Tri-X developed in Rodinal

[madNbad]

Yeah, I could just put in a search and get about a billion responses but I wanted to ask the forum members if they have a preferred dilution and time. For Tri-X I’ve been using HC-110 Dilution E (1:47) and it works well. I do have a small bottle of Rollei One Shot R09 that I use at 1:25 for seven minutes per the bottle instructions. I haven’t tried the 1:50 for fourteen minutes yet and I know D76 or Xtyol are preferred but I’m not interested in having a gallon of developer sitting around for my single reel 250 ML tank. The R09 gives a bit different look than the HC-110 and am on the wait list for Adox Rodinal. The one time developers work for me, having a small house and only exposing a few rolls a month. I’m more interested in a negative that scans well, since with no darkroom, printing isn’t a priority. Any suggestions are always appreciated.

 

[BAC1967]

I usually do Rodinal 1:50 for 7 minutes rated at 200.

1940's Chevrolet Truck by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

 

[Cubao]

I usually do Rodinal 1:50 for 7 minutes rated at 200.

Really lovely picture and contrast. How do you agitate?

 

[madNbad]

I usually do Rodinal 1:50 for 7 minutes rated at 200.

1940's Chevrolet Truck by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

Thanks! I'll try the 1:50 for seven minutes on the next roll. Great image!

 

[JerseyDoug]

Tri-X in Rodinal is a fabulous combination. I now shoot it at 400 and develop with (1+50) for 13 minutes at 68º F.

The big issue with Rodinal, particularly at (1+50), is agitation. When I switched from the usually recommended 30 seconds continuous plus four inversions at one minute intervals regimen to just four very gentle inversions to start and just one very gentle inversion at one minute intervals the apparent grain was reduced and the impression of edge sharpness was increased.

 

[gone]

1:50 works well for me too. The op didn't mention whether they were shooting 35mm, MF or LF, so this 1:50 is my dilution for 35mm. That could be changed a lot for 120, it really depends on the look you want. I usually do 1 inversion every minute, you can do 1 every 30 seconds and pump up the grain a lot.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Agitation does not make a difference to Rodinal's characteristics - adjusting development time will have the same effect. Unless process times become too short, there's very little reason to use anything other than 1+25 - and don't expect a shadow speed boost under any reasonable circumstances. It isn't sharper than D-76 at all, it just produces higher levels of visual granularity, which in poorly controlled systems with no meaningful sharpness reference is assumed and asserted without visual cross-reference to mean higher sharpness (it isn't and doesn't) - it causes emulsions to record and transmit less image content (higher noise to signal) than something like ID-11/ D-76. Nevertheless, it produces visually appealing results with 400TX (and Delta 400 for that matter) especially when used in a manner to emphasise granularity - and lasts ridiculously well as a concentrate.

 

[logan2z]

Interesting to read, I had always thought that Rodinal was more suitable for slow speed films. I have two unopened bottles and was going to shoot some FP4 to develop with it, but I might give Tri-X a try first.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I had always thought that Rodinal was more suitable for slow speed films.

You can use it for whatever you like, it's just that a lack of solvency and potential to deliver coarser granularity historically meant that people made (and enforced on their readerships) doctrinal assumptions that don't allow for such things as aesthetic considerations.

 

[pentaxuser]

Agitation does not make a difference to Rodinal's characteristics - adjusting development time will have the same effect.

So no scientific reason to avoid continuous rotary agitation as it makes no difference to the grain? I did not copy all of your quote but it sounds as if stand or semi stand development will not reduce grain either

I presume that your recommendation to use 1+25 means that unless you are keenly to save even more money on developer there are no good reasons not to keep it simple by following times and agitation quoted by Rodinal

Is the above a reasonable summary of what you said?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[madNbad]

1:50 works well for me too. The op didn't mention whether they were shooting 35mm, MF or LF, so this 1:50 is my dilution for 35mm. That could be changed a lot for 120, it really depends on the look you want. I usually do 1 inversion every minute, you can do 1 every 30 seconds and pump up the grain a lot.

Just 135. Been down the road with a lot of different cameras and formats. Now it’s just the M4 and Retina IIa.

 

[madNbad]

1:50 works well for me too. The op didn't mention whether they were shooting 35mm, MF or LF, so this 1:50 is my dilution for 35mm. That could be changed a lot for 120, it really depends on the look you want. I usually do 1 inversion every minute, you can do 1 every 30 seconds and pump up the grain a lot.

Thank you. I’ll give it a try! Oops, thought I was quoting JerseyDoug.

 

[madNbad]

Agitation does not make a difference to Rodinal's characteristics - adjusting development time will have the same effect. Unless process times become too short, there's very little reason to use anything other than 1+25 - and don't expect a shadow speed boost under any reasonable circumstances. It isn't sharper than D-76 at all, it just produces higher levels of visual granularity, which in poorly controlled systems with no meaningful sharpness reference is assumed and asserted without visual cross-reference to mean higher sharpness (it isn't and doesn't) - it causes emulsions to record and transmit less image content (higher noise to signal) than something like ID-11/ D-76. Nevertheless, it produces visually appealing results with 400TX (and Delta 400 for that matter) especially when used in a manner to emphasise granularity - and lasts ridiculously well as a concentrate.

I’ve been using the R09 at 1:25 for seven minutes, agitation is 15 seconds to start then five seconds after every thirty seconds. Any suggestions for adjusting time?

 

[madNbad]

As an addendum, with all but my 15 mm, I’m using a light yellow filter, adjusting for the one stop factor and developing at box speed.

 

[bluechromis]

So no scientific reason to avoid continuous rotary agitation as it makes no difference to the grain? I did not copy all of your quote but it sounds as if stand or semi stand development will not reduce grain either

I presume that your recommendation to use 1+25 means that unless you are keenly to save even more money on developer there are no good reasons not to keep it simple by following times and agitation quoted by Rodinal

Is the above a reasonable summary of what you said?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Steve Anchell says in "The Darkroom Cookbook" that "Adacency [edge] effects only occur when the negative is allowed to stand without agitation at least 50 seconds. This allows naturally occuring convection currents to move the developer across areas of high and low density." He admits the effect is subtle and most noticeable in large enlargements. He mentions that the Eberhard effect in particular is inhibited with frequent agitation.

I have seen examples of really strong, some might say overly strong, edge effects with stand development with Rodinol. That might imply there is a relationship between frequency of agitation and degree of edge effects with Rodinal.

This effects Anchell refers to may not technically alter the amount of grain. But how that is experienced by the viewer is more complex matter because there are a lot of factors that influence perceived sharpness other than the physical structure of the grain. Edge effects promote acutance, which relates to the degree of contrast at boundaries of different areas of the image. Accutance is are said to be a major factor contributing to perceived sharpness. I heard one person say that on a microscopic level edge effects technically make the image a bit less sharp in terms of resolution. But the human visual system really latches onto the appearance of the boundaries areas as measure of sharpness. So it appears to the viewer to be sharper with edge effects even if might technically not be. This how a lot of digital sharpening tools work. It might be that viewer would perceive a print from a negative with distinct boundaries as less grainy and fuzzy. Could it make the grain seem more pronounced in some cases? I would think maybe. Because the visual system may respond to the physical characteristic of the print in non-linear, unpredictable ways, the best thing would be to test this. Take a series of shots of the same subject under identical conditions. Then cut the film up into strips and develop each using different agitation technique. Scan the neg's and see if there are ones like better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acutance

 

[bluechromis]

You can use it for whatever you like, it's just that a lack of solvency and potential to deliver coarser granularity historically meant that people made (and enforced on their readerships) doctrinal assumptions that don't allow for such things as aesthetic considerations.

I second the idea of using Rodinal however you like. In their excellent book, "Way Beyond Monochrome" Lambrecht and Woodhouse describe tests of various developers. The one that really stood out with a distinct personality they said was Rodinal. The described it as having an etched appearance. I have used Rodinal with really fast films like Kodak Tmax P3200 because I wanted a grainy, impressionistic look. Not everyone likes that effect but not everyone likes spicy foods either, but some people love it. I have also used it for super fine grain films like Rollei Retro 80s. I got technically really good results, but was less apparent how it looked with Rodinal than with other developers. Personally I don't see the point of always trying to tame Rodinal and make it look like D-76. If you are going to try Rodinal I would say have fun with it and not play it safe all the time. Experiment with pressing the parameters to the extreme, heavy grain and all. I think in doing that you will get a better idea of its personality even if you decide you don't like the more extreme effects in the long run.

 

[madNbad]

I second the idea of using Rodinal however you like. In their excellent book, "Way Beyond Monochrome" Lambrecht and Woodhouse describe tests of various developers. The one that really stood out with a distinct personality they said was Rodinal. The described it as having an etched appearance. I have used Rodinal with really fast films like Kodak Tmax P3200 because I wanted a grainy, impressionistic look. Not everyone likes that effect but not everyone likes spicy foods either, but some people love it. I have also used it for super fine grain films like Rollei Retro 80s. I got technically really good results, but was less apparent how it looked with Rodinal than with other developers. Personally I don't see the point of always trying to tame Rodinal and make it look like D-76. If you are going to try Rodinal I would say have fun with it and not play it safe all the time. Experiment with pressing the parameters to the extreme, heavy grain and all. I think in doing that you will get a better idea of its personality even if you decide you don't like the more extreme effects in the long run.

After years of using TMax and an occasional Delta, I went back to Tri-X which I hadn't used since the 1980's. There is a lot to like about the clean look of the T grain films but I wanted an older film to go with my older cameras. I've used HP5+ and liked it, I just like Tri-X more. The HC-110 Dilution E gives me results with finer grain and that will stay as a primary developer. When the R09 is gone, hopefully there will be some Adox Rodinal available. There is something about how it brings out the grain.






M4, 28 2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH, Tri-X, Rollei One Shot R09 1:25 7 minutes 20C

 

[logan2z]

I second the idea of using Rodinal however you like. In their excellent book, "Way Beyond Monochrome" Lambrecht and Woodhouse describe tests of various developers. The one that really stood out with a distinct personality they said was Rodinal. The described it as having an etched appearance. I have used Rodinal with really fast films like Kodak Tmax P3200 because I wanted a grainy, impressionistic look. Not everyone likes that effect but not everyone likes spicy foods either, but some people love it. I have also used it for super fine grain films like Rollei Retro 80s. I got technically really good results, but was less apparent how it looked with Rodinal than with other developers. Personally I don't see the point of always trying to tame Rodinal and make it look like D-76. If you are going to try Rodinal I would say have fun with it and not play it safe all the time. Experiment with pressing the parameters to the extreme, heavy grain and all. I think in doing that you will get a better idea of its personality even if you decide you don't like the more extreme effects in the long run.

OK, my next roll of Tri-X is being developed with Rodinal. I'm not averse to grain.

 

[WD4AON]

Agitation does not make a difference to Rodinal's characteristics - adjusting development time will have the same effect. Unless process times become too short, there's very little reason to use anything other than 1+25 - and don't expect a shadow speed boost under any reasonable circumstances. It isn't sharper than D-76 at all, it just produces higher levels of visual granularity, which in poorly controlled systems with no meaningful sharpness reference is assumed and asserted without visual cross-reference to mean higher sharpness (it isn't and doesn't) - it causes emulsions to record and transmit less image content (higher noise to signal) than something like ID-11/ D-76. Nevertheless, it produces visually appealing results with 400TX (and Delta 400 for that matter) especially when used in a manner to emphasise granularity - and lasts ridiculously well as a concentrate.

These statements do not match my experience, using 8mm x11mm and 12mm x 17mm negatives. Agitation. dilution and Rodinal vs. D-76. D-76 undiluted vs. 1+3 (even 1+7) and Rodinal 1+25 vs. 1+100 (or even 1+200) produce startlingly different results with tiny negatives, as does gentle vs. vigorous agitation, especially with the higher speed emulsions. Ask those getting good results in the submini camera groups, where it really makes a difference when you want 8x10 inch enlargements

 

[madNbad]

These statements do not match my experience, using 8mm x11mm and 12mm x 17mm negatives. Agitation. dilution and Rodinal vs. D-76. D-76 undiluted vs. 1+3 (even 1+7) and Rodinal 1+25 vs. 1+100 (or even 1+200) produce startlingly different results with tiny negatives, as does gentle vs. vigorous agitation, especially with the higher speed emulsions. Ask those getting good results in the submini camera groups, where it really makes a difference when you want 8x10 inch enlargements

I haven’t tried dilutions beyond 1:50. Is it stand technique or gentle agitation? I can search around and find the time for different dilution. Might be another thing to try!

 

[Radost]

Once you see Xtol's sharpness and tones "especially with TriX and Tmax" it is hard to go to other.

 

[pentaxuser]

Steve Anchell says in "The Darkroom Cookbook" that "Adacency [edge] effects only occur when the negative is allowed to stand without agitation at least 50 seconds. This allows naturally occuring convection currents to move the developer across areas of high and low density." He admits the effect is subtle and most noticeable in large enlargements. He mentions that the Eberhard effect in particular is inhibited with frequent agitation.

I have seen examples of really strong, some might say overly strong, edge effects with stand development with Rodinol. That might imply there is a relationship between frequency of agitation and degree of edge effects with Rodinal.

This effects Anchell refers to may not technically alter the amount of grain. But how that is experienced by the viewer is more complex matter because there are a lot of factors that influence perceived sharpness other than the physical structure of the grain. Edge effects promote acutance, which relates to the degree of contrast at boundaries of different areas of the image. Accutance is are said to be a major factor contributing to perceived sharpness. I heard one person say that on a microscopic level edge effects technically make the image a bit less sharp in terms of resolution. But the human visual system really latches onto the appearance of the boundaries areas as measure of sharpness. So it appears to the viewer to be sharper with edge effects even if might technically not be. This how a lot of digital sharpening tools work. It might be that viewer would perceive a print from a negative with distinct boundaries as less grainy and fuzzy. Could it make the grain seem more pronounced in some cases? I would think maybe. Because the visual system may respond to the physical characteristic of the print in non-linear, unpredictable ways, the best thing would be to test this. Take a series of shots of the same subject under identical conditions. Then cut the film up into strips and develop each using different agitation technique. Scan the neg's and see if there are ones like better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acutance

Thanks for the reply, However I am hoping to get a reply from Lachlan. Taken at face value I felt his quote suggested that grain is unaffected by agitation. If this is the case then the scenarios I used should apply i.e. the often seen comment that continuous rotary agitation with Rodinal should not be used may be worthless as may the often quoted stand development reducing grain be equally worthless

If this is the case then it makes the lengthy threads on how to "tame" Rodinal or how make it worse are worthless and this there is less to development with Rodinal than meets the eye rather than more

You are right in that its the effect that is perceived by the viewer that counts but I was assuming that Lachlan had taken this into account when he made his statement

Of course he may be making the scientific statement that its grain doesn't change but not saying that a viewer would see no difference in say 2 prints identical in every way except for either the dilution or agitation

I am just trying to get clarification as to what his statement means in what I'll call practical differences to wha the viewer of a print might see in my identical prints example

His statement did seem to go against what I'll term conventional wisdom and thus caught my attention. Hence my seeking his clarification


pentaxuser



pentaxuser

 

[madNbad]

Once you see Xtol's sharpness and tones "especially with TriX and Tmax" it is hard to go to other.

I mentioned at the beginning, I wasn’t interested in D76 or Xtol. I don’t have a darkroom and really don’t need a gallon of developer for my 135 single reel tank.

 

[pentaxuser]

I mentioned at the beginning, I wasn’t interested in D76 or Xtol. I don’t have a darkroom and really don’t need a gallon of developer for my 135 single reel tank.

Yes in your situation as you describe it there may be nothing that matches Rodinal as a long lasting developer that comes ready-to-use in a small(ish) quantity Certainly nothing that I can think of

pentaxuser

 

[madNbad]

It’s been close to three years since I went back to developing at home and have worked my way through about a half bottle of HC-110. I’ve divided the original bottle in to four 250 ML brown glass bottles, each with a stopper for an oral syringe. I like the consistency of HC-110 and mostly have used dilution B (1:31) but have found I like 1:47 for Tri-X. I bought the bottle of Rollei R09 on a whim and had only used it a few times with TMax. When I was restocking the closet after a remodel, I saw it and decided to use it up then it would be just HC-110. After a few rolls, I started liking the Rodinal look and reading how versatile it was depending on dilution. I do have a two reel stainless tank to ensure I have the minimum amount of developer for high dilution. My refrigerator is stocked with Tri-X and I’m ready to experiment which is why I started this thread. The information from users is valuable and answers questions I didn’t even think of. Thanks for the input.