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.
So no scientific reason to avoid continuous rotary agitation as it makes no difference to the grain?
but it sounds as if stand or semi stand development will not reduce grain either
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?
Once you see Xtol's sharpness and tones "especially with TriX and Tmax" it is hard to go to other.
produce startlingly different results with tiny negatives, as does gentle vs. vigorous agitation, especially with the higher speed emulsions.
Really lovely picture and contrast. How do you agitate?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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 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 isWhen a scanner and scanning software is involved, it really doesn't matter if you don't do any adjustments - they happen without instructions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?