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.
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.
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!
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
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
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.
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.
And that's with a Jobo processor, right?
@madNbad those are getting better in terms of development. Couple of comments
- 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'
- 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.
- 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
- The first negative you posted is actually probably fine if scanning is the purpose ('Temporarily Closed ...') the other ones are underexposed
- 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.
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?