Two developer darkroom - What should I pair with Rodinal?

[albireo]

You might want to take a look at John Lynch's website, pictorialplanet.com. He also has quite a few youtube videos covering a lot of the ground being discussed here. He shows real world examples of his negatives from various developers. He primarily uses 35mm film. I can also recommend his book, "The Art of Black and White Developing". Not a listing of historical formulas as "The Darkroom Cookbook", and they're all currently available commercially. Or easily mixed yourself, like D-23. And he shows actual results of grain and sharpness.

I know his youtube channel and I have to say I disagree with many of his conclusions and experiments. At least those I've checked. He seems to draw many conclusions from negative scans, which is fine in general, but he is clearly not familiar with the differences between negative scanning and wet printing.

Some of his observations seem plain wrong to me, and derive I believe from poorly controlled experimental conditions. For example in one of his recent videos he seems to claim Rodinal 1+25 produces finer grain than 1+50, which is the opposite of what I've been observing. I think what he's seeing is in fact the result of uncontrolled development differentials (overdevelopment when scanning negatives can result in stronger perceived 'grain' in uniform regions). In another video he seems to prefer D23 1+3 to D23 1+1. Again, opposite of what I prefer. I do enjoy his calm, polite delivery style and I'm sure he has profound experience on many aspects of traditional photography but I take what he says on Rodinal/D23/negative scanning with a large pinch of salt.

 

[pentaxuser]

I know his youtube channel and I have to say I disagree with many of his conclusions and experiments. At least those I've checked. He seems to draw many conclusions from negative scans, which is fine in general, but he is clearly not familiar with the differences between negative scanning and wet printing.

Some of his observations seem plain wrong to me, and derive I believe from poorly controlled experimental conditions. For example in one of his recent videos he seems to claim Rodinal 1+25 produces finer grain than 1+50, which is the opposite of what I've been observing. I think what he's seeing is in fact the result of uncontrolled development differentials (overdevelopment when scanning negatives can result in stronger perceived 'grain' in uniform regions). In another video he seems to prefer D23 1+3 to D23 1+1. Again, opposite of what I prefer. I do enjoy his calm, polite delivery style and I'm sure he has profound experience on many aspects of traditional photography but I take what he says on Rodinal/D23/negative scanning with a large pinch of salt.

What I like about his videos is that on most if not all occasions he ends up making a print in his darkroom of his end result which makes what he does much more relevant to me than most videos which rely on film and developer experiments and only eve show scans

I agree that the difference between 1+25 and 1+50 is slight, probably so slight that most viewers of the subsequent prints would not even notice but I was impressed with his conclusions on Rodinal stand development and the subsequent prints.

Of course all we can see is his video pictures of his prints as is true of all videos but having seen many of his prints I saw no reason to believe that what I saw as prints were not what I would have seen had I been there in his darkroom

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

I have only observed the mentioned differences when using Rodinal 1+50 and XT-3 1+1 on 35mm material. Both of the developers were used according to the 'Kodak' agitation method: slow continuous inversions for the first minute, followed by 3 raps of the tank, and then 2x inversions every minute, at the beginning of the minute.

I had always thought that the Kodak agitation regime was continuous for the first 30 secs then 2X inversions every 30 secs
This is what I found in connection to agitation and Xtol in Kodak Publication J-109_Feb 2018.pdf

"Provide initial agitation of up to 5 cycles, depending on your results. For KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX Films, provide initial agitation of 5 to 7 cycles in 5 seconds. For an invertible tank, one cycle consists of rotating the tank upside down and then back to the upright position

Let the tank sit for the remainder of the first 30 seconds. 6. After the first 30 seconds, agitate for 5 seconds at 30-second intervals. Agitation should consist of 2 to 5 cycles, depending on the contrast you need and the type of tank"

Interesting point about Xtol and Tmax films. 5-7 cycles in 5 seconds must beat the speed of the proverbial Mexican cocktail barman That's an incredible speed

pentaxuser

 

[albireo]

Also, if you like Roinal, then you are NOT going to like D-23, which delivers a much softer look.

I like both very much.

 

[albireo]

I had always thought that the Kodak agitation regime was continuous for the first 30 secs then 2X inversions every 30 secs

Apologies, so perhaps it was the 'Ilford'? Whichever it was, I invert every minute.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Donald, how do you feel about stand processing with dilute Rodinal? I use something shy of 1:100 and let it sit for an hour, with a few gentle inversions halfway through. I love the results and it is tolerant of exposure variations, over and under.

I've done stand a couple times, but I don't have much use for it. With most developer/film combinations, it's asking for unevenness and bromide drag, not to mention it virtually ensures acutance artifacts, given that it's only feasible with high dilution developers that are already prone to this with any reduction in agitation beyond 1 minute cycles.

Given that at worse it is no better than Perceptol in terms of speed then at 1+3 and your agitation regime there would appear to be a chance that at 40% extension of development time D23 might even exceed box speed

I've never used D-23 diluted -- I've only ever done stock strength with replenishment. It's very possible you could wind up with a net 1/3 stop gain using it diluted with 3 minute agitation cycle and 40% extended development.

I am not interested in stand, semistand, reduced agitation, or non standard dilution workflows as I'm happy with the consistency and look of the negatives I obtain with simple standard agitation+dilution methods.

Even so, D-23 (either stock with reuse and added time or replenished) will give about the same speed as Rodinal/Parodinal, with much less visible grain and similar real sharpness. Xtol stock (including EcoPro and presumably XT-3, which I haven't tried), with or without replenishment, will give similar or softer grain to D-23, with around 2/3 stop better speed (usually full box speed). Either one will tend to gain acutance with dilution with no loss of speed and possibly a slight gain.

Also, if you like Roinal, then you are NOT going to like D-23, which delivers a much softer look.

I would disagree with this statement -- yes, D-23 gives a much softer look than Rodinal/Parodinal, but this can be desirable in some cases. Which you want may depend on the subject matter -- portraits, for instance, will often benefit from grain softening, while street photography may not; faster films may be more to your taste with softened grain while slow films (especially really slow ones like Kino Berlin/ORWO DN21, ISO 12) don't need it or gain by it.

FWIW, in my darkroom at present I have EcoPro (a knock-off of Xtol) intended for replenishment, D-23 in replenishment, and Parodinal, along with a few small bottles of old HC-110 concentrate and a silver plastic bottle that's somewhat newer. Given the ease of use with the replenished developers and the simple dilution of Parodinal (vs. syringe and syrup for HC-110) and little if any advantage from the HC-110 in terms of results, that HC-110 concentrate may well last me another ten years. It's top choice for processing 20+ year old expired or found film, and that's the only use I've had for it over the last several years.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Not that YOU should be doing what I do but I've narrowed it down over the years to Rodinal and PMK. Rodinal for 35mm and PMK for medium and large format. I used Pyrocat for years but went back to PMK because the highlights were better. There are lots of fantastic developers out there though and I've used an awful lot of them (a lot of us have I think). You have to find what you like. Some are great but too much of a pain to use or have exotic chemicals. For example, I loved Edwal 10/12 but they use Glycin and PPD. Or Bluegrass 777 but it is only sporadically available.

If you want to mix your own you can just simply buy Metol, Sodium Carbonate, Sodium Sulfite and Potassium Bromide. With those simple inexpensive chemicals you can mix different "types" of developers very easily. Want a Rodinal type? Beutler's. Want a finer grain smoother developer? D23. Want a Diafine type two bath compensating developer? Mix that up. Those formulas are very simple and fast to mix. They also last quite a long time too. Frankly I'm surprised more people don't take that approach.

 

[albireo]

This is interesting, I've only used Adox XT-3 (Xtol clone) and not the real Xtol - though I have heard they should be pretty much identical. I also know very well a few versions of Rodinal (Foma and Adox). which I use exclusively in 1+50 dilution. I make my own D23 too, and use it 1+1.

In my experience XT-3 gives negatives that are less sharp than D23 and significantly less sharp than Rodinal 1+50.

Just to quickly go back to my observation above. I had just sat down and was going through an interesting old book I received a couple of days ago when I chanced on the following paragraph

Barry Thornton - Edge of Darkness. The art, craft and power of the high-definition monochrome photograph (Argentum) - Chapter 7: 'Three Feet and Reducing" p.88.

 

[pentaxuser]

Apologies, so perhaps it was the 'Ilford'? Whichever it was, I invert every minute.

Thanks for the reply and no need for apologies. I have great difficulty as well remembering all the different agitation regimes. I suspect that the Kodak and Ilford agitation regimes are more alike than they are different when it comes to the end result

Any thoughts and this applies to everyone on the 5-7 cycles in 5 secs for TMax films? It does seem a bit frenetic to me

pentaxuser

 

[P C Headland]

A couple of options that you can either make yourself or now buy ready made, and both of which last a long time: PC-TEA and 510-Pyro (if you are looking for a staining developer). I've read some claims that PC-TEA is similar to Xtol, but since I've never used Xtol I won't comment one way or the other.

I mixed up some PC-TEA 10 years ago and it still works perfectly well, even though the concentrate has gone very dark in a bottle that was first opened 8 or so years ago. Downsides are that the concentrate is quite syrupy. I usually dilute it 1+50.

 

[cirwin2010]

The universe is a big place Any chance of narrowing it down a little with some requirements/wishes?

Fair point. As for wishes I like liquid developers and/or developers with good keeping properties. Doesn't need to last a lifetime like Rodinal, but something where I don't have to use it up in a few weeks.

 

[cirwin2010]

X-Tol is $18 for a 5 litre package at B&H, and generally not a lot more at other places.
If it only lasted the recommended 6 months, that is $3.60 per month.
Most of us regular users have no problem with X-Tol lasting much longer than that. 12 months is generally not a problem. That is $1.80 per month.
If you aren't using up 5 litres in e.g., a year, then any you decide to discard won't have cost you much money. And environmentally speaking, discarded X-Tol has very little impact.
Unopened packages will generally last a very long time, so the best practice is to buy two packets, mix up one, and have the second ready for mixing when you need it. And 5 litres of liquid takes less storage space than you might expect.
There are other reasons to consider other developers, but wastage of unused developer is less meaningful with X-Tol than you might initially think.

Okay, okay. Y'all are starting to convince me to at least give xtol a try. How would you generally recommend storing the mixed solution? I tend to keep gallon jugs around my darkroom for paper processing chemistry, but those aren't big enough. I believe storing it in smaller bottles will help it keep longer too, right? Would 1 liter bottle suffice for that purpose? Also what do you mix it in initially? I don't have anything large enough other than some hardware store 5 gallon buckets.

 

[cirwin2010]

I know his youtube channel and I have to say I disagree with many of his conclusions and experiments. At least those I've checked. He seems to draw many conclusions from negative scans, which is fine in general, but he is clearly not familiar with the differences between negative scanning and wet printing.

Some of his observations seem plain wrong to me, and derive I believe from poorly controlled experimental conditions. For example in one of his recent videos he seems to claim Rodinal 1+25 produces finer grain than 1+50, which is the opposite of what I've been observing. I think what he's seeing is in fact the result of uncontrolled development differentials (overdevelopment when scanning negatives can result in stronger perceived 'grain' in uniform regions). In another video he seems to prefer D23 1+3 to D23 1+1. Again, opposite of what I prefer. I do enjoy his calm, polite delivery style and I'm sure he has profound experience on many aspects of traditional photography but I take what he says on Rodinal/D23/negative scanning with a large pinch of salt.

I have watched John Lynch's videos and I am also skeptical of his results with Rodinal and comparing the various dilutions. I've also observed that Rodinal at higher dilutions produce finer grain and I think is also a generally accepted behavior. I'm also confused by how his 1+25 result appears to be of lower contrast than the 1+50 and 1+100 results. Lower concentrations without vigorous agitation produce "flatter" results. Maybe he was adjusting contrast in post? Just seemed odd.

 

[pentaxuser]

I used 2 x 3ltr winebags for 5L of Xtol This kept it fine for at least 18 months. You just need to squeeze the bag until the liquid is at the top to exclude all the air before pushing the dispenser back into the neck of the bag

pentaxuser

 

[chuckroast]

In short I am currently using Rodinal and HC-110 in my darkroom, but I am running out of HC-110. I love Rodinal with certain films like Acros, but I reserve HC-110 for faster films like HP5. The HC-110 works well enough and I like it keeping properties, but feels a bit middle of the road when it comes to graininess and sharpness in 120 and 4x5 formats. Too gritty for for its lack of apparent sharpness, nor fine grained enough to justify it.

I only really want to keep two developers around in my darkroom and have them be different enough to have specific purposes. Xtol is a popular choice, but I don't want to keep 5 liters of it around nor would I be able to use it all before it goes bad. Pyrocat HD in glycol is something I'm possibly looking at, but I want to look at other options as well.

What sounds like a good pairing for Rodinal in the darkroom? Looking to try something new.

Here are my go-tos:

D-23 for long subject brightness range subjects and for subjects where I want to crank up dilution for greater sharpness.

PMK Pyro is the best developer for clouds I've ever seen not to mention having a certain "look" you cannot beat. It also works well to reign in big SBRs.

Pyrocat-HD for (semi)stand and EMA as well as general purpose development.

Both of the Pyro based developers are my preference for 35mm because they mask grain so well. For 120, 6x9, 9x12, and 4x5, I use all the above.

 

[cirwin2010]

On a somewhat relevant note, is HC-110 now discontinued? It is showing as such on B&H's website. I guess I for sure am trying something else if that is the case. I know there is Ilfotech HC if I did want to stick with the developer, but that is twice the price of HC-110. I'm not so sure about the brand, but there is also FPP-110 by Film Photography Project.

Edit: Looks like the company manufacturing the chemistry products is no more. Various products are now discontinued. This is sad news

Edit2: Xtol is still available (for now), thinking about if I should just get one of the xtol alternatives and start there if the original isn't going to be sticking around. Adox XT-3 looks out of stock for 5 liter packages, but Legacy Pro has their version available.

 

[pentaxuser]

I have watched John Lynch's videos and I am also skeptical of his results with Rodinal and comparing the various dilutions. I've also observed that Rodinal at higher dilutions produce finer grain and I think is also a generally accepted behavior. I'm also confused by how his 1+25 result appears to be of lower contrast than the 1+50 and 1+100 results. Lower concentrations without vigorous agitation produce "flatter" results. Maybe he was adjusting contrast in post? Just seemed odd.

I have just seen his videos again and he seems to make very little of the difference, if any between the 1+25 print and the 1+50 print I think from seeing his many videos that if he was adjusting contrast in post he would be honest enough to say so and besides he produces a darkroom print from all 3 negs developed at 1+25, 1+50 and 1+100 and it is those three prints from which he draws his conclusions which are reasonably qualified ones. He admits for instance that the 1+25 and 1+50 prints look very similar and recognises that the differences may be marginal which I think they are

Of his 4 videos on Rodinal it was the stand at 1+200 that I thought worthwhile to know about in his third video and if you are a "home brewer" his fourth video on making Rodinal

pentaxuser

 

[logan2z]

On a somewhat relevant note, is HC-110 now discontinued? It is showing as such on B&H's website.

I noticed that too. It still shows 'in stock' at Freestyle.
https://www.freestylephoto.com/5010...Developer-(1058692)-1-Liter-(Makes-32-Liters). But given the uncertainly of availability and the formula flip-flops I think I'm going to give LegacyPro L110 a try.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I have just seen his videos again and he seems to make very little of the difference, if any between the 1+25 print and the 1+50 print I think from seeing his many videos that if he was adjusting contrast in post he would be honest enough to say so and besides he produces a darkroom print from all 3 negs developed at 1+25, 1+50 and 1+100 and it is those three prints from which he draws his conclusions which are reasonably qualified ones.

FWIW the digital representations may differ from the print not because of adjustments in post but because the scanner’s software adjusts contrast for each negative differently. When my Epson 4990 insists on blowing out a highlight, and I cannot tame it with Vuescan, I put a coin on the glass next to the negative. Then the software reads the coin as white, and the negative itself scans flat.

 

[Paul Howell]

If you want to try Xtol without making up 5 liters, Freestyle sells Foma's version available in 1 liter.

 

[MattKing]

I believe storing it in smaller bottles will help it keep longer too, right? Would 1 liter bottle suffice for that purpose? Also what do you mix it in initially? I don't have anything large enough other than some hardware store 5 gallon buckets.

1 litre bottles are fine - as are smaller bottles.
I've transitioned to wine bags for the replenisher, and a 2 litre bottle for working solution, but if I was using it 1 + 1 I would just use the wine bag.
A smallish plastic household cleaning pail bought new would be great for mixing. I found a largish translucent 6 litre food storage container at a thrift store and use that. I added a mark on its side to indicate 5 litres.
I put 4 litres of distilled water in that and sit it in a sink partly filled with hot water to bring the temperature up. Once the X-Tol is stirred in and fully mixed, I add enough extra distilled water to bring the total volume to 5 litres.

 

[agentlossing]

I noticed that too. It still shows 'in stock' at Freestyle.
https://www.freestylephoto.com/5010...Developer-(1058692)-1-Liter-(Makes-32-Liters). But given the uncertainly of availability and the formula flip-flops I think I'm going to give LegacyPro L110 a try.

I've seen consistently good results from Legacy Pro L110 with a photographer on another forum. It's something I'm going to pick up and try soon myself. I'm using Rodinal and more recently added TMAX too, I like TMAX but it is perhaps not different enough to make a consistent secondary development process with. It does do better than Rodinal with faster films so far in my limited use.

 

[albireo]

I have just seen his videos again and he seems to make very little of the difference, if any between the 1+25 print and the 1+50 print I think from seeing his many videos that if he was adjusting contrast in post he would be honest enough to say so and besides he produces a darkroom print from all 3 negs developed at 1+25, 1+50 and 1+100 and it is those three prints from which he draws his conclusions which are reasonably qualified ones.

I'm truly sorry, but I think he makes a big fuss around this 'Rodinal glow' and he suggests it is an advantage, in part, of 'reduced agitation'. This will lead many novices to believe stand and semi-stand techniques are the way to go with Rodinal. Which is often not the case. He ignores altogether to mention the many potential disadvantages of reduced agitation.

Here's a telling section:



'The Rodinal Glow' at 1:100. Nah. Just a feast of confirmation bias.

• Two different scenes - the two frames do not contain the same flower, images were probably taken without a tripod. How did focusing errors and lighting differences etc factor in the differences he perceives?
• Slightly different light across the two scenes. We don't know how much time elapsed across the two images. Image on the right contains a significantly larger portion of bright background.
• The negatives are not shown. What where the exposures? I suspect different exposure given brighter portion of bright background in the right sample. Did the dev time differ?
• Scanner gain - did he lock scanning exposure across the two or was exposure left to the scanning software to determine?

Now the last point above is less relevant than one might think, as he keeps insisting on this 'Rodinal glow' and this magic 1:100 sharpness effect even later on when looking at the print.

The key issue is that he knows which scan is which dilution and which print is which dilution. Therefore he cannot get rid of his baggage of beliefs on the matter.

To have any sort of vague meaning this test should be repeated with at least a) masked labels and b) some replication. My hypothesis: he would not have been able to wax lyrical about no Rodinal glow.

 

[pentaxuser]

FWIW the digital representations may differ from the print not because of adjustments in post but because the scanner’s software adjusts contrast for each negative differently. When my Epson 4990 insists on blowing out a highlight, and I cannot tame it with Vuescan, I put a coin on the glass next to the negative. Then the software reads the coin as white, and the negative itself scans flat.

So to what extent does this negate the findings of someone based on prints on a forum ? Is it enough to make videos using scans of prints or scans of prints or negatives on Photrio to illustrate a poster's problem largely useless and if so what does that leave us on a forum - digital pictures of a negative or negatives on a lightbox only?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[mrosenlof]

my two developer darkroom is Rodinal and HC-110. I'm sure I would be just as happy with D-76. I occasionally mess around with some homebrew developers also.