Tri-X in rodinal, because I don't know better?

[Quinten]

Tri-x (400) has been discused rather often over here, people saying they like it in this developer or that one. But often hardly look beyond grain or contrast, just like me...

I develop in rodinal 1:50 and tried it in others as well, but I lack the experience to judge really judge the differnces between developers. I see the contrast and the grain but not how much detail a certain developer pulls out of the shades how it handles the highlights etc. So I am really curious why the experienced amongst us choose a certain developer and wich one with this film?
And does tri-x in good old rodinal make much sense?

Many thanks for any tips,
Quinten

 

[jim appleyard]

There are many reasons why we chooses a certain dev with a certain film. Yes, Rodinal with Tri-x is a valid combo, although not one that I often choose. I prefer Rodinal with slower films and medium speed films of larger format that 35mm. Rodinal in cheap, convenient and gives great toanl qualities, it does show the grain of the film. I still have plenty of APX 25 in 35mm and some left in 120. I have plenty of APX 100 in 120 and these I like to soup in Rodinal 1+50. The grain of the APX 25 is not an issue, even with 35mm and with 120 films like APX 100 or FP-4 it is also not an issue.

With a film like Tri-X, I prefer to shave the grain a bit and will use a dev like D-76, HC-110, D-23, etc. The tones I get from Tri-X in Rodinal are wonderful, but the grain shows and I trade the tones for a bit less grain by using a finer grained dev.

Choosing a good combo of film and dev can take awhile and don't limit yourself to just one. Different photographers have different tastes and your taste may not be lie anyone elses. Wrong? No, just different. Is there a wrong dev for Tri-X? Not that I've found.

Hope this helps some.

 

[P C Headland]

You can also try sticking to Rodinal for now, but developing it in different dilutions - try 1+25, 1+100 and 1+200 (stand development). With the lower dilutions you are likely to get more contrast and grain, whereas with 1+100 and stand you should get sharpness without too much grain, with good shadow detail without blowing the highlights. So far I've been quite satisfied with TriX in 1+100.

Of course, there is always the fun of trying all the other developers (an urge I have so far resisted, preferring to first get comfortable with one, although I will probably get some diafine for occassional use)....

Paul

 

[df cardwell]

Tri X and Rodinal ?

Absolutely wonderful... if you like that sort of thing. I do. I think it's classic.

Working with Agfa's suggestion ( 1:50 / 14' / ei 500 / agitation every minute ) is excellent. After 35 years with it, it is a familiar and reliable combination. I usually give 17 minutes, with agitation only at the 5th, 10th, and 15 th minute. It gives me a little fuller shadows, and more gentle highlights, but it is a subtle difference.

Of course, the texture of the combination is apparent. But there is a wonderful sense of light that can be captured because of the way the film and developer work to hold detail over a long scale. Other developers can do this as well ( Xtol ) but have a different signature. Using Xtol will hold a long scale, but the fine grained, and soft image has a very different feel. I love how Rodinal is both hard and soft, together.

The most important thing is that your pictures look like YOUR pictures and not somebody else.

cheers.

 

[david b]

Ever seen Ralph Gibson's work? That was his combo.

 

[srs5694]

You can also try sticking to Rodinal for now, but developing it in different dilutions - try 1+25, 1+100 and 1+200 (stand development).

Another way to experiment short of trying new developers is to add stuff to the one you use. I'm by no means a Rodinal expert, but I've heard of people adding sodium sulfite, ascorbic acid, or even XTOL to Rodinal to tweak its character. (Usually the goal seems to be to reduce the grain a bit.) This page on Unblinking Eye gives some details.

 

[gnashings]

TriX is such a wonderful film - yes you will see the grain quite readily in Rodinal - but what grain it is! It just looks great!
Then again, it is not right in all situations, as has been said many times already. As a wise man on this forum states in his signature:"Film is cheap!" Really, so is developer. Go get some D76, or ID11 (same thing, I understand), and few rolls of Trix - try them all! You will see what you like, very quickly. Also, for low light, try it Acufine (apparently 1000 speed wise, and from my results, although not scientific tests, I cant argue - and it looks great, I find).

Just get a bunch of films, and a bunch of developers - and try. It wont break the bank, and in the end, they are YOUR pictures, so YOU have to like them - and while APUG is full of very smart people, I have yet to see signs of clairvoyance - so for all their knowledge, you are the only one that will know how much you like the results of each!

Peter

 

[John Cook]

Jay is right on the money as usual. You really should listen to this guy. (Except when he occasionally disagrees with me) ;0)

Let me just add that grain is obviously not always evil, depending upon subject matter.

I once shot 40 rolls of 135-36 Tri-X during a month-long stay in Britain. I knew the format, enlarged to 20x24 was going to be grainy. No way around it.

So rather than trying to artificially mush the image and mask the grain, I decided to celebrate it in all its glory with Rodinal.

I am not yet convinced that weaker dilutions of Rodinal actually increase grain size. My suspicion is that by making everything sharper, the grain particles simply become easier to see.

All in all, a very nice look for many subjects.

 

[Claude]

Hello all,
I prefer TriX 320 at 160 iso with HC110 1+63 8 minutes. Really nice grain and long range of greys.
Claude

 

[Fotohuis]

I am not yet convinced that weaker dilutions of Rodinal actually increase grain size. My suspicion is that by making everything sharper, the grain particles simply become easier to see.

see note:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Best regards,

Robert

 

[laz]

This subject of film/developer combinations has always facinated me. Beyond the subjective (what you personally like) does there exist anywhere a big table of combination charactistics? I imagine one where not only are developers compared but their dilution.

Maybe I'll find a few days (weeks?) to comb APUG for data and compile a spreadsheet. I could call it the APUG guide to developers!

 

[Fotohuis]

APUG for data and compile a spreadsheet

Is already done: http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html

Robert

 

[df cardwell]

I am not yet convinced that weaker dilutions of Rodinal actually increase grain size. My suspicion is that by making everything sharper, the grain particles simply become easier to see.

With RODINAL :

Grain is not directly linked to the dilution.

It IS directly linked to the amount of agitation relative to the total development time.

The less agitation, the less apparent the grain; the less 'coarse' and 'clumpy' the grain.

Agitation affects the overall density of the image, by reducing the amount of agitation one needs to increase the time.

Acutance 'effects' increase relative to the time the film 'rests' between agitation.

Two Rodinal different techniques with same dilution:

1. With constant agitation.
2. With semi stand development.

The development time with constant agitation will be shorter. There will be less shadow density but greater highlight density. The mid tones will feature a 'lumpy' curve. Grain will be pronounced, irregular, and in the high values, very coarse. There will be 'sharp' grain but no acutance effects.

Semi Standing development ( agitation every fifth minute for 5 seconds ) will take longer. There will be higher shadow density, lower highlight density, and a smooth curve through the midtones. There will be moderate acutance effects. Grain will be "fine" ( meaning regular , not clumped nor coarse ) and will not be pronounced in the high values.

VERY different results from the same developer, and the same dilution.

Most single agent, low sulfite developers are similar in behaviour to Rodinal.

.

 

[laz]

Is already done: http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html

Robert

This is not what I had in mind, let me explain.

The imaginary chart would be based on the outcomes desired such as grain, sharpness, contrast, etc.

In other words I could take something like what df Cardwell posted: " Working with Agfa's suggestion ( 1:50 / 14' / ei 500 / agitation every minute ) is excellent. After 35 years with it, it is a familiar and reliable combination. I usually give 17 minutes, with agitation only at the 5th, 10th, and 15 th minute. It gives me a little fuller shadows, and more gentle highlights"

That would translate for a Tri-X table into:
1) Rodinal
2) 1:50
3)e.i. 500
4)17 minutes, with agitation only at the 5th, 10th, and 15 th minute
5)fuller shadows, and more gentle highlights

These sorts of tables do exist in a limited way for various films and developers. But a table compiled of APUGer preferences could yield some interesting data. (or absolute trash if we all turn out to be so wildly out of step with each other there is no statistically significant correlations!)

I've received a PM from a APUGer who is also interested, so maybe we'll come up with something.

-Bob

 

[Fotohuis]

Well, the digital truth is a starting point, based on (mostly) manufacturer information.

If I am looking to my personal notes and database, there are indeed some deviations in some times and agitation. I do not like to have to much agitation with Rodinal because one of the best things about this interesting developer is the sharpness and acutance (if I am using the right English word). Further I have a Dunco II 67 120 pro enlarger, equipped with mixbox and condensor system, so I need a bit more contrast in the negatives. For testing new combinations I am using a Heiland TRD-Z densitometer and to get the best out of my 645 negatives on rolfilm and 35 mm, I am also using their split grade system. It's always in a range of 1,5-3 max. 3,5 grade, due to the right developer parameters.

But if there is interest in a summurized APUG developer database,I am the last one who will no share important information to other users.

best regards,

Robert

(owner of the Fotohuis company)

 

[laz]

If I am looking to my personal notes and database, there are indeed some deviations in some times and agitation. )

Yes and further, I'm sure your personal choice of film/developer for a given result might differ from mine.

The question goes beyond how do you vary times and agitation for a particular developer to ask a much more open-ended one: What are your favorite film/developer combinations and why.
-Bob

 

[Quinten]

Thanks for aal the great suggestions and insights in this thread! Loads to experiment again....

This is not what I had in mind, let me explain.

The imaginary chart would be based on the outcomes desired such as grain, sharpness, contrast, etc.

In other words I could take something like what df Cardwell posted: " Working with Agfa's suggestion ( 1:50 / 14' / ei 500 / agitation every minute ) is excellent. After 35 years with it, it is a familiar and reliable combination. I usually give 17 minutes, with agitation only at the 5th, 10th, and 15 th minute. It gives me a little fuller shadows, and more gentle highlights"

That would translate for a Tri-X table into:
1) Rodinal
2) 1:50
3)e.i. 500
4)17 minutes, with agitation only at the 5th, 10th, and 15 th minute
5)fuller shadows, and more gentle highlights

These sorts of tables do exist in a limited way for various films and developers. But a table compiled of APUGer preferences could yield some interesting data. (or absolute trash if we all turn out to be so wildly out of step with each other there is no statistically significant correlations!)

I've received a PM from a APUGer who is also interested, so maybe we'll come up with something.

-Bob

Those sorts of info would be great, it would take many rolls to find out what's gives good effects. In case the massive dev chart would be the reference I would get something like suggested above but possibly not quite right for months. You will get some bennifits from a certain dev routine, but might get the same bennefits with less negative aspects with other routines, so this is why those experiments from others can be great tools to start from.

cheers!
Quinten

 

[sterioma]

Since we are on the topic of Rodinal and Tri-X, I would like to experiment stand development with this combo. I have a test roll in my new Zorki-4K camera which I would like to use for this test (EI is 400).

Any suggestion?

Thanks,
Stefano

 

[argus]

I rate my TRI-X @200 ASA.
Development in Rodinal (not entirely stand development), _my_ method:

1 + 150 dillution (7.5ml + 1L)
50 minutes

_very_ gentle agitation of the tray for the first 30"
repeat 5" after 15' and 30'

That is for 4x5 sheet film.
I'm not sure if stand development works for roll film.

G

 

[sterioma]

Thank you for the info, Argus!

Anybody tried stand development with Tri-X in 35mm and Rodinal out there?

 

[Gerald Koch]

With Agfa out of business, isn't experimenting with Tri-X in Rodinal akin to "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic". Granted there is still some Rodinal in the pipeline but wouldn't it be better to try Calbe R09 instead since its still being made?

 

[jim appleyard]

With Agfa out of business, isn't experimenting with Tri-X in Rodinal akin to "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic". Granted there is still some Rodinal in the pipeline but wouldn't it be better to try Calbe R09 instead since its still being made?

Somewhat true, however, there is the Formulary version of Rodinal (I have not tried this) and the homebrew which I've used quite a bit of and I can see no difference in the quality of the negs.

 

[modafoto]

I am answering a bit late here so all I will say is:

Rodinal and Tri-X = Helluva Combo

 

[Fotohuis]

Granted there is still some Rodinal in the pipeline

We have enough Rodinal on stock to supply most demanded European APUG Rodinal users for a lifetime period of Rodinal (let's say: at least 10 years).

Robert

http://www.FotohuisRoVo.nl
see: *NIEUWS* NL-site

the Rodinal company

 

[sterioma]

So, let me try go step back to my question: anybody ever done Tri-x + Rodinal stand development with roll films?