Two developer darkroom - What should I pair with Rodinal?

[Alan Johnson]

There are a lot of good suggestions for alternatives to rodinal on here but in case the OP is making a serious investment in B/W film photography I would suggest getting a copy of "The film developing Cookbook" 2020 by Anchell and Troop to see what the properties of the various alternatives are.

 

[ole-squint]

!

Keep in mind his website is mostly geared towards selling his own stuff, and features some really arguable statements on e.g. alkaline stop and fixer.

Really? You'd recommend acid stop and fixer with staining developers? Please elaborate.

 

[koraks]

You'd recommend acid stop and fixer with staining developers?

Why not? Works absolutely fine.

To stain, or not to stain – Acid and pyro developers – Koraks tinkers

tinker.koraks.nl

 

[Animalcito]

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.

To keep the volumes down I dissolve XTOL not towards 5 liters, but towards 2.5 liters - so double the intended concentration. The packet A and B will dissolve in ~2.2 liters of distilled water and later be filled up to 2.5 liters. 0.5 liters will be stored in 5x 100ml glass bottles and the rest in 2x 1 liter bottles. For use one glass bottle and 300ml water will give me 400ml XTOL 1+1. The concentrates are good for at least 12 months.
Beside XTOL, also Rodinal is a developer I regularly use (especially with Fomapan 100) and DIY Microdol in 1+3.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've stored XTOL stock solution (regular strength) in PET 1L and 2L beverage bottles for over a year without issues, and I currently have 5L minus 2L working solution in a wine bag/box, which are reported to be good for much more than a year due to very high impermability.

 

[grain elevator]

You gave a very reasonable answer in the op. Xtol is fine gives finer grain and higher speed, quite the opposite of Rodinal, so it would make for a great second dev for you. Clones from Coma, Adox and an US company whose name I've forgotten are available in 1L size.

 

[ole-squint]

Why not? Works absolutely fine.

To stain, or not to stain – Acid and pyro developers – Koraks tinkers

tinker.koraks.nl

Watched the video. Missed the part about acid stop baths. I'll just keep using a water stop bath followed by a simple alkaline fix I mix myself. No sense in buying a commercially made product that costs more, does pretty much the same thing, and ends up putting another plastic bottle into the waste stream.

 

[koraks]

To be clear, the video isn't mine. Ask @Andrew O'Neill about it. I tested a full acid workflow (and in fact use it all the time, also with pyro) and it doesn't reduce the stain in any way. Of course there's about a million posts about stop baths on this forum, which IMO boil down to "whatever floats your boat". But in case you want to develop some fil in pyro and you only have acid fix, don't despair and just use it. Everything will be just fine

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Pyrocat-hd is an excellent developer, one they I've been using for about twenty years. I don't bother with glycol version since I go through it so quickly. Another excellent developer is 510-Pyro. I have a video on my YouTube channel. Quite versatile, with excellent keeping qualities.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Oops, I see koraks posted a link to it! Thanks, koraks! When I get back from Japan, I want to check on the bottle of 510 that I mixed up almost a year ago.

 

[pentaxuser]

To be clear, the video isn't mine. Ask @Andrew O'Neill about it.

I did wonder but thought it was a pure coincidence that you just bore a remarkable resemblance to Andrew

pentaxuser

 

[ole-squint]

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

I'm with you, pentaxuser. Scans are not photographs. I'm guessing that people who post such things don't have much experience in a real darkroom. Didn’t somebody once say something about the negative being the score and the print being the performance?

 

[koraks]

I'm guessing that people who post such things don't have much experience in a real darkroom.

Sometimes that may be correct. Sometimes it won't. Whether it's relevant is yet another issue.

Didn’t somebody once say something about the negative being the score and the print being the performance?

Yup, but his word wasn't gospel and certainly written before scanners existed. As far as I'm concerned, an edited scan is just as much a performance as a print. They're equivalents.

I can see the limitations of trying to judge the printing potential of negatives based on scans. That's a relevant concern. However, hordes of people don't print (anymore) and scans are their intended output. That's perfectly valid.

 

[pentaxuser]

I'm with you, pentaxuser. Scans are not photographs. I'm guessing that people who post such things don't have much experience in a real darkroom. Didn’t somebody once say something about the negative being the score and the print being the performance?

Well of course on a forum there is nothing else available to us other than scans so the best we can do is to ensure, as far as is possible, that whatever we show is the best representation of the negative or the print. There seems to be general agreement ( a fateful phrase ) that if it is a negative then a digital picture of it is the best. I had also presumed that when it comes to prints a scan of a darkroom print was the best representation but fewer of us are doing darkroom prints and from recent replies to a reference I made to a video where the presenter uses scans of prints, how authentic scans of prints are in terms of true representation of darkroom prints were called into question

It may not even be the fault of the presenter, it appears, as the hidden algorithms within the scanning software take over and do what they want to do so we are stuck with that fact - apparently. What still puzzles me, if this is the case, is why the presenter of the darkroom print does not look at the scan and at the print and then point out in what areas the scan of the print is not representative of the print be that the scan is better or worse and to what extent it is better or worse . Of course that relies on the presenter wanting to be honest with us

It all sounds a bit depressing really

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

If you want to discuss print quality on the internet, it can be helpful to scan two different prints at the same time, show the result, and then point out the differences.
Otherwise it is a bit like listening to photographers discuss prints on the telephone or radio.

 

[pentaxuser]

If you want to discuss print quality on the internet, it can be helpful to scan two different prints at the same time, show the result, and then point out the differences.
Otherwise it is a bit like listening to photographers discuss prints on the telephone or radio.

How does that help with the potential problems I mention above. What's the best way of dealing with those to ensure that what you show is either what the negative shows or what the print shows? I don't see the link between scanning 2 different prints and then pointing out the differences. The issue is how to ensure that the negative or darkroom print reflects exactly what is on or is not on the actual negative or print, isn't it.

I had thought that a digital picture of the negative taken on a lightbox or against a white background was the best for negative problems. Is this the case?

In my naivety about scanning darkroom prints I had just assumed that the printmaker could check the print and scan thereof and correct the scan accordingly to match the actual print. Is that generally true?

I ask because the authenticity of prints is affected by the scanning equipment's "own rules" over which the person scanning has limited control


pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Making a scan that compares a good print to a problematic print tells the viewer a fair bit. You can illustrate how new things compare with previous successes. E.g. "FP4 + developed in Rodinal gives you prints that are more ****** than HP5+ developed in DDX". When the prints are side-by-side in the scanner, that at least takes the scan to scan variability out of the equation.
But no matter what, you are still trying to illustrate the results of a reflected light medium - a print - using a transmitted light medium - a screen. That is always a challenge.
You will note that I often describe how prints from a negative look when I post a scan. The words are the best you can do.

 

[SodaAnt]

Didn’t somebody once say something about the negative being the score and the print being the performance?

I believe it was Ansel Adams who said that. I firmly believe, however, that if Adams were alive today he'd embrace and use the latest technologies such as digital cameras, scanners, inkjet printers, etc.

 

[koraks]

Sure enough, he also embraced Polaroid (with a little commercial grease to ease things up). In terms of a score and a performance, that's a one-man band improvising away.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Sure enough, he also embraced Polaroid (with a little commercial grease to ease things up). In terms of a score and a performance, that's a one-man band improvising away.

When it came to Adams and Mr. Land's Polaroid materials, Adams like clearing the negative side and using the then cleared negative to make a print from. I think he'd probably do exactly what most of us here do now, that is use both digital and film/print material. He wasn't stupid and was more interested in obtaining the results he wanted, no matter how he got it.

 

[cliveh]

Why do you need 2 developers?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Why do you need 2 developers?

My guess on this is that there are some films he wants to use that he doesn't like in Rodinal.

For myself, I really enjoy some microfilm derived films, and Parodinal doesn't really do them justice. For those, however, I use a Caffenol derivative. Mine is very much NOT a two-developer darkroom.

 

[npl]

There's a saying that the only developers you need in a darkroom is Rodinal and XTOL, and I agree with that

XTOL = excellent fine grain general-purpose developer, gives box speed with most film. It may be impossible to get it in the future, but as others pointed out there's clones on the market so that's fine, and they are available in 1L package. I use Adox XT-3 now but had excellent results with fomadon Excel too. The simplest way to use it IMHO is 1+1 one shot, althought I personnaly went back to a replenishement workflow.

Rodinal = high-acutance developer, wonderfull with slower films like panF.

 

[pentaxuser]

There's a saying that the only developers you need in a darkroom is Rodinal and XTOL, and I agree with that

Whose saying is it? Í have bóth developers but I am not sure that I'd go that far.

pentaxuser

 

[Tony-S]

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.

Lot's of great developers out there. I suggest you consider Pyrocat HD, Pyro 510 or Perceptol.