dilution of HC110 that you used?

Xtol is my current developer, has been for probably 10 or more years and very good it is but it is not the "magic bullet" . A change to Xtol isn't going to turn a featureless negative or a black negative into a reasonable print/picture. You need to examine why it was featureless black be that either a black negative or a clear negative

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

rated 1600 developed in hc110 that came out with featureless blacks... Could the detail have been squeezed out with another developer like XTOL

No. Realistically, all that Microphen etc does is raise the effective speed of HP5+ to maybe 650, Xtol to maybe 500. Empty black shadows on an ISO 400 film rated at EI1600 are a feature, not a developer solvable bug. People who claim to get detailed shadows at EI 1600 aren't actually rating at 1600...

 

[Jarvman]

By featureless black shadows I mean the film was totally clear. I guess high speed film is needed for such low light then. It was tri x

 

[pentaxuser]

By featureless black shadows I mean the film was totally clear.

At even 1600 Tri-X should not have been clear or anything like clear in HC110 Something else was wrong. Was this the only clear frame on the roll developed in HC110?

pentaxuser

 

[Jarvman]

At even 1600 Tri-X should not have been clear or anything like clear in HC110 Something else was wrong. Was this the only clear frame on the roll developed in HC110?

pentaxuser

Not the entire frame. Just the shadows. Was a dark game arcade. The only few frames that aren’t readable where I want them to be yeah. Obviously quite underexposed

 

[Lachlan Young]

Not the entire frame. Just the shadows. Was a dark game arcade. The only few frames that aren’t readable where I want them to be yeah. Obviously quite underexposed

Something to bear in mind is that while HP5+ and 400TX have quite similar fairly sharp toe shapes, their effective speed at that point could potentially vary by quite a bit depending on specific developer (I vaguely recall that HC-110 and TX lose a bit more speed - possibly 1/3-1/2 stop - than HC-110 and HP5+), so what may get dumped into the toe (clear film) by TX at a given EI may give some degree of density on HP5+.

 

[Jarvman]

Something to bear in mind is that while HP5+ and 400TX have quite similar fairly sharp toe shapes, their effective speed at that point could potentially vary by quite a bit depending on specific developer (I vaguely recall that HC-110 and TX lose a bit more speed - possibly 1/3-1/2 stop - than HC-110 and HP5+), so what may get dumped into the toe (clear film) by TX at a given EI may give some degree of density on HP5+.

Ah really. Never knew that. Thought it was the other way around. That’s good news because tri x is more expensive I think.

 

[Nige]

People who claim to get detailed shadows at EI 1600 aren't actually rating at 1600...

Rate it @ 1600 and over-expose 3 stops.. works great!

 

[Kyle M.]

Kyle, I specifically addressed the fact that the OP was using R09, not Rodinal. That R09 stuff does NOT have good shelf life. Please note that I also stated I have a 1/3 bottle of original Agfa Rodinal from 1984 and it still works. R09 rarely lasts 2 years once opened, in my experience.

Yes I noticed the OP was using R09 but not at first. Somehow I got Rodinal stuck in my head.






-
osq b]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]6intgnttgtngef~e
;=p[61x9=

 

[Donald Qualls]

I have this. So I can effectively make Rodinal? How close does it come to the original?

I'm not a chemist, so I can't say for sure that 4,4 acetamidophenol is the same as acetaminophen (Google, however, links multiple pages that say it is), but if it is, yes, you can make a homemade Rodinal equivalent from that, lye, and sodium sulfite (and optionally a little potassium bromide). I've never used commercial Rodinal, but I used Parodinal for several years with published Rodinal dilutions and times on Fomapan and Tri-X, and at high dilution (1:100 to 1:200) on Copex Rapid and Imagelink HQ microfilm stocks. I never saw any evidence that it was photographically any different from commercial Rodinal (which, in those days, was just ending its run at Agfa and being picked up by Adox). DigitalTruth should have it, along with multiple other web sourcers, but if you can't find the formula, send me a message and I'll send you the last version I used.

Now that I know how to search it, I may have to look for a well priced source under that designation -- I've found no one selling acetaminophen as such in the USA (and it makes no sense to have it shipped from, for instance, India) without either already being in tablets or charging a premium over even the tableted version (Goody powders, for instance, sold in one- and two-dose packets in convenience stores and vending systems).

 

[pentaxuser]

Jarvman, there are at least a couple of stockists in the U.K.that currently have the Adox Rodinal in stock at what seems like a good price. In fact given that Adox says that 5ml minimum is OK then a 500ml bottle develops 50 films for about £10 so 20p per film which is just over 0.5 p per frame for a 135 film.There can't be many developers cheaper than that.

At that price I'd wonder about whether it is worth bothering with a home-made Rodinal

pentaxuser

 

[tezzasmall]

I am learning a lot reading through this thread.

I have over the years done stand development for one hour @6ml in 300ml of TAP WATER (so about 18ml to 19ml per litre of water = much more than the OP used).

Inversions at the start of stand and then no more.

I've used stand for when using compact cameras, where the exposures can't be changed, so negatives would be at different densities if developed 'normally.' Stand seems to even them out better.

My first small trial bottle of R09 worked fine until finished. My next 250ml bottle died after just ONE film - losing the second totally and like the OP's film, it came out TOTALLY BLANK with NO edge markings at all.

Since then I have ALWAYS done a leader test, whatever film or development process I am going to use and each time the test and the films have come out fine.

If I buy another bottle of Rodinal I will make as point, as recommended, to buy a bottle of the ADOX version.

Terry S

 

[Jarvman]

Jarvman, there are at least a couple of stockists in the U.K.that currently have the Adox Rodinal in stock at what seems like a good price. In fact given that Adox says that 5ml minimum is OK then a 500ml bottle develops 50 films for about £10 so 20p per film which is just over 0.5 p per frame for a 135 film.There can't be many developers cheaper than that.

At that price I'd wonder about whether it is worth bothering with a home-made Rodinal

pentaxuser

Where did you see it at that price? most places seem to be out of stock.

These are the scans from the film i developed in HC110 pushed to 1600

Some detail can be seen in one of the shots but I can't make out very much in the other
I think it was too much to expect from the film in such a dark environment, even with push processing.
I can't remember the exact settings used now, they were shot 6 years ago and I couldn't have had much hope or been very invested in them to leave them that long.
Do you think developing in stock XTOL could have brought enough information out to be readable by a scanner?
I guess I didn't use the XTOL I have because that's a number of years old, even though it's stored in tightly capped bottles. I read today that it doesn't change colour when expired so from now on I'll do clip tests regularly.
That's why I opted for HC110 because the syrup is very stable. i assumed the same for the rodinal cocentrate but have learned now that the R09 is inferior.

Cheers!

 

[pentaxuser]

Where did you see it at that price? most places seem to be out of stock.
Cheers! View attachment 266943 View attachment 266943 View attachment 266944

Quite right. The 2 places in the U.K. at which it was obtainable yesterday are now out of stock. It is still available at Fotoimpex in Berlin but only from the website and not from the Berlin store

There is clearly a shortage problem currently A pity but I suspect Covid -19 and lockdowns are catching up with us

pentaxuser

 

[Jarvman]

Quite right. The 2 places in the U.K. at which it was obtainable yesterday are now out of stock. It is still available at Fotoimpex in Berlin but only from the website and not from the Berlin store

There is clearly a shortage problem currently A pity but I suspect Covid -19 and lockdowns are catching up with us

pentaxuser

Oh well, haven't got any film I need to develop at the minute

Any thoughts on if using stock XTOL would have brought out readable info in the shots above?

from what I've now read rodinal isn't a speed increasing formula anyway so was using it with stand develoment with the wrong expectations.

Cheers

 

[removedacct1]

For push processing (IE: rating your film faster than box speed and overdeveloping to compensate) you need a developer that gives optimal film speed. Some developers are far more suited to push processing than others. Rodinal, for one, isn't very good for pushing: the same photograph processed in Rodinal will give less shadow information than almost any other "normal" developer. Using Rodinal (Or R09) at dilutions of 1:100 will only exacerbate the problem.
Xtol is known for delivering good shadow information at box speed. Microphen and DD-X are two developers frequently used for pushing. Some people have used T-Max developer with good results, and some use Diafine for a 2 stop push. There is a practical limit to how much you can push a film before you are dealing with a serious compromise of image quality, and for Tri-X, pushing to 1600 is about the limit (with an ideal developer). If you want FAST for low light exposures, you'll do far better with T-Max 3200 and pushing a bit in Xtol.

Have you looked at Ilford's document on push processing?
http://www.darkroomdave.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Push-Processing-Films-2006-2102012331472.pdf

 

[pentaxuser]

Any thoughts on if using stock XTOL would have brought out readable info in the shots above?

As has been said Rodinal is not ideal and in 35mm the grain is very noticeable at even quite small enlargements I find it impossible to say if the light conditions in your shot were such that shadows might have been better in Xtol Generally on videos comparing HP+ with Tri-X most if not all shots I have seen of dark night shadows seem to show HP5+ as having better shadow detail than Tri-X but I certainly cannot swear this to be the case. If you know that light conditions are going to be similar then I'd try HP5+ pushed to 1600 in either Xtol, DDX or Microphen for your best chance.

DDX and Microphen come in 1L packs of liquid or powder respectively whereas Xtol come only in 5L which is a lot of liquid to store at once I'd want to either place it in 2 x 3L winebags and boxes or possible better, place in say 4 x 250ml bottles filled up to the neck so no air and then 4 x 1L bottles filled likewise. Once all 4 250ml bottle are used then refill with one of the 1L bottles

Air really is the enemy of Xtol much more so than Rodinal so need steps to eliminate it very thoroughly. Xtol will eventually turn a pale straw colour and when it does it is on its way out. Do a leader test with fresh Xtol including fix and wash then keep it to compare with the remaining Xtol's leader tests to see if there is any difference

Film leader tests as you have found out are your friend

pentaxuser

 

[mshchem]

I've been using Adox Rodinal. Works great, I'm pretty sure that the old rule of at least 10mL of concentrate per roll (80 sq in ) if you want to use very dilute I would try 10 ml of fresh Adox in a liter, use a tank that holds 1 liter.
I have recently been using Adox Rodinal 1+25, rotary development, Ilford FP4+, I'm making 6x enlargements, very nice like velvet on Ilford fiber base paper.

I use purified water for developers, always have, XTOL has been my favorite for years. I'm really liking how Adox Rodinal works. It's super economical and EASY.

 

[Arvee]

I've been using 1.5ml of Adox in 300ml h2o to develop Tech Pan. That's ample developer to process a 36 ex roll continuous tone. (I'm also using an agitation scheme that is about midway between traditional intermittent and continuous).

A quote from Roger Hicks: "As one of Ilford's technical experts said to me many years ago, "You need about a tablespoon of developer to develop a film. The rest is there to wet the film quickly and evenly." He also pointed out that a peel-apart Polaroid uses about a teaspoon full of developer."

This statement was made during a discussion about Roger successfully using D-76 1+3 (75ml/300ml).

 

[MattKing]

No matter what developer you use, or what technique you apply, two stop under-exposed Tri-X is going to have shadows that are relatively thin.
If you add to that too little developer in the tank, and (potentially) too little agitation, the mid-tones and highlights are going to disappoint too.
And if your developer is, like HC-110 or Rodinal, not a developer that gives full speed, that may add to the sadness.
As you can probably tell, I'm not a fan of under-exposure plus increased development (pushing), using smaller than recommended amounts of developer, or using less than recommended amounts of agitation.
Try a filled tank that is twice that size, along with semi-stand. The shadows will still be lousy, but the mid-tones and highlights will be better, if somewhat strange.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

No matter what developer you use, or what technique you apply, two stop under-exposed Tri-X is going to have shadows that are relatively thin.
If you add to that too little developer in the tank, and (potentially) too little agitation, the mid-tones and highlights are going to disappoint too.
And if your developer is, like HC-110 or Rodinal, not a developer that gives full speed, that may add to the sadness.
As you can probably tell, I'm not a fan of under-exposure plus increased development (pushing), using smaller than recommended amounts of developer, or using less than recommended amounts of agitation.
Try a filled tank that is twice that size, along with semi-stand. The shadows will still be lousy, but the mid-tones and highlights will be better, if somewhat strange.

Or he could just use TMZed or Delta 3200.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've processed old Tri-X 320 sheet film that was exposed through the base, roughly five stops of attenuation due to the antihalation layer.

I got back images with shadow detail more reminiscent of a one-stop push. I'm not at home, but I can look up what I used for developer -- I do recall it was fifteen minutes at 75F with continuous agitation (strongly implying development to completion). The developer contained HC-110, Dektol, and vitamin C, as I recall. Worked on the first try, so I never experimented further with the soup, just used it a few more times for intentional exposures are EI 5000-6400 with both flavors of Tri-X.

 

[cliveh]

The edge markings are put there by the manufacturer, if you have no edge markings, then you have either put the fix in first, or developed the film in some kind of bleach.