Tri-X developed in Rodinal

[Alex Benjamin]

Even though the films aren't quite the same as they were back then, I find the times in Bob Schwalberg's famous Rodinal article good starting points.

 

[madNbad]

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.

I'm using a Negative Supply camera scanning setup with a Sony A7II and a FE90 2.8 Macro but my conversion software is RAW Power by Gentlemen Coders. My goal has been to be able to import the capture and convert it using only minimal adjustments to exposure or contrast in much the same way as using multigrade paper or contrast filters with an enlarger.

 

[madNbad]

Even though the films aren't quite the same as they were back then, I find the times in Bob Schwalberg's famous Rodinal article good starting points.

View attachment 331787

Thank you!

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Thank you!

You'll find the whole Popular Photography 1979 article here:

1979 pop photo Rodinal article

1979 pop photo Rodinal article :: Film :: Home :: Darkroom

forum.mflenses.com

I found the times for FP4+ at 1:75 a tad under what I liked, so I added a little. Did not try Tri-X at these times.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

In comparaison, here are AGFA's original published times, when they still produced Rodinal:

 

[aparat]

Here are the results of my test of Rollei R09 One Shot and 400TX, using the 1+25 dilution:

400TX_Rodinal25 by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

 

[bluechromis]

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

 

[Craig]

Wow, you're losing about 1.5 stops of film speed by using Rodinal?

 

[Anon Ymous]

Here are the results of my test of Rollei R09 One Shot and 400TX, using the 1+25 dilution:

400TX_Rodinal25 by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

And that's with a Jobo processor, right?

 

[bluechromis]

I didn't mean to suggest that agitation cannot have a different effect on grain size than duration. In the case of the agency effects promoted by intermittent agitation, I don't know how they effect the physical grain size because Anchell and Troop didn't elaborate on that. I wouldn't doubt that agitation might impact grain differently than duration. My comment about agency effect and grain size was a speculation about how agency effects might alter the way the grain is perceived even if the actual size of the grain is the same as with little agency. I could see it going either way. Edge effects promote accutance which is visual cue of sharpness. Sharper images might be perceived to be less fuzzy and grainy even if the grains are not physically smaller. But if the edge contrast is enhanced might that make a rough boundary due to the grain stand out more.

 

[MattKing]

I'm using a Negative Supply camera scanning setup with a Sony A7II and a FE90 2.8 Macro but my conversion software is RAW Power by Gentlemen Coders. My goal has been to be able to import the capture and convert it using only minimal adjustments to exposure or contrast in much the same way as using multigrade paper or contrast filters with an enlarger.

This may or may not give you a truly reliable standard. What it will do is impart characteristics to your results - much like choosing a particular light source to viewing a print.
Like anything else of this sort of endeavour, the best way to approach this is to achieve usable negatives that satisfy your needs in the workflow that makes sense for you, then use those negatives and the results you obtain from them as a standard (your own personal "Shirley"), which you then seek to match or emulate when you try out other techniques or materials.
Can we see those backlit negatives please.

 

[aparat]

And that's with a Jobo processor, right?

Yes. Rodinal gives a little less speed than ID-11 and XTOL, but it doesn't bother me. The more interesting effect, to me, is the contrast expansion in the highlights and the rate at which contrast builds up, in general. Semi-stand development gives a very similar shape of the curve to rotary processing.

 

[madNbad]

First of all, thanks to everyone for the advice. Put the 50 1.5 Nokton on the M4 and used the 398 to meter. Wandered up to the park and exposed two rolls of Tri-X on various mundane objects, street signs, tree moss, shrubbery, ect. Mixed a fresh bath of Ilford Rapid Fix and developed the rolls in Rodinal at 1:50 for about nine minutes. Set the timer for eight and a half minutes, filled the tank, gave it six gentle agitations then started the timer. One inversion every minute after that. Stop, fix, modified Ilford wash and Photoflo. They're hanging to dry and the very first thing I noticed, they look good. Not nearly as dense as yesterdays batch, a little thin in the shadows but I have to wait till tomorrow to scan. One of the things I love most is no matter how long you have been involved in photography, there's always something new to learn.

 

[madNbad]

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

 

[madNbad]

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

 

[madNbad]

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

 

[madNbad]

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

 

[madNbad]

I hope I learned something from the forum members!

The camera is tethered to the computer and the image is viewed in the Sony Remote app. The captures are imported to Apple Photos and the RAW Power plug in is used for the conversion. I give the capture a +1.7 EV and except for very minor adjustments to exposure or contrast, I pretty much leave it alone.

 

[MattKing]

Those are nice, under-exposed (I think) images .
May we see the negatives?

 

[madNbad]

I used my phone but heres a selection:





GuessI need to clean the glass on my light source!

 

[madNbad]

Here are a couple more:




I cleaned the glass:

 

[MattKing]

Now I'm unsure
The edge printing - an unreliable indicator - makes me think that those negatives are under-developed.

 

[madNbad]

That's a start. If 13 minutes is too much and a little less than 9 is not enough, I'll try 10 or 10 1/2 minutes for the next rolls. After years of being pretty much dialed in with TMax and HC-110, this is actually somewhat fun or at least making my brain work. Thanks for the help!

 

[albireo]

@madNbad those are getting better in terms of development. Couple of comments

1. The light conditions are different in these latest samples - they differ somewhat from those in your first batch (the one developed at 13'). These recent ones seem to have been taken during lightly overcast conditions. I would have increased development a little from 9'
2. Most of these are underexposed. Are you still using a yellow filter? If so, did you dial in 1 stop for the filter and 1 additional stop to account for Rodinal speed loss? Dial in 100 if using your rangefinder's internal meter and try again (I'm assuming it's not a TTL meter?). Also make sure your meter is not tricked by those bright milky skies. Point the camera at the ground level features, expose, recompose.
3. If possible, ditch the filter for these tests, a variable less and you gain a stop. Tonally a yellow filter won't do much (imho) in these light conditions
4. The first negative you posted is actually probably fine if scanning is the purpose ('Temporarily Closed ...') the other ones are underexposed
5. There seems to be some un-evenness in development. Try inverting (gently) for the entirety of the 1st minute, or at least for 30 or 40 seconds. Then 1 inversion per minute.

 

[madNbad]

@madNbad those are getting better in terms of development. Couple of comments

1. The light conditions are different in these latest samples - they differ somewhat from those in your first batch (the one developed at 13'). These recent ones seem to have been taken during lightly overcast conditions. I would have increased development a little from 9'
2. Most of these are underexposed. Are you still using a yellow filter? If so, did you dial in 1 stop for the filter and 1 additional stop to account for Rodinal speed loss? Dial in 100 if using your rangefinder's internal meter and try again. Also make sure your meter is not tricked by those bright milky skies. Point the camera at the ground, expose, recompose.
3. If possible, ditch the filter for these tests, a variable less and you gain a stop. Tonally a yellow filter won't do much (imho) in these light conditions
4. The first negative you posted is actually probably fine if scanning is the purpose ('Temporarily Closed ...') the other ones are underexposed
5. There seems to be some un-evenness in development. Try inverting (gently) for the entirety of the 1st minute, or at least for 30 or 40 seconds. Then 1 inversion per minute.

I use either a Sekonic 398 incident meter or a Gossen Digisix with the incident dome in place. The meters are dialed to ISO 200 to compensate for the filter factor. I have been developing the film according to the time recommended for box speed (ISO 400). We have a small house with no practical place for a traditional darkroom or even a room I could make light tight so I use a Photoflex Popup dark tent and my developing is at the kitchen sink. I came back to home developing several years ago after disappointing results from the local lab. It was mostly TMax 400 in HC-110. I became intrigued by the concept of using both an older formula film and developer combination which is what has led to this point. There is a lot of conflicting information too. Some say hardly any agitation but your suggestion makes more sense. When I started this thread was to learn and how to achieve consistent results. With all of the input so far, I think it’s getting closer. As for overcast conditions, this is the Pacific Northwest, natures gray card. Thanks for the help, I’ll try your suggestions, check back later.