Tmax 3200 and Rodinal 1:100

Dave Krueger · Nov 18, 2007

Has anyone ever tried developing Tmax 3200 film in Rodinal 1:100? Data sheet gives times for 1:25 and 1:50 dilutions, but not 1:100. I suspect there's a reason for that, but I don't know what that would be. Maybe low contrast? Maybe the EI drops too low? Maybe the grain gets as big as golf balls?

I've been trying for large sharp grain using 400 speed film with Rodinal 1:100. Love the combo, but would like even larger grain. I figure Tmax 3200 would give me that. The high speed is of no importance to me. I could use the lower 1:50 dilution, but would prefer 1:100 just because that's the dilution I've had the best results with in general.

Lacking any other feedback, I will probably just go ahead and try it, but I'm hoping someone's already tried it and can let me know their experience with it.

Much thanks.

-Dave

nworth · Nov 19, 2007

Remember that it's TMax P3200 - the P is for pushed. What we think of as normal development for P3200 is really push development of a film with an inherent speed of about 1000 and very low contrast. I suspect that has something to do with the lower dilutions recommended for Rodinal. You should probably try both 1:25 and 1:50 and compare results with what you are getting at 1:100. P3200 is actually a pretty fine grained film (probably in the "medium" grain class), maybe comparable to the old Super-XX. To get more grain, you might try a higher film speed (4000 or 6400) and a bit more push. The additional development and increased contrast at the higher speed should bring out the grain more. My experience is with D-76, and the grain was more or less round globs which were not all that noticeable. I've been curious about what Rodinal might do with this film, but I haven't tried it yet.

clay · Nov 19, 2007

I use this film a lot for nighttime photos, and I did quite a bit of experimentation with developers initially. I ended up using FX-39 in the end because it gave the highest film speed and the sharpest, most defined grain. The rodinal did not provide the same crispness in the grain edges that I was looking for. Now that FX-39 is no longer available in the US, I started mixing my own FX-37, and find it to be a very close substitute for the FX-39. Try exposing it at 800, and then processing for 9-10 minutes at 72F with FX-37 1:4.

Also keep in mind that if it is grain you are seeking, you may want to overexpose the highlights which will give you a denser, but grainier negative. That is the conventional word on getting good grain.

Another approach is to slightly underdevelop a properly exposed negative, and then use a really high contrast printing filter to compensate for the lower contrast negative. This will enhance the apparent separation of the grains at larger magnifications. I prefer the second approach, but it can be tricky if your subject is low contrast to begin with, because it is quite possible to run out of the range of even your highest contrast printing filters and end up with a flat looking print.

Dave Krueger · Nov 19, 2007

Clay,

Unfortunately, I don't have any phenidone, so I can't mix up any FX-37 at the moment, but I looked it up and noticed it is specifically designed for T-grain films. I'll put phenidone on my shopping list. From what I've read, I think the key for crisp grain is to use a developer very low in sulfite to keep the grain pronounced.

I'm totally with you on going for lower contrast in the negs and using a high contrast filter. I've learned a little of the techniques of Ralph Gibson and, from my own experimentation, using a high contrast filter seems to be essential to getting that stark crisp grain. So far, I've been fortunate to not exceed the capabilities of my filters, but I do crank up the magenta almost to max. Then I dodge and burn slightly to keep the tonal spread within range.

This whole project has been fun. For 40 years I've been battling grain and trying to maximize resolution and sharpness, so every fiber of my being is rebelling against the idea of maximizing grain. LOL! But, I absolutely love the results. I opens a whole new range of creative options I've never experienced before. I feel like a kid with a new toy. I should try new stuff more often. Hell, I heard they even make color film now...

-Dave

gainer · Nov 19, 2007

I just did some tests of Arista 400 EDU Ultra in Rodinal 1+50, FX 37 1+4, and some others. The characteristic curves from FX 37 and Rodinal superimposed almost exactly when I got the slopes the same. I don't know what to tell you about grain. I haven't done any 3200 film in a long time.

If you believe that grain is an inverse function of sulfite content, you might try the Metol-C-borax developer. Frankly, I don't think the developer has as much effect on grain as exposure and/or development time, but it seems to me you would have the best luck without sulfite. You could even go as far as 1 teaspoon sodium carbonate, 1/2 teaspoon ascorbic acid and 1/8 teaspoon Metol in a liter of water, or use one of those in my article if you feel righteous about weighing things.

clay · Nov 19, 2007

I tend to agree with you that the sulfite in and of itself is not as useful in predicting grain as some other factors, including exposure and development, as you mention. The FX developers do contain sulfite, for instance.

That said, when I did some pretty extreme enlargements (about 16X) on Tmax3200, there was a noticeable difference in the character of the grain between the rodinal developed film and the FX-(37or39) film. The best way to describe it is that the FX developed prints had these nice angular sharp edges and corners to the grain, almost like etching, while the Rodinal was slightly more rounded, sort of like salt crystals look after they get damp from humidity. The difference is subtle, but definitely there.

You have to be a real grain junkie to even care, I guess.

gainer said:
I just did some tests of Arista 400 EDU Ultra in Rodinal 1+50, FX 37 1+4, and some others. The characteristic curves from FX 37 and Rodinal superimposed almost exactly when I got the slopes the same. I don't know what to tell you about grain. I haven't done any 3200 film in a long time.

If you believe that grain is an inverse function of sulfite content, you might try the Metol-C-borax developer. Frankly, I don't think the developer has as much effect on grain as exposure and/or development time, but it seems to me you would have the best luck without sulfite. You could even go as far as 1 teaspoon sodium carbonate, 1/2 teaspoon ascorbic acid and 1/8 teaspoon Metol in a liter of water, or use one of those in my article if you feel righteous about weighing things.

frotog · Nov 19, 2007

At 1:100 you'll get the acutance you're looking for with stand development. Not only will you get REALLY accentuated grain but you'll also get a nicely developed, eminently printable neg with incredible shadow separation AND printable highlights. This is because of the compensating effects of the stand development. Try one agitation and then let the tank sit for 60-90 minutes. It's magic!

gainer · Nov 19, 2007

Of course, the amount of sulfite in diluted FX 37 is only about 12 grams per liter of working solution. It could get by with less than 6 with the addition of a tad of borax to make up for the reduced pH due to loss of sulfite. It has bromide and benzotriazole in it. I said somewhere before that it amazed me how Crawley could put nice even weights of ingredients in a pot and then conclude the mix was optimized for this or that.

It was my thought some time ago that Rodinal had the makings of an infectuous developer that sometimes made grains attach neighboring unexposed grains. You might get sharper grains from it by adding some sodium ascorbate. It seemed to me that was the case. The ascorbate might prevent some spreading due to the fact that its reaction products are more acidic.

Ascorbate has two possible functions, from what I have read and observed. It is certainly an antioxidant that appears to restore Metol and probably Phenidone and others to their preoxidized states. This can happen at pH lower than ascorbate can act as a developer. At a pH like the usual carbonate developer, the ascorbate can act with another in synergistic manner. That, I think, is the best bet for getting full-sized grain from a sulfite free ascorbate developer.

It seems that manufacturers and users are at cross purposes, or perhaps users and other users. The one side tries to make the fastest film with the finest grain, while the other side wants coarse grain, period.

I think I have said enough for a while.

dpurdy · Nov 19, 2007

I did some tests a few years ago trying to find a really nice maximum grain with nice tonality.. I tested Rodinal 1-100, Beutlers, and HC110 dilution B. All gave nice full range tonality with the 35mm TMZ exposed at 800. The Beutlers gave the greatest grain, the Rodinal was a little contrastier, and the HC110 (which at dilution B is a regular developer) gave the nicest tonality. HC100 is worth a try as with it the negs were beautifully full range and rich. If you process it out just a bit thin then you can print higher contrast which accentuates the grain more.
Dennis

Dave Krueger · Nov 19, 2007

Well, I'm no chemist, so all I ever do is regurgitate stuff I've read which could be right or wrong, assuming I even remember it with any kind of fidelity. haha! I thought I read somewhere that sulfite, once it reaches a certain concentration, dissolves the edges of the grain which is why developers high in sulfite tend to produce finer grain.

I still plan to try the Rodinal first since I have some experience with it and like the images I get with it, particularly since I'm printing for high contrast. In other words, the Rodinal seems to yield nice characteristics as I print the negatives with unnatural, unnervingly stark, harsh, high contrast.

I'll go with Rodinal 1:100 and see what I get in terms of contrast and EI. I may try stand down the road, but initially I'm going to stay with my normal agitation technique.

I may try TFX-2 as well since that's another developer I have on hand. I have the feeling it won't yield as much grain at Rodinal, though.

Also, I read somewhere that chromium intensifier increases the size of the grain, so I might give that a try just out of curiosity. Being the lazy bastard that I am, I'd rather not have to go through an intensification step to get the grain I want, so I would prefer to get the grain just from the developer/film combo.

gainer · Nov 19, 2007

It's been a while, so I guess I can talk some more. Everyone seems to be reluctant to say anything about a simple ascorbic acid-Metol-carbonate developer as if it were impossible to get full size grain with anything so simple. You can, and good gradations to boot. It seems to me to be the logical way to get big grains that don't spill over their edges. Where's the solvent to take the place of the sulfite? If you don't try it, you'll be missing a chance that will be cheaper than anything else you'll get. The only thing you need to get from a chemical shop is the Metol. I think you could even get by with p-aminophenol from the headache medicine. I'll have to try that.

gainer · Nov 20, 2007

Turns out I'm fresh out of anything but ibuprofen. The nearest thing I have to acetaminophen is Rodinal. 20 ml of Rodinal stock, 1/2 teaspoon of ascorbic acid (2 grams) and 1 teaspoon of anhydrous sodium carbonate (5 grams) in a liter of water is a pretty potent developer. It will give plentiful grain. It may or may not be the kind you want, but one of my pictures seems to work well with it. It looks almost like a charcoal drawing.

This developer will do the Arista 400 EDU ultra in 8 minutes or less. My soup was a little cold. You would probably get the same result with about 2 grams of p-aminophenol base (which I do have, come to think of it) plus the carbonate ant the ascorbic acid. I don't know if carbonate alone is enough to separate the aceta from the minaphen, but someone will try it sooner or later.

clay · Nov 20, 2007

LOL, I just saw this. Yeah, how lucky can you get, eh?

gainer said:
I said somewhere before that it amazed me how Crawley could put nice even weights of ingredients in a pot and then conclude the mix was optimized for this or that.

Murray@uptowngallery · Nov 20, 2007

I don't think this is thread-jacking, because this one has broadened into a discussion of grain.

In my 30-years-ago photography classes, the only discussion of grain was that higher speed film had more, and pushing might make it 'worse'.

As an earlier poster stated, I always thought less grain was better, but read with interest about efforts to increase grain.

Now I'm getting confused about all the variables that will affect grain.

Rodinal used to be called grain-heavy with some film (moreso w/35mm?), enjoying a resurgence with T-grain film where I guess this isn't the 'problem' it was with old (pyramidal?) grain.

Is there a general assumption one can make about grain and stand development?

Can one use Zone System and stand development together? It would seem that the really long development time would be less linear and less sensitive to a simple multiplier of development time. Or am I just assuming that?

Gainer has so many easy and appealing recipes, but tonight's suggestion of one conducive to the request for enhanced grain made me realize I have no idea what enhances or represses grain - I just associated it with ISO of film or EI as used- or what to expect with a home brew. So many recipes will 'work', but...with sulfite-free recipes, are there any guidelines to go for the grain or run from it. Obviously there's more to this than just getting the time right for the tonal range...(by the way, the last time I developed film was in 1977, hence the ignorance...I will be doing my own again soon as soon as I have the last fixer ingredients).

I ask instead of searching because looking for 'grain' on a photo site will probably give me only a few less (fewer?) hits than the word 'lens'.

Thanks

Murray

gainer · Nov 20, 2007

What I have seen of sulfite-free developers leads me to think that pH has a large effect. I mentioned adding ascorbic acid and carbonate to a 1+50 working solution of Rodinal and getting grain. Some years ago, and I think Unblinkingeye has it, I described results of a combination of sodium ascorbate and Rodinal. In that case, I used baking soda to make sodium ascorbate from ascorbic acid so as not to change the pH of the Rodinal too much. Yesterday I added significantly more carbonate than was needed to neutralize the ascorbic acid. I think you will see a considerable difference between the grain. Rodinal is noted for a fairly high pH. I doubt that it was changed much by the carbonate. It still read over 10 on a pH strip. I have a feeling that the excess carbonate keeps the local pH at that level more successfully than does Rodinal alone. The ascorbate is a more efficient regenerator than the sulfite, and at that pH also acts as a developing agent in synergy with the p-aminophenol. The results I get by using 1.5 grams of p-aminophenol base in place of the Rodinal are quite similar. However, the results I get from p-aminophenol, ascorbic acid, sodium hydroxide and borax are quite different. Don't let the hydroxide fool you. There's just enough to neutralize the ascorbic acid and make the sodium aminophenolate. The pH of that mix is in the borax range, about 1 unit below the Rodinal-ascorbate-carbonate mix or the aminophenol-ascorbate-carbonate mix.

gainer · Nov 20, 2007

Every so often during the day something makes me feel like a fool. I was trying to figure out the best way to show others what I see in a print or negative of such things as grain and gradations. I thought I could show how grainy the Metol-ascorbate-carbonate could make a film look by making the biggest photographic enlargement I could and scanning a part of it. When I got a 16X enlargement of a 35 mm Arista EDU 400 negative, the details were clear. I could, with the aid of a reading glass, see the mesh in my chicken yard fence from 100 feet. The problem, which I would not usually consider to be a problem, is that I could not see the grain the way I thought it would be on the basis of scans of the negative or scans of smaller prints. I could see it well enough to know that the Apo Rodagon enlarging lens was not at fault and that there is grain. Next, I scanned that print. At 600 dpi it looked awfully grainy. 600 was the best I could do on the flatbed scanner, but I had the ability to interpolate to 1200 or higher. That is just a smoothing process and doesn't give more real information.

I am remembering some things I learned about analysis of dynamic systems at NASA. It's hard to think of a picture as a dynamic system, but the rules of periodic sampling do certainly apply. The sampling rate, called the Nyquist rate IIRC, must equal or exceed twice the highest frequency of the data. When the data have frequencies higher than the sample rate, the higher frequencies will be doubled back to the low end. I have a feeling something like that must be happening when the scanner has less resolution than the information that is on the film. It will show up in the modulation transfer function, but I don't know what happens to the information when it goes into the scanner's memory and comes out into the printer.

Dave Krueger · Nov 20, 2007

I can never get a scan to convey the graininess of a picture. It really pisses me off, too. Especially for discussions like this. There's just no substitute for looking at an actual darkroom print.

Not only do you have Nyquist limitations, but I assume scanners do that interpolation stuff that digital cameras do with the red, green, and blue sensors. On top of that, I have the worst scanner in the world. No, the universe. Cavemen had better scanners than this one. No offense to cavemen, in case there are any reading this...

So, what I do is scan in the print and then sharpen the hell out of it so it brings out something resembling grain. I'll attach an example. The actual print is really cool, but I had to enlarge it to 16x24 and then crop it down to 8x10 to get the grain I wanted. So, now I'm over-hauling my condenser enlarger installation to allow it to go higher and print on the floor, just so I can make a 16x20 of this frame (cropped down from 32 by 48).

-Dave

gainer · Nov 20, 2007

So I did the only sensible thing. I consulted Google. Sure enough, there is such a thing as grain aliasing. A lot of people talk about it. No one has a really good cure for it. It has to do with the way the images of individual grains fall on the pattern of the scanner's sensors. One suggestion is to throw the scanner slightly out of focus, which might work for some, but probably thwarts the purpose we have for scanning in the first place. Besides, you have to fool the autofocus mechanism or disable it. Maybe the reason I got a decent result from my 35 mm scanner (HP PhotoSmart of old) is that I put the negative in shiny side down just to see what would happen. I have put 5x7 glass negatives in my flat bed scanner both ways without a noticable change in focus, so I figure it has autofocus.

I think we will have to face the fact that most of us will not have a reliable way of showing our brethren the fine details of our work except by snail mail.

It may be that even though the grain is distorted beyond reason, it will be proportional to the actual graininess. I will try to get some comparable pictures on FP4+ tomorrow.

clay · Nov 21, 2007

This problem is precisely why you need to take posted examples of grain with a grain of salt :^). There are very few scanners short of really high end drum scanners or the pricier flatbeds that can successfully resolve grain without running head on into the aliasing problem you are alluding to. I think your approach still may be the best, though - and that is to optically enlarge to 16-18x, and then scan at something like 3000spi or better. Even then, I would be willing to bet that only 400 speed film (or faster) would resolve enough information to allow meaningful comparisons online.

Oh, I looked at the original post, and while this discussion has been very useful, I never answered the original post. Here is piece of advice I read a long time ago about Rodinal at 1:100 : you can develop any film for 20 minutes at 70F and it will work. I tried this one time mixing a bunch of different kinds of film in one tank. And sure enough, it worked. Now, I am sure that none of these were developed optimally, but they were all useable. This struck me as one of those Hmmmmm.... things.

gainer said:
The sampling rate, called the Nyquist rate IIRC, must equal or exceed twice the highest frequency of the data. When the data have frequencies higher than the sample rate, the higher frequencies will be doubled back to the low end. I have a feeling something like that must be happening when the scanner has less resolution than the information that is on the film. It will show up in the modulation transfer function, but I don't know what happens to the information when it goes into the scanner's memory and comes out into the printer.

gainer · Nov 22, 2007

In spite of our feelings about digital imagery, it has proven its value in showing each other our discoveries in the analog world. In a sense, it is not a separate world. As one of our members says, everything is analog, even digital. Conversely, everything is digital, even analog, when one considers the nature of elements. Our film samples the visible world a grain at a time, the grains being sized and located randomly. When we try to sample the world with a uniformly spaced array of equally sensitive photoelectric sensors, we meet with some success. Strangely enough, these sensors were made possible by advances in analog photography. Now when we try to use the uniformly spaced sensor array to copy and store the products of the random array we call film, we sometimes run into severe problems.

We have run into such problems ever since the development of methods of recording speech and music. Even before that, our spoken and written languages have evolved to have considerable redundancy. I have seen demonstrations of recorded messages that have had portions excised at randomly spaced intervals. It was amazing how much could be removed before the message could not be retrieved.

There are times when we want to discuss not the image but the bits of which the image is made. As an artist with paint and brushes will use different texture of paint and different kinds of brushes to get different effects, we like to use the tools at our disposal to do the same. There comes a time when one may wish to demonstrate to and discuss with others the crafts of our "Trade" (which it is for many) without having to travel around the world or use the services of the snail mail man.

I was very disappointed when I could not see in my digital image of one of my photographic images that which I wanted to show another of our members. I will certainly spread the word if I find a reliable way around this problem. Perhaps it should be a different thread.

niemo · Nov 24, 2007

Kodak T-Max 3200 in Rodinal

T-Max 3200 in Rodinal. Interesting to read about dilutions of 1:50 and 1:100, sometime ago it was suggested 1:200 and leave it overnight?
I wanted grain and used around 1:18, e. g. 14 ml + 250 ml water. I got a good results, but only because I used a very low contrast subject, the background a similar tone to the flowers. I did expose at ISO 6400 and pushed.
Unfortunately I don't do any printing yet, as I have re-started my B&W in a more seriuos manner after years of neglect, starting with accumulating negatives over the last few years using different films and developers. We are very limited here and hardly anybody does film based photography any more.
Thomas Niemeyer (niemo@xsinet.co.za

Tmax 3200 and Rodinal 1:100

Dave Krueger

nworth

clay

Dave Krueger

gainer

clay

frotog

gainer

dpurdy

Dave Krueger

gainer

gainer

clay

Murray@uptowngallery

gainer

gainer

Dave Krueger

Attachments

gainer

clay

gainer

niemo

Attachments

Tmax 3200 and Rodinal 1:100

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency