TMAX 400 pushed to 3200 rodinal dev.times

[danlud]

Hi.

I’ve tried to find exposure times for TMAX 400 at ISO 3200 developed in Rodinal 1+50 dilution.
All I have found is the massive dev chart 1+25 for 17minutes.
As I have understood at 1+25 the contrast will be higher than at 1+50 dilution. And since the contrast is already really high at 3200 I would like to compensate by using 1+50 instead of 1+25.
When compared to other film types in rodinal with different ISO and dilutions it seems that the development time should be doubled for one more push stop. So that would mean 34 minutes with 1+50 dilution at +20C.
Anyone have tried this? Opinions?

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

If I were you, I would not use Rodinal for this. Tmax 400 pushes nicely in Tmax developer, which was designed for pushing Tmax 400 and Tmax 3200. You'll get a lot better shadow detail with Tmax Developer. I haven't pushed TMY-2 to 3200, but I have pushed it to 1600 in Tmax Developer with beautiful results.

 

[Colin Corneau]

What Chris said.

Rodinal's not a good choice for pushing, here. Different tools for different goals.

For what it's worth, my experience would recommend either TMax developer or Ilford's wonderful DD-X.

 

[StoneNYC]

I will second that DD-X (or tmax dev) is a better choice for this.

I would also say that if you want lower contrast, Tmax400 is the wrong film, HP5+ would push much better with a less dramatic contrast than TMY-2 does.

Rodinal, it's do-able, but you'll get a VERY grainy image. And you're also talking shoot roughly 30 minutes of developing by inversion...

I've done Tmax400 at 1600 (forgive the movement and horrible image and possibly offensive imagery) in DD-X



But find HP5+ at 3200 much more beautiful



Good luck!

 

[danlud]

If I were you, I would not use Rodinal for this. Tmax 400 pushes nicely in Tmax developer, which was designed for pushing Tmax 400 and Tmax 3200. You'll get a lot better shadow detail with Tmax Developer. I haven't pushed TMY-2 to 3200, but I have pushed it to 1600 in Tmax Developer with beautiful results.

I will second that DD-X (or tmax dev) is a better choice for this.

I would also say that if you want lower contrast, Tmax400 is the wrong film, HP5+ would push much better with a less dramatic contrast than TMY-2 does.

Rodinal, it's do-able, but you'll get a VERY grainy image. And you're also talking shoot roughly 30 minutes of developing by inversion...

I've done Tmax400 at 1600 (forgive the movement and horrible image and possibly offensive imagery) in DD-X

But find HP5+ at 3200 much more beautiful

Good luck!

Thanks for your answers. I know this is not ideal, but I don't have the possibility to get any other developers right now, so Rodinal it is. But I would like to try other developers in the future.
And yes, HP5 is probably better, but the TMax was all I could get my hands on in a short notice. If I would have had a choice I would have gone with Delta 3200... I'll just have to try and see how it goes

 

[mrred]

Rodinal is fine for pushing, especially to 3200. How it will turn out will depend on how you shoot the scene.

To push well with rodinal, you need to ether use stand development or use infrequent super gentle swirls. Too much movement will give you coarse grain. To be successful with pushing you need to shoot with a scene containing more light, not requiring too much shadow detail. Here is an example of a good push, although this uses HP5+ @ 3200



and



Both are well lit and there is no signs of excessive grain. These images were created using 1:100 stand for 1 hr.

When you want to pronounce shadows, you should look at pulling. Rodinal is badly misunderstood developer. With a little skill, it really knows no bounds.

 

[StoneNYC]

Rodinal is fine for pushing, especially to 3200. How it will turn out will depend on how you shoot the scene.

To push well with rodinal, you need to ether use stand development or use infrequent super gentle swirls. Too much movement will give you coarse grain. To be successful with pushing you need to shoot with a scene containing more light, not requiring too much shadow detail. Here is an example of a good push, although this uses HP5+ @ 3200

View attachment 81930

and

View attachment 81931

Both are well lit and there is no signs of excessive grain. These images were created using 1:100 stand for 1 hr.

When you want to pronounce shadows, you should look at pulling. Rodinal is badly misunderstood developer. With a little skill, it really knows no bounds.

I agree to a point about Rodinal being misunderstood, my agitation scheme when I was still using inversion techniques were more along the lines of stand than normal inversion.

My suggestion for Tmax in Rodinal is that you can try 1:100 stand with one gentile inversion every 20 minutes.

However I think the following would work better.

try Rodinal 1:50 with one gentile inversion every 2 minutes for 20 minutes.

Always agitate continuously the first minute and pre-soak 2-3 minutes.

BUT

You will get a million suggestions, you need to just test yourself.

I have not done EITHER so my advice is to be taken with some leeway, but I have used Rodinal significantly over the past few years and feel I have a good handle on it's capabilities.

It's the most versatile developer out there IMO but with something so extreme if I had a choice I would use something like DD-X.

But you WILL get an image enjoy and just do it!

 

[mrred]

The only thing I wouldn't do is inversions. I save that for fixer ... I found swirling the container like it was a fine wine worked wonderfully. I do that for all developers now.

 

[StoneNYC]

The only thing I wouldn't do is inversions. I save that for fixer ... I found swirling the container like it was a fine wine worked wonderfully. I do that for all developers now.

No drag? I'm surprised a LITTLE but it's Rodinal. I wouldn't do that with other dev's though.

I said GENTILE, I mean, takes you 10 seconds for one inversion, very slow.

Similar to swirling I think in how it refreshes the dev.

 

[mrred]

I found drag more of an issue with 120, but it is also dependant on the film. HP5+ works quite well. But there is nothing wrong with a swirl or two in between.

The swirling was suggested by someone here a long while back. I had a contrast / grain problem and it cured it. "no looking back", as they say...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Use the Rodinal at about 1+50 as you mentioned.

Agitate ten seconds every three minutes.
Shoot another roll at 3200 in similar lighting conditions. If possible cut the roll in half and develop only one half, start with 30 minutes.
If you don't like the contrast, decrease or increase as you see fit on the second half. Could be 25 minutes, could be 40 minutes.

Try to make sure you have the process somewhat dialed in before you develop a roll that you can't re-shoot, which is why I'm suggesting the test above. There is no material available that can substitute for experience and knowledge. It's better to know how Rodinal and TMY-2 will look and how they react than trying to adapt to a new developer.
So, work out the kinks before you develop your important roll of film.

 

[danlud]

First of all thanks for all your advice. I decided to go for Rodinal 1+50, 25 minutes developing time. Agitation every other minute. This was one of the best pics I got. Rest were a bit underexposed so the shadows weren't that good. But I can't complain about too much grain.

 

[mrred]

Great photo.

 

[StoneNYC]

First of all thanks for all your advice. I decided to go for Rodinal 1+50, 25 minutes developing time. Agitation every other minute. This was one of the best pics I got. Rest were a bit underexposed so the shadows weren't that good. But I can't complain about too much grain.

Looks good, guess it's 30 minutes next time, glad you liked my on and off regimen, again understand Rodinal won't cause as much bromide drag as other developers so I wouldn't recommend this for other dev's and suggest other dev's you keep to under 1 minute.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Looks good, guess it's 30 minutes next time, glad you liked my on and off regimen, again understand Rodinal won't cause as much bromide drag as other developers so I wouldn't recommend this for other dev's and suggest other dev's you keep to under 1 minute.

Stone, I don't think your analysis of agitation is correct. I use agitation as a tool to get good negatives. With all kinds of developers, such as Xtol (replenished, 1+1, 1+3), D76 (stock, 1+1), HC-110 (Dil B, Dil H), Ilfotec DD-X (1+9), Pyrocat-HD and MC (1+1+100, 1+1+150), and Edwal 12 (replenished).
I have successfully varied agitation between every 30 seconds to every 5 minutes with all of those developers, with no ill effect.

Are you speaking from personal experience, or are you just regurgitating what you've read on the internet?

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone, I don't think your analysis of agitation is correct. I use agitation as a tool to get good negatives. With all kinds of developers, such as Xtol (replenished, 1+1, 1+3), D76 (stock, 1+1), HC-110 (Dil B, Dil H), Ilfotec DD-X (1+9), Pyrocat-HD and MC (1+1+100, 1+1+150), and Edwal 12 (replenished).
I have successfully varied agitation between every 30 seconds to every 5 minutes with all of those developers, with no ill effect.

Are you speaking from personal experience, or are you just regurgitating what you've read on the internet?

Good point, I have never had bromide drag issues because I always follow recommended regimens from reasonably reliable sources.

The nothing more than a minute concept was from the Achel/troop darkroom cookbook I own.

I think that sometimes important to START with recommendations and then experiment. Lots if stuff was written for the laymen so as not to have their first attempts ruined and they give up...

 

[jsimoespedro]

I have tried 1:100 semi-stand. Results are ok up to EI1600. EI3200 are of poor shadow detail.
EI800 very similar to EI400. Less drop from 800 to 1600 than from 1600 to 3200.

By using standard development results should improve. If the scene is low contrast, the negative will appear thin, will scan well and you can push contrast in wet printing. If you have high contrast scene, better to meter both highlights and shadows. Detail is ok at 2 stops under, and limit is 2 and a half to 3 stops under. Metering for the shadows is critical.

If in a hurry, meter main subject and check if you can hand hold at 2 under.

Again, standard development should improve your results.

When you have the chance use classic grain film for pushing. HP5+ or Trix-400, which ever is cheaper.

check this link to see that not all films have the exposure latitude.

http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/product_tests/400ISO_filmtest_001.php

I hope this helps.

Of course, the highest speed developer is Diafine. Tri-X behaves as a 1600 film in Diafine.

I am changing to diafine as soon as my rodinal ends.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Careful with Diafine. In flat lighting it doesn't really give its best and you'll end up with really flat negatives.

I have tried 1:100 semi-stand. Results are ok up to EI1600. EI3200 are of poor shadow detail.
EI800 very similar to EI400. Less drop from 800 to 1600 than from 1600 to 3200.

By using standard development results should improve. If the scene is low contrast, the negative will appear thin, will scan well and you can push contrast in wet printing. If you have high contrast scene, better to meter both highlights and shadows. Detail is ok at 2 stops under, and limit is 2 and a half to 3 stops under. Metering for the shadows is critical.

If in a hurry, meter main subject and check if you can hand hold at 2 under.

Again, standard development should improve your results.

When you have the chance use classic grain film for pushing. HP5+ or Trix-400, which ever is cheaper.

check this link to see that not all films have the exposure latitude.

http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/product_tests/400ISO_filmtest_001.php

I hope this helps.

Of course, the highest speed developer is Diafine. Tri-X behaves as a 1600 film in Diafine.

I am changing to diafine as soon as my rodinal ends.

 

[jsimoespedro]

I have tried 1:100 semi-stand. Results are ok up to EI1600. EI3200 are of poor shadow detail.
EI800 very similar to EI400. Less drop from 800 to 1600 than from 1600 to 3200.

By using standard development results should improve. If the scene is low contrast, the negative will appear thin, will scan well and you can push contrast in wet printing. If you have high contrast scene, better to meter both highlights and shadows. Detail is ok at 2 stops under, and limit is 2 and a half to 3 stops under. Metering for the shadows is critical.

If in a hurry, meter main subject and check if you can hand hold at 2 under.

Again, standard development should improve your results.

When you have the chance use classic grain film for pushing. HP5+ or Trix-400, which ever is cheaper.

check this link to see that not all films have the exposure latitude.

http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/product_tests/400ISO_filmtest_001.php

I hope this helps.

Of course, the highest speed developer is Diafine. Tri-X behaves as a 1600 film in Diafine.

I am changing to diafine as soon as my rodinal ends.

Thanks for the advice.

Diafine instructions state that you can ONLY LOWER contrast by over exposing. Maybe I will marry Rodinal after all.