Tri-X developed in Rodinal

[MattKing]

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.

I'm not Lachlan, but I would suggest that that suggestion is correct, as long as your agitation regime doesn't descend (word chosen carefully) into the realm of limited agitation procedures - semi-stand or stand.
5 seconds every 30 seconds, 10 seconds every minute, anything like crate the same amount of grain, if you develop to the same contrast. If you change the level of energy or frequency of agitation, it can affect the contrast, which will affect the appearance of the grain, but that is easily compensated for by adjusting time.
If you reduce the agitation significantly, and thusly start creating localized adjacency effects, then the appearance of graininess can also be affected.

 

[madNbad]

I'm not Lachlan, but I would suggest that that suggestion is correct, as long as your agitation regime doesn't descend (word chosen carefully) into the realm of limited agitation procedures - semi-stand or stand.
5 seconds every 30 seconds, 10 seconds every minute, anything like crate the same amount of grain, if you develop to the same contrast. If you change the level of energy or frequency of agitation, it can affect the contrast, which will affect the appearance of the grain, but that is easily compensated for by adjusting time.
If you reduce the agitation significantly, and thusly start creating localized adjacency effects, then the appearance of graininess can also be affected.

Thank you, Matt. Next roll, I'll try a 1:50 dilution with gentle and less frequent agitation. I'll wait a bit before trying the stand development dilutions.

 

[Lachlan Young]

So no scientific reason to avoid continuous rotary agitation as it makes no difference to the grain?

Correct - if you compensate for the difference in agitation and the effect it has on density.

but it sounds as if stand or semi stand development will not reduce grain either

Exactly. All the available evidence shows that above the level of agitation sufficient to deliver truly even development, any agitation adjustment will just alter the resultant density range. Most of the claims are coming from people whose process controls aren't hitting the simplest of baselines - or who used things like HC-110 which is not really optimised for high sharpness (D-76 is sharper for example).

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?

Taking off 10-15% is often a good starting point - but you will need to iterate within reasonable controls of temperature etc - and the type of tank you use, how you fill it etc. I would never compromise a negative for a substandard scanning setup BTW - if it's even moderately competent it'll have no problems with a normal B&W neg.

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

I think people would be astonished at how much effort was put into trying to better D-76's granularity/ sharpness/ speed balance - Xtol was the eventual result of Kodak's research, DD-X and Ilfosol 3 from Ilford are also roughly aimed at the same end but in somewhat different ways.

produce startlingly different results with tiny negatives, as does gentle vs. vigorous agitation, especially with the higher speed emulsions.

You can produce all sorts of startlingly different effects via poor process control within which agitation variance is not controlled for in terms of final density. I was not saying anything other than that Rodinal cannot transmit as much information as something along the lines of D-76 because it generates higher granularity and no better meaningful sharpness at either high or low frequencies. Richard Henry's microdensitometry results show this - and I have seen the same phenomena very clearly with standard materials used in regular ways across a very large quantity of film.

 

[BAC1967]

Really lovely picture and contrast. How do you agitate?

Thanks. I gently agitate the first 30 seconds then 15 seconds per minute after that.

 

[madNbad]

After using the Rollei R09, I wasn't sure what to expect from the Adox Rodinal. I had been using the R09 at 1:25, mostly just to use it up, I like the results and even the prominent grain. The Adox arrived and I used JersyDougs' suggestion of 1:50 for 13 minutes with four gentle agitations to start and one every minute. Here's the result:
M4, 28 2.8 Elmarit-M, 022 filter, Kodak Tri-X

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

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.

I used Tri-X developed in Rodinal for a decade. 1:25, 1:50, 1:100, normal, semistand, stand, EI200, EI400, EI800, EI1600.
Only if you're interested in very present, sharp and big visible grain, Tri-X in Rodinal is a good idea for scanning.
The very interesting tone of Tri-X well used on silver paper, vanishes after scanning. The image becomes a different thing. Of course that different thing can be used: it can have any tone, and any grain, using software.
If I had to do it for scanning, I'd use 1:100 with 6ml for a slow/soft development to control sun, leaving soft scenes soft on negative: Tri-X is dynamic enough to print well soft scenes using higher contrast MG filters.
Be prepared to hear some experts tell you I'm wrong: I can only believe my eyes and my fiber MG paper... IMO agitation plays a huge roll when we use Rodinal. Of course, that's more critical and visible with strong dilutions. Indeed very little agitation is required. Apart from very slow and gentle, try one inversion every second or third minute, and see. And in my tests and use, staying at 17-18 degrees Celsius was the best way to do it with Tri-X.
You can use D-76: some months I don't even do a whole roll.
Even just to see how well it works, you can use -and throw- 240ml of D-76 stock for every roll: that's less than one buck per roll, and it's the best Tri-X I've seen. It's not true grain gets mushy or images become less sharp.
But if you never do the same scene in Rodinal and in D-76 stock, you will never know.
If all the roll is overcast, stock is great, but if you have any sunny scene, 1+2 is better.
That's why 1+1 is recommended as an everyday compromise, but the other two options are better for each type of light.
Good luck!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

After using the Rollei R09, I wasn't sure what to expect from the Adox Rodinal. I had been using the R09 at 1:25, mostly just to use it up, I like the results and even the prominent grain. The Adox arrived and I used JersyDougs' suggestion of 1:50 for 13 minutes with four gentle agitations to start and one every minute. Here's the result:
M4, 28 2.8 Elmarit-M, 022 filter, Kodak Tri-X

Hi,
That's a lot of contrast... You can give film 1 or 2 stops more exposure when under direct sunlight, but instead of reducing development time, reduce both agitation and dilution, to see if you really need less time...
What you did is fine for overcast, though.

 

[madNbad]

I was about halfway around the path at the Prehistoric Garden in Port Orford, Oregon when the battery in my Reveni meter decided to die. Even being well aware of battery life being a problem, I had left the spares and the Sekonic 398 in the car. There were a lot of dark areas punctuated by shafts of bight sunlight, so I did a lot of guessing and there was a filter too. The Tri-X was developed in a 1:50 dilution of Rodinal, processed for 13 minutes with six gentle agitations to start then one every minute. They weren't the greatest negatives but a little scanning magic works wonders:











M4, 28 2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH V1, 022 filter, dead Reveni meter, Tri-X

 

[madNbad]

M4-2, 28 2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH V1, 022 filter, Tri-X, Rodinal 1:50:

 

[madNbad]

M4-2, Voigtlander Nokton 50 1.5 V1, 022 filter, Tri-X, Rodinal 1:50:

 

[madNbad]

M4-2, Voigtlander Nokton 50 1.5 V1, Tri-X, Rodinal 1:50:

 

[madNbad]

M4-2, Voigtlander Nokton 20 1.5 V1, 022 filter, Tri-X, Rodinal 1:50:

 

[albireo]

Apologies, but the above are signature scans of extremely overdeveloped negatives.

Once again, the old mantra "These are not the greatest negatives but a little Photoshop magic can fix them" proves to be wrong.

13 minutes in Rodinal 1+50: vast overdevelopment in all films I've tried, and overdevelopment is scanning enemy number 1: poor tonality (highlight compression) and noticeable, fully avoidable graininess in the highlights.

 

[madNbad]

Apologies, but the above are signature scans of extremely overdeveloped negatives.

Once again, the old mantra "These are not the greatest negatives but a little Photoshop magic can fix them" proves to be wrong.

13 minutes in Rodinal 1+50: vast overdevelopment in all films I've tried, and overdevelopment is scanning enemy number 1: poor tonality (highlight compression) and noticeable, fully avoidable graininess in the highlights.

Thanks for your appraisal. These are straight out of camera scans. The only thing the software was used for was to convert the negative to positive with no other manipulation. The Massive Development Chart calls a development time for Tri-X at ISO 400 of 13 minutes when using Rodinal diluted 1:50. Feel free to offer any suggestions for other development times using the same dilution.

 

[Tomro]

Apologies, but the above are signature scans of extremely overdeveloped negatives.

Once again, the old mantra "These are not the greatest negatives but a little Photoshop magic can fix them" proves to be wrong.

13 minutes in Rodinal 1+50: vast overdevelopment in all films I've tried, and overdevelopment is scanning enemy number 1: poor tonality (highlight compression) and noticeable, fully avoidable graininess in the highlights.

I am with albireo here. these look like Rodinal negatives. shadow detail is basically lost, I think

 

[madNbad]

How about posting some examples of how I could do better?

 

[MattKing]

When I look at those examples, I can't tell if they are over-developed. They do look underexposed though.
When a scanner and scanning software is involved, it really doesn't matter if you don't do any adjustments - they happen without instructions. Backlit images of the negatives themselves with the edge rebates and space between the frames visible can tell us more.

 

[Tomro]

In Rodinal, you lose film speed. So try to overexpose the negatives a bit the next time.

 

[madNbad]

When I look at those examples, I can't tell if they are over-developed. They do look underexposed though.
When a scanner and scanning software is involved, it really doesn't matter if you don't do any adjustments - they happen without instructions. Backlit images of the negatives themselves with the edge rebates and space between the frames visible can tell us more.

That is more likely the case. I was using my Sekonic 398 and the ISO dial had drifted from my initial setting. Also, even with additional fixing time, the space between the frames and along the sprocket holes is not as clear as it should be.

 

[madNbad]

This is a case of, I want to learn more because this is my method moving forward. Almost all of the posted photos so far are places I can easily return to, so any way I can improve is welcome.

 

[MattKing]

Also, even with additional fixing time, the space between the frames and along the sprocket holes is not as clear as it should be.

Unless your fixer is nearing exhaustion, this is more likely to be a sign of light fog than it is of a development problem.

 

[albireo]

@madNbad, if flat scanning with minimal or no postprocessing is the aim, I would try exposing at 200/250 and then Adox Rodinal 1+50 for 9' max.

For 35mm, I'd invert once per minute. For 120, twice. Perhaps even 8'30'' for very contrasty scenes. Fine tune from there.

 

[madNbad]

Unless your fixer is nearing exhaustion, this is more likely to be a sign of light fog than it is of a development problem.

I use Ilford Rapid Fix and make a 500 ml batch that is in a brown glass bottle. The problem is more likely exhaustion from age rather than use. The weather has been lousy and even after back surgery, my leg still bugs me on a daily basis so getting out to photograph has been a bit of a challenge. The fixer I'm using now was mixed in October and I normally use it for five rolls before replacing it. I'll make a fresh batch before the next session.

 

[madNbad]

@madNbad, if flat scanning with minimal or no postprocessing is the aim, I would try exposing at 200/250 and then Adox Rodinal 1+50 for 9' max.

For 35mm, I'd invert once per minute. For 120, twice. Perhaps even 8'30'' for very contrasty scenes. Fine tune from there.

I'm using a 022/#8 yellow filter which is 1 stop so I meter at 200 but develop at box speed. It's easy enough to experiment, thanks for the suggestion.

 

[albireo]

When a scanner and scanning software is involved, it really doesn't matter if you don't do any adjustments - they happen without instructions.

I'm afraid you are wrong on this. But this is a traditional process forum, so I won't derail the thread to argument on why you're wrong, and why a flat unadjusted scan is
a) completely possible and
b) can be followed by a set of applied non-linearities that, unlike the non linearities introduced by enlarger lens + paper, can be fully controlled and decided by the operator.

The fact that the vast majority of people scanning their film relies on automatic software adjustments doesn't mean that one cannot choose to bypass those adjustments entirely and be in full control of the process.