Tri-X 400 + Rodinal

[applesanity]

I'm gonna try to develop Tri-X 400 rated at 400 in something besides good ol' D-76. I plan to compare both Rodinal at 1:25 and 1:50, at 20 deg. Celsius each.

Yes, I've searched the APUG archives and read many threads, but the more I read, the more confused I get. Each member has a different opinion. For example, one member will tell everyone to refer to the Massive Dev Chart. Then another will say that those times are merely "recommendations" and that adhering to them will blow out your highlights.

Then there are disagreements on the amount of agitation per agitation cycle, and how long between each cycle.

Then there are the disagreements concerning the rating at which to shoot your TX400 for the ideal Tri-X + Rodinal combo. There were several references to the Ralph Gibson formula: rate at 250, and use 1:25 for 11 minutes. No clue on what kind of agitation Ralph Gibson used, though.

The best I can gather from multiple posts is for 1:25 at 20 degrees, I should stick with 6 minutes (not the 7 minute recommendation) and 11 minutes for 1:50. Invert (very gently) for 10 seconds at the start of every minute for the first 5 minutes, and 10 seconds every 2 minutes afterwards.

Unless... I'm way off the mark. I could use a little help. Thanks.

 

[Markok765]

I normally stand develop the film at 1:100 for around 1 hour 15 min. If you are stand developing, the time does not matter that much. It also allows me to mix different films in the same tank, such as Tri-x and HP5+. It also lets me leave it and do other things, then pour it out and stop/fix/wash/photoflo the film.

 

[ic-racer]

You may anticipate a speed decrease. This shows H&D curves for T-Max 400 in T-max developer (blue) and Rodinal 100:1 (red).

 

[jim appleyard]

You have to think of film developing as an artist would a painting; what color blue is the sky? What color green are the trees? These disagreements are all valid because what suits one photographer does not suit another.

The MDC is a great starting point, but the photographer must realize that their own interpretation has to take over. Ralph Gibson's times are great, but you may end up using 9.5 minutes. Or, you may like Rodinal at 1+100, not 1+50 or 1+25.

Personally, I only do 1 inversion/min with Rodinal; it's strong stuff and I can always add a bit of contrast when printing with VC paper and a color head. That's me, tho'. YOU may like a bit more contrast and prefer 2 inversions/mi

Hopefully, I've made sense to you.

 

[Anon Ymous]

I'm gonna try to develop Tri-X 400 rated at 400 in something besides good ol' D-76. I plan to compare both Rodinal at 1:25 and 1:50, at 20 deg. Celsius each.
...
Then another will say that those times are merely "recommendations" and that adhering to them will blow out your highlights.
...
The best I can gather from multiple posts is for 1:25 at 20 degrees, I should stick with 6 minutes (not the 7 minute recommendation) and 11 minutes for 1:50. Invert (very gently) for 10 seconds at the start of every minute for the first 5 minutes, and 10 seconds every 2 minutes afterwards.

Unless... I'm way off the mark. I could use a little help. Thanks.

Oh well, anything your read is not strictly a recommendation. It's just a starting point. You've got to see for yourself. You need to experiment and create your own style. And remember something that's good/acceptable for you might be bad for someone else. The freedom you have is both a blessing and a curse.

Anyway, I have used this combination (1+25 only) and I have to say that contrast can go high this way. If the scenes you shoot have strong sunlight and shadows you can lose both highlight and shadow detail. I developed for 7 minutes and I guess the proposition for 6 minutes is right. On the other hand, I would go for 7 minutes if I had a cloudy day. In one of my films I had both cloudy and sunny shots. The cloudy where fine, the sunny... :rolleyes: That was an example of a film I should have tried w/ Rodinal 1+50 as it is said that it tames contrast. And IIRC you gain some sharpness but with bigger grain.

And by the way I invert gently if it matters to you.

 

[Anon Ymous]

And if you are a beginner (like me) stick with 1-2 films and one developer only. Otherwise you will get confused sooner or later. That's the best advice they gave me by far!

 

[Thanasis]

I've used this combination (120 Tri-X 400 @ EI400 in Rodinal 1:100) with times from the Massive Dev. Chart as a starting point. I use the Ilford agitation method (10 secs at the start and then 10 secs at the start of each minute). As a starting point I got very good results. Shadow detail was there, hilights were not blown and it gave a nice tonality with noticeable, attractive grain. I may have to adjust dev. for scenes with stronger contrast but on the whole the Massive Dev. Chart times were not far off the mark. I recommend you give them a try, print the results with an enlarger and then come back with the results for more advice.

As others have said, and I know it probably sounds like a cop-out, it all depends on what result or look you are after from a creative point of view. There are no 10 commandments for Rodinal development (although in another thread here on APUG someone did mention that Moses used Rodinal ). It all comes down to choosing a process and adjusting it slightly one variable at a time to get the results you are looking for. Hope this helps.

Regards,
Thanasis

PS: Tri-X pushed to 1600 in Rodinal gives good results for specific subjects too especially in 35mm. Tough 1950's boxing ring style grain, great midtones but you will lose a fair bit of detail in the shadows.

 

[reellis67]

And if you are a beginner (like me) stick with 1-2 films and one developer only. Otherwise you will get confused sooner or later. That's the best advice they gave me by far!

Very good advice. The reason that everyone says any given development time is a starting point is because different lighting condition will yield different results with the same development time. Soft light will yield very different results than harsh light using the times listed on the Massive Dev Chart, but you should be able to get reasonable negatives using the times given by that source.

As you develop film, pay attention to how contrasty the results are, how much detail you have in the shadows, how much detail you have in the highlights. These things are what people are trying to control when they deviate from the 'standard' development times. By adjusting both exposure and development from what the meter and chart says respectively, you can control the level of all of these things.

Since you are still learning, as previously suggested, try to stick to one developer and film combination. This will allow you to learn faster than you would be able to by changing all sorts of variable at the same time. I tell this to the students at work all the time, and those who listen to my advice usually understand what I am trying to show them without a great deal of difficulty. The idea is that you will learn to anticipate the results because the only thing that changes is one variable - the lighting condition at the time of exposure.

Once you begin to see patterns - this kind of lighting conditions gives blown highlights and deep shadows while this other gives good detail in the highlights, but not in the shadows (and you really understand what that means), then you can begin to work off that knowledge because you will know what you want to change and you can ask for help on how to change that (i.e. how can I get more detail in the shadows without blowing out the highlights?). Keeping everything else the same except for one variable will allow you to truly understand what that specific change does and by repeating this with each of the variables, one at a time, you'll quickly end up being able to get the results that you want, and as an added bonus more of what people say in forums will make sense (but never all of it - some of it really doesn't make sense to anyone but the poster). It won't take as long as it sounds either, I was able to learn fairly quickly using this method.

- Randy

 

[Neal]

Dear Applesantiy,

Bracket-Develop-Print-Adjust. The process is half the fun.

Neal Wydra

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That really says a lot. Seriously. If your negs don't print right, you need to adjust your film development and exposures until they do.
- Thomas

Dear Applesantiy,

Bracket-Develop-Print-Adjust. The process is half the fun.

Neal Wydra

 

[msdemanche]

your film is your medium. the latitude and just how much silver you can draw out is what the image is often all about. I tell my students that their film is afraid of the light and as such grabs the piece of silver next to it for protection. with that said your developer has to coax those grains apart so they form an image. D-76 is the starting point. Just with some small temperature changes, contrast, sharpness etc can change. Tri-X is a forgiving film in my opinion and one that can play well with some tough types like rodinol. I shoot all my TriX at 320 planning to n+1 develop most of it, and the rodinol just gives it that little extra kick i like. I like a 1 to 36 ratio, it just seems to be the right fit for me. love the alchemy of it all and try some different mixtures.
michel

 

[applesanity]

Field Report:

I tried Rodinal 1:25 at 20 degrees Celsius on 135 Tri-X exposed at 400. On a couple of rolls, I developed for 6 minutes, which turned out to give me a little too much contrast; the printing involved massive and tricky dodging and burning... or maybe the scene itself had a lot of range. At any rate, I tried again on another roll of Tri-X exposed at 400 for 5 minutes, 45 seconds, and the results were perfect. I haven't a flatbed scanner but I'll upload something soon. There was little if any dodging and burning for the one with the shorter development time.

Then again, the first set involved a Nikon AIS 28mm f/2, which is known for its super contrast, and the one with the shorter development was with a Canon 135mm f/2 L, which is one of those lenses that many people consider "perfect."

So in conclusion, Agfa's recommended time of 7 minutes for 1:25 Rodinal at 20C for Tri-X at 400 is too much. 5:45 worked for me. The process involved 2 slow inversions lasting 5 seconds, followed by 2 taps, every 30 seconds for the whole duration. There was a pre-soak in water, and water was also used as stop bath. I had to rinse the film in stop bath 4 times, because slimy purple developer kept coming out of the film tank. For someone like me who has never seen developer turn crazy purple, it was a bit scary (Did I just ruin the film?). But it's okay.

It goes without saying that I don't think this stuff should be recycled. I mixed the Rodinal with water when I needed it (10mL Rodinal + 250mL water yields enough for developer for one roll in a metal tank), and only enough mixture as necessary, then put the un-diluted Rodinal away for future use. I'm told this stuff last forever anyway. On the other hand, the warnings on the Rondinal bottle say that diluted Rodinal won't last too long.

A warning: if there's an itch on you nose, don't scratch it. Seriously, don't. My nose was burning for about half an hour.

There was also fixer, HCA, lots of final rinsing, and PhotoFlo. It seems that there was no need for an acid stop bath.

Oh, and grain was spectacular. Very high accutance too. Nothing nowhere near like Ralph Gibson style accutance, but much more accutance than D76

 

[Anon Ymous]

Field Report:

I tried Rodinal 1:25 at 20 degrees Celsius on 135 Tri-X exposed at 400. On a couple of rolls, I developed for 6 minutes, which turned out to give me a little too much contrast; the printing involved massive and tricky dodging and burning... or maybe the scene itself had a lot of range. At any rate, I tried again on another roll of Tri-X exposed at 400 for 5 minutes, 45 seconds, and the results were perfect. I haven't a flatbed scanner but I'll upload something soon. There was little if any dodging and burning for the one with the shorter development time.

Then again, the first set involved a Nikon AIS 28mm f/2, which is known for its super contrast, and the one with the shorter development was with a Canon 135mm f/2 L, which is one of those lenses that many people consider "perfect."

So in conclusion, Agfa's recommended time of 7 minutes for 1:25 Rodinal at 20C for Tri-X at 400 is too much. 5:45 worked for me...

Sorry, could you confirm that you meant to write 6 minutes for the first set? Because reducing 6min to 5min 45sec will not make a great difference and from what you say it did make a lot of difference. You reduced time by ~= 4%. If the developer had a linear behavior (highly unlikely) the difference would be just noticeable. Even if you used different lenses I think the scenes/lighting are far more important. Or at least I think so

 

[applesanity]

Sorry, could you confirm that you meant to write 6 minutes for the first set? Because reducing 6min to 5min 45sec will not make a great difference and from what you say it did make a lot of difference. You reduced time by ~= 4%.

Okay, there was one other difference I forgot to mention. For the 6 minute set, I developed 3 rolls in a metal film tank meant for 5 rolls (44mL Rodinal + 1100mL water - I filled the whole tank). I added a 120 reel in there too to prevent the 3 rolls of 35mm from bouncing around too much. For the 5:45 roll, I used a metal tank meant for one roll (10mL Rodinal + 250mL water). Would that make a difference?

Both sets involved me doing the street photography thing - pictures of people in cities and such, all done in the afternoon. Lighting not nearly as harsh as noontime, but obviously lots of tricky situations with direct afternoon sun, long shadows cast by buildings, etc. I used a Gossen DigiSix meter to keep myself in check.

For both tries, I did the same exact process otherwise - 20C, 2 gentle inversions + 2 taps every 30 seconds, followed by water stop bath and regular fixing/ rinsing.

It may seem like a small difference, time-wise - 15 seconds, but that little bit meant the difference between spending 2+ hours and untold sheets of paper to get a print done right, or a print done right by the third try. The difference in contrast was already very noticeable in the contact sheets.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

It may seem like a small difference, time-wise - 15 seconds, but that little bit meant the difference between spending 2+ hours and untold sheets of paper to get a print done right, or a print done right by the third try. The difference in contrast was already very noticeable in the contact sheets.

All through your postings and experiments I was thinking, "Why not 1:50 or even 1:100?"

I avoid short development times like the plague. As you point out a mere 15 seconds - lots of possible errors can take place, like temperature drift, or a sneeze or something - can have a lot of effect.

 

[applesanity]

All through your postings and experiments I was thinking, "Why not 1:50 or even 1:100?"

How do higher dilutions affect the negative? I really like the accutance and significant grain of the 1:25.

 

[Anon Ymous]

How do higher dilutions affect the negative? I really like the accutance and significant grain of the 1:25.

The more dilute it gets, the more accutance and grain you get IIRC. Oh, and contrast is reduced. I thought you would give it a try. I would choose 1+50 as 1+100 could be tricky.

Edit: Using higher dilutions highlights are less likely to "wash out" and shadows get more proper development, thus better detail.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

You may anticipate a speed decrease. This shows H&D curves for T-Max 400 in T-max developer (blue) and Rodinal 100:1 (red).

The way I read the graph, Rodinal gives a speed decrease. A 1/2 stop decrease is expected for this developer.

The graph also shows Rodinal's lack of shadow contrast, another trait it is known for. I didn't realize that it also rolled off the highlights, dropping highlight detail: contrast in the light-greys/highlights (film OD ~1) is 1/2 the contrast in the midtones (film OD ~0.5).

 

[applesanity]

The more dilute it gets, the more accutance and grain you get IIRC. Oh, and contrast is reduced. I thought you would give it a try. I would choose 1+50 as 1+100 could be tricky.

Edit: Using higher dilutions highlights are less likely to "wash out" and shadows get more proper development, thus better detail.

I'll try that for the next roll. What is a good time at 20C for 35mm Tri-X at 400 for 1:50? The Massive Dev Chart says 13 minute. Or should I rate the film at a different speed....

Unfortunately, I'm totally unfamiliar with that graph to which you all keep referring.

 

[Anon Ymous]

I'll try that for the next roll. What is a good time at 20C for 35mm Tri-X at 400 for 1:50? The Massive Dev Chart says 13 minute. Or should I rate the film at a different speed....

Unfortunately, I'm totally unfamiliar with that graph to which you all keep referring.

Have a look at page 1 of the thread for the graph.

As for shooting at a different speed, I wouldn't do it. If it's a 400ISO I'll shoot it at 400, unless I have a reason to do otherwise. Pushing would be such a reason.

Now, about dev time... Agfa suggests 14 minutes at 1+50, but it will probably be rather harsh. I'd reduce that by 10% and 12:30 would be my starting point. But since you have the equipment and hopefully time, why not perform some tests? You will need to sacrifice a film but it will be well spent I suppose. The procedure is like that:

1) Pick a scene with some contrast. You don't want uniform illumination. You need something with deep shadows and highlights. You can probably make your own scene but you might need a tripod for that.

2) Take the same photo 36 times.

3) Now you can do some testing at various dilutions and times. Just cut the film in as many pieces as the tests you want to perform. Since the scene doesn't change you will be able to see exactly what changes. It will be time consuming but I guess it will be well spent time.

I'd really like to do that but I didn't have a chance lately

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Start with the 13 minutes.

1. If you don't have enough shadow detail - increase exposure.

2. If your film looks really dense with lots of shadow details - it's possible you're exposing too much.

3. If your highlights are so dense you can't get detail in your print - decrease development time.

4. If your highlights lack oomph (for the lack of a better word) and ultimately contrast - increase development time.

Very rarely do you see 2 and 4. 1 and 3 are very common. Adjust until your negs print well.

The 13 minutes is a starting point. Your camera, your meter, your technique, your water quality, how you develop film and agitate, temperature - there are many variables that could throw your results off from a recommended starting point. You have to adjust to your way of working and environment.

- Thomas

I'll try that for the next roll. What is a good time at 20C for 35mm Tri-X at 400 for 1:50? The Massive Dev Chart says 13 minute. Or should I rate the film at a different speed....

Unfortunately, I'm totally unfamiliar with that graph to which you all keep referring.

 

[john_s]

.....As for shooting at a different speed, I wouldn't do it. If it's a 400ISO I'll shoot it at 400, unless I have a reason to do otherwise. ..........

Now, about dev time... Agfa suggests 14 minutes at 1+50, but it will probably be rather harsh................(

A reason to change the speed setting is to gain shadow detail. Lots of people set meters to 200 for Tri-x, especially if you're using a developer that reduces speed like Rodinal. For years I used Tri-x with HC-110 and 200 was spot-on. Expose a bit more.........develop a bit less........solves problems.

Agfa dev times were notorious for giving high contrast (gamma=0.65; most of us would be looking for 0.55) In fact, one respected photographer has suggested that the long dev times recommended resulted in Agfa films being not popular, which might have led to the demise of Agfa.

 

[Anon Ymous]

A reason to change the speed setting is to gain shadow detail. Lots of people set meters to 200 for Tri-x, especially if you're using a developer that reduces speed like Rodinal. For years I used Tri-x with HC-110 and 200 was spot-on. Expose a bit more.........develop a bit less........solves problems.

Agfa dev times were notorious for giving high contrast (gamma=0.65; most of us would be looking for 0.55) In fact, one respected photographer has suggested that the long dev times recommended resulted in Agfa films being not popular, which might have led to the demise of Agfa.

John, I know that people do that to gain shadow detail. it has been mentioned here many times, but that's just my point of view. I don't have a lot of experience, so it will complicate things too much. If I pull like that, I'll have to reduce development. But how much? Anyway, a good compromise between nice highlights and a bit of detail in the shadows is fine for me. I just don't want totally white highlights and deep black shadows.

As for Agfa's times, they seem to be just fine if you live in a place where you always have cloudy days Everyone I know who used these times said they got too much contrast.

 

[msdemanche]

Early in the post I talked about using Rodinol, and I use a 1-25 mixture. I shoot at 320 not 400 which means I am underexposing. I run mine for 7 minutes, at 400 this is too contrasty. At 320 it gives me a N+2/3 not totally one which expands my midtone latitude. That was what I meant way back in the post about latitude. I have used this for years and find it very effective. I like to keep it simple. I have over the years gotten certain soups for certain shots without doing tons of testing. I shoot 4X5 often and it gives the beauty of single image processing which is no less time consuming but gives you the right dillution you need. So I then sort of keep my own chart with things like:
early morning, fog - knowing what I shot at I then look at the best of the 4 or so different rodinol combos or other interesting mixes and lable in the book - what the dillution, time, and temp is. That lets me keep a journal for the different types of shots I have had and what worked best. Most of this I have memorized, but it is nice to have a cookbook of formulas for when I have senior moments. I guess you could do this with roll film, as long as the roll is shot in simular situations.
Just a suggestion.

 

[ericdan]

Start with the 13 minutes.

1. If you don't have enough shadow detail - increase exposure.

2. If your film looks really dense with lots of shadow details - it's possible you're exposing too much.

3. If your highlights are so dense you can't get detail in your print - decrease development time.

4. If your highlights lack oomph (for the lack of a better word) and ultimately contrast - increase development time.

Very rarely do you see 2 and 4. 1 and 3 are very common. Adjust until your negs print well.

The 13 minutes is a starting point. Your camera, your meter, your technique, your water quality, how you develop film and agitate, temperature - there are many variables that could throw your results off from a recommended starting point. You have to adjust to your way of working and environment.

- Thomas

good summary, but doesn't agitation affect the highlights, too? Just by agitating more you can get denser highlights I think.