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.”
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?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?
rated 1600 developed in hc110 that came out with featureless blacks... Could the detail have been squeezed out with another developer like XTOL
By featureless black shadows I mean the film was totally clear.
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 underexposedAt 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
Ah really. Never knew that. Thought it was the other way around. That’s good news because tri x is more expensive I think.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+.
People who claim to get detailed shadows at EI 1600 aren't actually rating at 1600...
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.
I have this. So I can effectively make Rodinal? How close does it come to the original?
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
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 storeWhere 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
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.Any thoughts on if using stock XTOL would have brought out readable info in the shots above?
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.
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?