Two different times for Rodinal development

[Romanko]

"You cannot trust manufacturer’s data. Do you know how many manufacturer’s simply copy their data from our chart? Only the data which the manufacturer verifies was tested in their own lab by their own technician’s is truly “official”. As far as I know, there is no manufacturer which lists the source of its own times and almost every one of them combines in-house professional times with externally submitted times from reliable sources. However, just like in our chart, some of this data is not perfect."

I find this hard to believe. Even ignoring the technological side of film manufacturing there are legal aspects that could get manufacturers into serious trouble for providing misleading data on their products.

For that reason we cannot publish the source of each time. If we were to do so, someone could easily run a script to harvest the data provided solely by manufacturers and copy that entire section of the chart and publish it for free, despite having done none of the data input which was so time-consuming.

Does not make sense. The manufacturers' data is in open access. Does it really matter if I run a web crawler on the MDC chart or the sites of the few remaining film manufacturers.

I understand that Jon Mided put a lot of efforts in compiling and publishing this resource and respect him for doing this. The reality is that you either make something available for free and accept that people will use and abuse it the way they like or you make a paid product and lock it under the IP and copyright walls. Any attempt to impose copyright on user-submitted data is questionable both legally and ethically in my opinion.

From what I can see from the contact sheet I had made is that each of the bracketed exposures looked printable. The normal exposures looked spot on for the brick buildings. The underexposed shots looked good also. Shadow detail was still there.

Congratulations! For me this says that you used the right development time and exposed your film correctly.

 

[john_s]

Not to drag this too far off-topic, but I'd recommend any old acidic rapid fixer in your case. Brand or type really doesn't matter as long as it's a rapid fixer, and acidic. The ammonia smell will be replaced with acetic acid smell, which is probably the smell you remember from the old days.

In addition to the acetic acid smell, there will also be some SO2. There is a pH close to neutral where odour is minimal. I don't like any of those smells, but at least they can be minimized (and ventilated).

 

[npl]

To start on topic, I did 15min once and I'm looking at a print right now, it's fine.

As the quote explained, the opacity of the MDC process and lack of details is very voluntary, and for this reason it will never improve it's obvious shortcomings. As time proved, the concept of a free but closed and limited system lead to a general distrust of the data, and it's normal. We just can't believe that 100% of the times are verified (by whom ? How ?) when there is so much inconsistencies and times obviously copied and pasted from various existing datasheets. OP's case is an exemple, with the MDC's 15min with rodinal 1:50 matching Ilford's.

Nowadays the open-source mindset is much more prominent and as a result the approach would be different : a free app/website financed by micro-donations (plenty of options to handle that) and by charging access for a standard REST API with a guarantee of service. It's guaranteed that most third-parties will prefer to pay to have something stable and quick to deploy rather than using shaddy web scrapers that can and will break at every update. Once you're not worried about the data being stolen, you can build a far better model : non-anonymous submissions by registred users, tons of mandatory details (agitation scheme, T°c, if the positive was made by scanning or wet printing, average lighting condition and contrast, attached pictured, source and version if copied from a datasheet..), open commentaries and rating system, special flag for trusted times with explanation as to why by the mods, a collegial board of administrators and meta forums where users can discuss how to improve things and ask questions, etc.
The users could do an advanced search, filter and/or order by rating, open the tops submissions to see what everyone has to say about it in the discussion and see some pictures and then decide which one to go with. I'm still contemplating to do a proof of concept but never took the time..
Anyway..

 

[koraks]

you can build a far better model

...and you'll face the reality that at best a handful of users will ever submit anything that's remotely complete.

Despite its obvious shortcomings, a major advantage of the MDC is that it actually exists, it's filled to the brim with data, and it's not just a pipe dream. I'd have a compromised system that's actually available over a pipe dream any day.

But go ahead, prove me wrong. Build it. If it makes that much sense, why not?

 

[npl]

...and you'll face the reality that at best a handful of users will ever submit anything that's remotely complete.

Despite its obvious shortcomings, a major advantage of the MDC is that it actually exists, it's filled to the brim with data, and it's not just a pipe dream. I'd have a compromised system that's actually available over a pipe dream any day.

But go ahead, prove me wrong. Build it. If it makes that much sense, why not?

Being satisfied with a known broken system is certainely not everybody's mindset, but to each their own. It's not like what I described is revolutionnary : it's a very standard web 2.0 website, at a time where making and hosting one is way easier and cheaper than when the MDC was made. Speaking of which, I doubt it magically appeared out of thin air one day filled with data and thousands of users ? obviously any system depending on data submission will take some time to take off and may or may not meet its market. See filmdev.org for example that already put in practice some of the things I mentionned : it didn't replaced the MDC, but it's still there with regular submissions, so I do believe there's a demand for something else.

 

[Romanko]

Build it. If it makes that much sense, why not?

Any time I shoot a new film or try a new developer I start with studying the data sheets. I do not really see much use for a system that compiles all the data in one place. And then, very often you'll need to adjust the nominal development time to your processing regime, camera and metering.

 

[npl]

Hundreds if not thousands of EI/film/developer/dilution combos have never been documented in any datasheet, that's primarily for them that the MDC and similar websites exists. In any case, yes it's always to get a starting point.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

...and you'll face the reality that at best a handful of users will ever submit anything that's remotely complete.

Despite its obvious shortcomings, a major advantage of the MDC is that it actually exists, it's filled to the brim with data, and it's not just a pipe dream. I'd have a compromised system that's actually available over a pipe dream any day.

But go ahead, prove me wrong. Build it. If it makes that much sense, why not?

Years ago, I put up all of my tested developing times on my website to help people. They're my times, not ones anyone submitted. They're all film and developer combinations that I have tested and used. I started with film manufacturers' data sheets when doing my testing.

If the film manufacturer listed a time for a developer I wanted to use, I used their time as a starting point. In many cases, this turned out to be perfect. That's why I always recommend that people start with the film manufacturer's time when trying a new fim/dev combination; it is usually good and even when it is not perfect, it is close (variables like your agitation style, water quality, thermometer accuracy, and how precise you are in measuring chemicals all affect final outcome). Some people want to use developers, like PMK, that no film manufacturer lists times for. Then I recommend finding a photographer who has actually used the film/dev combination and use their times as a starting point.

The Massive Developing Chart is filled with too many dubious listings to be useful except as an absolute last resort; and I don't believe for a nanosecond that ANY film manufacturer sources their times from it.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Years ago, I put up all of my tested developing times on my website to help people. They're my times, not ones anyone submitted. They're all film and developer combinations that I have tested and used. I started with film manufacturers' data sheets when doing my testing.

If the film manufacturer listed a time for a developer I wanted to use, I used their time as a starting point. In many cases, this turned out to be perfect. That's why I always recommend that people start with the film manufacturer's time when trying a new fim/dev combination; it is usually good and even when it is not perfect, it is close (variables like your agitation style, water quality, thermometer accuracy, and how precise you are in measuring chemicals all affect final outcome). Some people want to use developers, like PMK, that no film manufacturer lists times for. Then I recommend finding a photographer who has actually used the film/dev combination and use their times as a starting point.

The Massive Developing Chart is filled with too many dubious listings to be useful except as an absolute last resort; and I don't believe for a nanosecond that ANY film manufacturer sources their times from it.

Those mirror my feelings about the manufacture's suggested times and the MDC. I'll trust the manufacture first in all cases.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Despite its obvious shortcomings, a major advantage of the MDC is that it actually exists...

Hard to argue with that. If neither the film manufacturer nor the chemistry manufacturer provides a suggested time, and the one-and-only time I can find is the one in the MDC, then that is time I would start with.

But these days, I am less likely to buy film or chemistry from any manufacturer who does not provide enough information to get me started. No data sheet, no deal. I do not expect every film and chemistry brand to provide documentation as detailed and complete as what I can get from Kodak or Ilford -- but if a company tells me to go 'Look it up in the MDC,' I don't feel like they are serious enough to have earned my business.

 

[Romanko]

The Massive Developing Chart is filled with too many dubious listings to be useful except as an absolute last resort; and I don't believe for a nanosecond that ANY film manufacturer sources their times from it.

The last resort for me is a snip test. It gives the development time and serves as a double-check that the developer is working as intended. For sanity check I would look at the development times for similar film emulsions. Asking a question here never hurts.

I would be careful with "ANY film manufacturer". There are "a guy in his garage" type of companies that sell expired film of dubious origin and proudly call themselves "manufacturers".

 

[MattKing]

To my mind, the MDC is mostly useful if you are experimenting with a film and developer combination where neither the film manufacturer nor the developer manufacturer provide recommendations for the combination.
Otherwise, I am leery of it.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

The last resort for me is a snip test. It gives the development time and serves as a double-check that the developer is working as intended. For sanity check I would look at the development times for similar film emulsions. Asking a question here never hurts.

I would be careful with "ANY film manufacturer". There are "a guy in his garage" type of companies that sell expired film of dubious origin and proudly call themselves "manufacturers".

When I say "Manufacturer," I mean companies that REALLY make film. Kodak; Ilford/Kentmere/Harman; Fuji; Foma; Adox; Ferrania.

 

[npl]

When I say "Manufacturer," I mean companies that REALLY make film. Kodak; Ilford/Kentmere/Harman; Fuji; Foma; Adox; Ferrania.

Right, that's the problem nowadays, a lot of film stock that we can buy are rebranded, and the datasheet is NOT from the manufacturer.
I see a lot of "I follow the manufacturer datasheet" and that's fine, but let's ask ourselves : do we know it's really a *manufacturer* datasheet ? are we sure ?

One example : in the rollei RPX 100 datasheet (rebranded Kentemere 100) there's time for developers that are not mentionned in the Harman datasheet. So... who came up with them ?

 

[lamerko]

I am very skeptical that the RPX 100 is the Kentmere 100. On the bulk rolls it is written that they are produced in the EU, and on the 120 - that they are EXCLUSIVELY produced for Rollei.

 

[darkroommike]

I don't know how rigorous Adox's tests of every possible film in their developer might be, or if they have done any independent testing at all. Maybe they are using Agfa's data for all these films and just ginned up new PDFs. Agfa, as a lab, has been gone for quite a while. And I know that some companies develop films to a higher gamma, or were still using gamma, long after Kodak moved on to CI.

First place to look for developing times is always the film manufacturer's website or data sheet. Ilford still publishes time and temp data for their developer products on the inside of their 120 boxes. I also have a 35mm HP5+ box in front of me with times for foreign developers including Rodinal 1+25.

The second place to look is the developer maker's data sheets and website. As I already said some companies test more rigorously than others.

And last and least is the Massive. It is awesome that so many folks have come together to publish all the "recipes" (curious use of the word recipe but that is the term they use) for developing times and temperatures. Take them with a grain of salt, but there are some pretty weird combinations of films/developers you will not find anywhere else. For example Kosmo Foto Agent Shadow film in Uncle Mort's developer. And yes that is a real listing.

 

[foc]

You could also look here.

https://filmdev.org/

It is a site with people's recipes with the added advantage of posted sample images.

Ok I know it's scans and it can be hard to view the image critically but IMO it is a great help.

Spend a little time exploring the site, popular film & developer combinations, popular developers, popular films, etc, and it may be of help.

 

[Cheshire]

You could also look here.

https://filmdev.org/

It is a site with people's recipes with the added advantage of posted sample images.

Ok I know it's scans and it can be hard to view the image critically but IMO it is a great help.

Spend a little time exploring the site, popular film & developer combinations, popular developers, popular films, etc, and it may be of help.

Thats a far better resource the the MDC.. the issue I have run across is that its very common for folks who scan their negatives, to process film in such a way that it works best for scanning, and not for a normal enlarger user.

And its very common for scanned film images to be tweaked in an editing program.

 

[pentaxuser]

Has anyone bothered to work out how many MDC times are (a) identical to manufacturers' times ;(b) as close to those times as makes little or no difference and (c) are so far out to be almost or even completely misleading?

I wonder what percentage meets (a) and (b). Pretty high is my subjective conclusion having looked at it but I might be wrong

pentaxuser

 

[Chuck1]

Somewhat off topic:
Any suggestions for the least nasty fixer?
I've never tried tf5 been thinking about that

 

[What About Bob]

Has anyone bothered to work out how many MDC times are (a) identical to manufacturers' times ;(b) as close to those times as makes little or no difference and (c) are so far out to be almost or even completely misleading?

I wonder what percentage meets (a) and (b). Pretty high is my subjective conclusion having looked at it but I might be wrong

pentaxuser

I have taken a break from Rodinal. For Rodinal, it looks like Ilford and MDC see eye-to-eye. When I get to D76 then things start to drift off. Times for FP4 plus developed in D76 1:3 vary as much as 4 minutes between the two sites.

I have noticed that Ilford has taken some of the MDC values and filled them into their own chart, in red type. https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Film-processing-chart-.pdf

I haven't checked all of the data. Looking at it all makes me dizzy, lol.

 

[What About Bob]

Somewhat off topic:
Any suggestions for the least nasty fixer?
I've never tried tf5 been thinking about that

It's funny this is mentioned. One page back in this same thread I posted about my experience with TF-5

Two different times for Rodinal development

i was outside not long ago and performing some exposure tests with my Rolleicord using Ilford FP4+ at 125. I was bracketing exposures - under / normal / over - and will be developing in Adox Rodinal 1:50. According to Adox's web site under "Developing for Rodinal", it points to the Digital...

www.photrio.com

TF-5 is a great fixer and it looks like some people can work with it while some cannot. It is suppose to have less of an odor of ammonia but in my case it is a bother to me. I never liked the smell of ammonia so that could be the issue with me.

 

[koraks]

Any suggestions for the least nasty fixer?

Depends on what you find nasty in fixer.

 

[pentaxuser]

I haven't checked all of the data. Looking at it all makes me dizzy, lol.

Yes that's the problem in a nutshell, I suspect a thorough check of MDC's percentage reliability of the range of developer/film combo might induce dizziness but that doesn't seem to stop answers that range from "crap" to excellent" on the MDC without any qualifications at either end of the range. I find this a pity

No question of course about manufacturers' sheets being the "first port of call" in terms of one's quest but if that doesn't produce any answers then seeking out the experience of actual users on site like ours might be next but then the MDC seems to be a source that is worth examining along with possibly other sources

I should say that my problem with extremes in terms of statements may have been made worse by seeing a video by Greg Davis yesterday in which he developed a film at what he knew from experience was a reliable time of 9 mins and the same scene, same time etc at 6 and 13 mins respectively Yes all three negatives were different but it surprised me how well each of them produced OK prints

It said to me that in a lot of cases the variation can be surprisingly large without the negative being a disaster and maybe it was in that context that we need to view what we get on user sites like the MDC

pentaxuser