Pure STANDING development is a limited technique, if one is processing different formats of film.
If you want to be ABSOLUTELY SAFE:
With 35 mm, one can let the film rest between agitation cycles for up to 10 minutes in developers like Rodinal 1+100, FX-2, PyroCat, and so on. There will be little density difference from top to bottom of the negative.
120 FILM wants shorter cycles. I've never had problems with 5 minute cycles, I've had few problems with 15 minute cycles, and can depend on density problems with 30 minute cycles. Why do 120 films show density
differences more than 35 mm ? Simply because it is a small density difference is more apparent on a larger piece of film.
If one develops sheets in a tray, rest cycles can be longer, in a tube or in a tank, shorter.
I've settled on 5 minute rest cycles for three reasons:
- Most of the potential tonal benefits of standing agitation are achieved: higher shadow density, lower highlight density, accurate midtones.
- Most of the acutance effects possible with that developer and film combination are achieved.
- Nothing bad can happen.
There is no point to use longer agitation cycles to gain acutance with a particular developer. Rodinal will always be more acute than D-76, and less acute than FX-2. If you want to achieve exagerated Acutance FX, yes Rodinal can do it. Let it sit still for an hour. It is easier to get that look from another developer. You don't benefit in revealing more information on the negative, it just takes on a freakish countenance.
There is no point in using longer cycles to change the curve shape. Rodinal will give optimal curve shapes with 5 minute rest cycles. Strongly compensated shoulders, which are the norm with Xtol, are not really possible with Rodinal, so there is no point in attempting to make Rodinal exhaust itself. It is far easier to expect it to give a long scale negative with printable highlights, and design one's printing technique to do so.
But this is all about how I balance my technique. It is important to shoot and process in a way that makes using different formats easy. I have to be productive, and don't have time to waste fussing over experiments: I'm a photographer not a chemist.
Tri-X is a very good partner to Rodinal. You may expect good results with 1+50 ~ 1+200. For me, there is no advantage using a greater dilution than 100. There is often the simple advantage of time with a dilution of 50. SO, I tend to stay between 50 and 100.
.
If you want to be ABSOLUTELY SAFE:
With 35 mm, one can let the film rest between agitation cycles for up to 10 minutes in developers like Rodinal 1+100, FX-2, PyroCat, and so on. There will be little density difference from top to bottom of the negative.
120 FILM wants shorter cycles. I've never had problems with 5 minute cycles, I've had few problems with 15 minute cycles, and can depend on density problems with 30 minute cycles. Why do 120 films show density
differences more than 35 mm ? Simply because it is a small density difference is more apparent on a larger piece of film.
If one develops sheets in a tray, rest cycles can be longer, in a tube or in a tank, shorter.
I've settled on 5 minute rest cycles for three reasons:
- Most of the potential tonal benefits of standing agitation are achieved: higher shadow density, lower highlight density, accurate midtones.
- Most of the acutance effects possible with that developer and film combination are achieved.
- Nothing bad can happen.
There is no point to use longer agitation cycles to gain acutance with a particular developer. Rodinal will always be more acute than D-76, and less acute than FX-2. If you want to achieve exagerated Acutance FX, yes Rodinal can do it. Let it sit still for an hour. It is easier to get that look from another developer. You don't benefit in revealing more information on the negative, it just takes on a freakish countenance.
There is no point in using longer cycles to change the curve shape. Rodinal will give optimal curve shapes with 5 minute rest cycles. Strongly compensated shoulders, which are the norm with Xtol, are not really possible with Rodinal, so there is no point in attempting to make Rodinal exhaust itself. It is far easier to expect it to give a long scale negative with printable highlights, and design one's printing technique to do so.
But this is all about how I balance my technique. It is important to shoot and process in a way that makes using different formats easy. I have to be productive, and don't have time to waste fussing over experiments: I'm a photographer not a chemist.
Tri-X is a very good partner to Rodinal. You may expect good results with 1+50 ~ 1+200. For me, there is no advantage using a greater dilution than 100. There is often the simple advantage of time with a dilution of 50. SO, I tend to stay between 50 and 100.
.
Anyway, what's the deal with that?
