Stand Dev't - Rodinal Pan F confusion

NikoSperi · Jul 13, 2005

After reading some interesting threads here about APX and Rodinal stand development, I was dying to try myself. I didn't have any APX around, but opted for Pan F instead. The shots are my usual boring test shots on a contrasty day - my understanding is that the stand dev't should help build shadow detail without losing highlights, so it seemed a good opportunity.

Film shot at 50 and developed in Rodinal 1:100 (specifically 10ml:1000ml) for 40 minutes at 20°C in a Paterson tank with two reels, the film being in the bottom one. I agitated by inversion for the first five minutes, and then let it sit for a further 35.

Question #1: Several frames have lesser density along the right hand edge. Here it shows clearly as black areas. I have never had a problem with surge marks, so I'm not sure what to look for... What is that?

Question #2: I don't see too much shadow detail (but it's there). However, the highlights are pretty hot, making me wonder about developer exhaustion not happening here. Is 1:100 too concentrated for this? I used that dilution because I wanted to keep 10ml of concentrate per roll, and my largest tank holds one liter. Should I / could I use 1:200 with only 5ml of Rodinal, or would that little absolute amount of Rod ensure the film wouldn't develop fully?

I can see a nice edge effect on many shots so I'm pretty happy with that. I was expecting better highlight control. Any suggestions?

argus · Jul 13, 2005

I guess the right hand side of the picture was positioned on top in the tank? I was always told to keep a minimum of 10ml of rodinal in the solution.
Can't comment on the specs for APX though.

PS: those are wonderful clouds!

G

jjstafford · Jul 13, 2005

Regarding point #1 - that looks like a light leak. It is too dark to be the results of overdevelopment, surging.

NikoSperi · Jul 13, 2005

jjstafford said:
Regarding point #1 - that looks like a light leak. It is too dark to be the results of overdevelopment, surging.

A light leak would be... light on the print. This is less density on the neg, resulting in darker "smudges" on the edge.

jjstafford · Jul 13, 2005

NikoSperi said:
A light leak would be... light on the print. This is less density on the neg, resulting in darker "smudges" on the edge.

Uh, of course. Silly me!

argus · Jul 13, 2005

An addition to my previous comment: did you fix for long enough and was there enough fixer (liquid) in the tank?
Call it obvious but sometimes you don't have to look that far. I prevously had dark streaks (not like the bubbles in your picture) from not fixing for long enough.

As for your agitation technique: Rodinal doesn't require a lot of samba dancing.
I only roll my tank for the first 30 seconds when doing stand development!

G

Earl Dunbar · Jul 13, 2005

Off the top of my head they don't look like surge marks, but I can't explain it any other way. I'll have to think about this one.

As far as the low value detail and tonal range go, I would guess perhaps the time needs to be adjusted down a bit. If the shadow detail isn't really adequate, then that's more of an exposure issue. Perhaps rating the film a bit lower or making sure you meter shadow areas for Zone III would help.

Earl

NikoSperi · Jul 13, 2005

A few possible additions come to mind. Despite what Ilford says, I do use a pre-rinse. Not so much to rinse or wet the emulsion, but rather to get the temperature down to 20°C and avoid heating the developer when I pour it in. Don't know if it's significant, but I have always done it that way.

I assume that edge was on the top of the reel. However, that reel was covered by more than 1000ml of soup (500ml would be enough to cover the bottom reel), and fix.

Thanks for the insight to the agitation. Perhaps my doing a Rumba with my Paterson for five minutes did lead to bromide drag? But would bromide drag reduce density? I though it would be darker streaks on the negative rather than lighter.

My fix was seven minutes, and while the fixer wasn't mixed up yesterday (about two months ago) it has only seen 10 rolls go through it. I could check clearing time, but I usually get 25-30 rolls per batch, and I fix for at least three times clearing time (which is usually 1.5 minute or so).

I was guesstimating the 40 minutes time. I did purposefully err on the long side as all my recent failures have been on the thin side. But with stand dev't, erring on the long side should make no difference to the highlights, no? If the local developer is exhausted, you could leave it there until tomorrow. I'm thinking that at 1:100 there was too much developer to reach exhaustion. But what do I know... I never done this before. :rolleyes:

titrisol · Jul 13, 2005

NikoSperi said:
After reading some interesting threads here about APX and Rodinal stand development, I was dying to try myself. I didn't have any APX around, but opted for Pan F instead. The shots are my usual boring test shots on a contrasty day - my understanding is that the stand dev't should help build shadow detail without losing highlights, so it seemed a good opportunity.

Film shot at 50 and developed in Rodinal 1:100 (specifically 10ml:1000ml) for 40 minutes at 20°C in a Paterson tank with two reels, the film being in the bottom one. I agitated by inversion for the first five minutes, and then let it sit for a further 35.

Question #1: Several frames have lesser density along the right hand edge. Here it shows clearly as black areas. I have never had a problem with surge marks, so I'm not sure what to look for... What is that?

Have you seen this in any other rolls? if it occurrd only in a few frames I don;t believe it'd be a processing defect.

NikoSperi said:
Question #2: I don't see too much shadow detail (but it's there). However, the highlights are pretty hot, making me wonder about developer exhaustion not happening here. Is 1:100 too concentrated for this? I used that dilution because I wanted to keep 10ml of concentrate per roll, and my largest tank holds one liter. Should I / could I use 1:200 with only 5ml of Rodinal, or would that little absolute amount of Rod ensure the film wouldn't develop fully?

I can see a nice edge effect on many shots so I'm pretty happy with that. I was expecting better highlight control. Any suggestions?

I think you over agitated at the beginnign, IMHO it's better to agitate the first 30-45s and then once every 5-10 minutes (to avoid bromine drag)
Also, 1+200 with 5ml of Rodinal should be more than plenty! I do 1+100 with 6ml of concentrate and have never had problems. Old Rodinal reccomendations asked for 5ml minimum, and in my experience 1+200 with 3ml does the job

NikoSperi · Jul 13, 2005

titrisol said:
Have you seen this in any other rolls? if it occurrd only in a few frames I don;t believe it'd be a processing defect.

It happened on frames 4-12. Seemingly not on the first three. By my recollection, the begining of the film would be towards the center of the spiral. (It is clear we're talking 120 film I hope).

titrisol said:
I think you over agitated at the beginnign, IMHO it's better to agitate the first 30-45s and then once every 5-10 minutes (to avoid bromine drag)
Also, 1+200 with 5ml of Rodinal should be more than plenty! I do 1+100 with 6ml of concentrate and have never had problems. Old Rodinal reccomendations asked for 5ml minimum, and in my experience 1+200 with 3ml does the job

Thx. I'll try a 1:200 with 5ml. Same 40 minutes doesn't sound stupid does it?

jim appleyard · Jul 13, 2005

I only tried SD once, with not-so-hot results, so I can't comment on your results or procedure, however, I do like the photo that you've posted; good n sharp with guts! Typical for Rodinal! Crop out the marks on the right side and you've got a winner! Keep going with your SD. From all that I've read, it takes awhile to perfect it.

photomc · Jul 13, 2005

NikoSperi said:
Thx. I'll try a 1:200 with 5ml. Same 40 minutes doesn't sound stupid does it?

Not at all, when doing stand dev with 1+100 usually go for 60 min.

jjstafford · Jul 13, 2005

There is no development in the effected area. The drag in that area you see is probably from the very little that could develop, or the edge of a bubble. Did you use a stainless reel or one with an apron?

I do a lot of APX stand development. The skies are always even. There are no artifacts at the edge of the film. It has to be something about the way the film was loaded, IMHO.

Too bad, too. You had an interesting thing happening with the light. (I presume you intended to print it down like that.)

NikoSperi · Jul 13, 2005

jjstafford said:
There is no development in the effected area. The drag in that area you see is probably from the very little that could develop, or the edge of a bubble. Did you use a stainless reel or one with an apron?

Bubbles? Bubbles... hmmm. Looking closely, they seem quite well defined. Might I have trapped bubbles before letting the tank stand? Yes, the reels are plastic - thus with apron.
Numbed by five minutes of inversions, our hero forgets to smack the tank on the counter. :rolleyes:

photomc · Jul 13, 2005

NikoSperi said:
Thx. I'll try a 1:200 with 5ml. Same 40 minutes doesn't sound stupid does it?

Not at all, when doing stand dev with 1+100 usually go for 60 min.

titrisol · Jul 13, 2005

1+200 for 40 minutes? you might as well do 60
By agitating/inverting only once every 5/10 minutes you'll get better compensation and lower overall contrast.

Also, for 120 film 5ml should be enough, 10ml is for 220 film (as per my notes)

NikoSperi · Mar 3, 2006

Better late than never, finally had a chance to print this negative (over and over and over :rolleyes: )... Took a little getting used to under the enlarger, but I think I got it dialed for split-grade printing... at least for my beginner standards. Thanks everyone for the help, comme toujours.

Stand Dev't - Rodinal Pan F confusion

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency