Two different times for Rodinal development

[What About Bob]

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 Truth site which gives a development time of 15 minutes for the film speed and dilution that I will be using but when I click on the data sheet button from Adox's same page it leads me to an Agfa PDF file that gives a time of 18 minutes at the same dilution and temperature with an agitation method of one inversion for every 30 seconds, while the Digital Truth site doesn't specify an agitation method.

I am not sure how to go about this. This is a "back at square one" for testing and I am conflicted as to which time would be the true guide time. My guess is that since today is an overcast day with no sun that if I went to 18 minutes then a little over-development might not harm much. After that it would then be either one inversion every 30 seconds or 2 every minute. I'm not sure there would be much difference with this?

Right now the main goal was to go out and have fun while remaining focused but not take things too seriously. I was a bit of a wuss today because I felt sort of uneasy with bringing an old Rolleicord out in the cold. I planned on not staying out that long and provided cushioning for my small camera bag. I'll remove the film a little later on.

 

[Dusty Negative]

I’ve had this confusion as well. I am probably jumbling the details of this story, but here’s what I recall:

On Adox’s site, they say the dev times are the same as for Agfa Rodinal.

However, I also seem to recall that there have been different versions of Agfa Rodinal over the years.

So, which Rodinal times are currently appropriate for the modern Adox version?

I recently purchased a bottle myself but have yet to use it precisely because of this confusion.

I’m sure someone here will clear this up right quick.

 

[lamerko]

The current formulation of Adox Rodinal (Adonal) is the latest Agfa revision since 2004. However, there are other varieties in the database with times - of Calbe/Orwo, older formulas, as well as numerous clones that are close, but still not the same.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Meanwhile, Ilford's datasheet for FP4+ lists a 15' development time in Rodinal.

 

[Pieter12]

You need to find the time that works for you. Try 15 minutes and see how you like it.

 

[Romanko]

You can do a simple snip test to check that 15 minutes is roughly correct (most likely it is). Choose an agitation regime and stick to it. Develop your first roll, inspect the results and adjust your development time accordingly. Do not overthink it. Even if you don't nail it the first time the negatives would still be usable.

 

[What About Bob]

Thanks everyone.

I would be guessing that the 15 minutes time on the Digital Truth site might be for the newer Rodinal version and the PDF with the Agfa in its title showing 18 minutes may be for the older recipe or maybe the higher time could be for printing on a diffusion enlarger? Another guess on my part.

I will go for the 15 minutes time and use the agitation method on the Agfa PDF with one exception: I'll do the first 1 minute continuous agitation but instead of 1 tilt every 30 seconds I will do 2 tilts every minute. I'm thinking that 1 minute instead of 30 seconds would give slightly more edginess. I will keep to that method and be consistent.

One other note is that my Rodinal was bought four years ago and it is nearly a full container. I only used a few rolls with it. The color of the developer darkened but from what I have been reading is that Rodinal usually lasts a long time. I did extract a few drops of the concentrate and put it onto a small piece of old tri-x film from my old bulk loader and the area blackened pretty quickly.

I'll make an update on how the film came out. I'll print over the weekend. I have to set up a few extra things with the darkroom before printing.

 

[Romanko]

I did extract a few drops of the concentrate and put it onto a small piece of old tri-x film from my old bulk loader and the area blackened pretty quickly.

You need to dilute it somewhat for that kind of tests:

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

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 Truth site which gives a development time of 15 minutes for the film speed and dilution that I will be using but when I click on the data sheet button from Adox's same page it leads me to an Agfa PDF file that gives a time of 18 minutes at the same dilution and temperature with an agitation method of one inversion for every 30 seconds, while the Digital Truth site doesn't specify an agitation method.

I am not sure how to go about this. This is a "back at square one" for testing and I am conflicted as to which time would be the true guide time. My guess is that since today is an overcast day with no sun that if I went to 18 minutes then a little over-development might not harm much. After that it would then be either one inversion every 30 seconds or 2 every minute. I'm not sure there would be much difference with this?

Right now the main goal was to go out and have fun while remaining focused but not take things too seriously. I was a bit of a wuss today because I felt sort of uneasy with bringing an old Rolleicord out in the cold. I planned on not staying out that long and provided cushioning for my small camera bag. I'll remove the film a little later on.

Ignore the times on the Digitaltruth developing chart. They're random submissions by random people and have never been vetted. Really, the best starting point is from Ilford. Their tech sheet for FP4 lists times for Rodinal. They work. Use them.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1919/product/690/

 

[What About Bob]

You need to dilute it somewhat for that kind of tests:

French toast photography.

 

[What About Bob]

Ignore the times on the Digitaltruth developing chart. They're random submissions by random people and have never been vetted. Really, the best starting point is from Ilford. Their tech sheet for FP4 lists times for Rodinal. They work. Use them.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1919/product/690/

Thanks Chris. I will hold on to that chart.

 

[foc]

This might help with the Ilford range of films.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Film-processing-chart-.pdf

 

[What About Bob]

This might help with the Ilford range of films.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Film-processing-chart-.pdf

Thanks foc

 

[runswithsizzers]

...the Digital Truth site doesn't specify an agitation method...

On their <User's Guide and FAQ> page Digital Truth say:
"Agitation: Wherever possible times have been listed which rely on the standard technique of 30-60 seconds continuous agitation after immersion, followed by 5-10 seconds (three inversions) per minute thereafter."

Of course, which posted times are based on someone actually following that agitation scheme is anybody's guess.

 

[What About Bob]

On their <User's Guide and FAQ> page Digital Truth say:
"Agitation: Wherever possible times have been listed which rely on the standard technique of 30-60 seconds continuous agitation after immersion, followed by 5-10 seconds (three inversions) per minute thereafter."

Of course, which posted times are based on someone actually following that agitation scheme is anybody's guess.

Ah, it's in that section. I was focused more in the charts sections. Thanks for pointing this out. Looks like it is a "pick one and stick with it" type of deal.

 

[What About Bob]

The negative strip looks good. Looking sharp. The under, normal and over shots appear to be where they should, density-wise. The proof will be in the printing. I'm curious to see how the grain will appear in the print

I did a mock develop run before doing the actual run with film and the temperature went up a half of a degree, from 68F to 68.5F, around the 35 minute mark. I did use a water bath to make sure of a constant 68F when doing the actual film run. I'm leaving the negative hanging for a little while longer to dry. I'm so psyched to see how these print out.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

The negative strip looks good. Looking sharp. The under, normal and over shots appear to be where they should, density-wise. The proof will be in the printing. I'm curious to see how the grain will appear in the print

I did a mock develop run before doing the actual run with film and the temperature went up a half of a degree, from 68F to 68.5F, around the 35 minute mark. I did use a water bath to make sure of a constant 68F when doing the actual film run. I'm leaving the negative hanging for a little while longer to dry. I'm so psyched to see how these print out.

1/2 degree difference between different chemicals won't make a difference in B&W processing. Make sure the developer is right, but the other chemicals are not as critical.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Chris is right on all accounts. The MDC is only a guide and the times there are not written in stone for sure. The person who submitted the times you're looking at might have a totally different agitation regime or pour in time and pour out time, or even a slightly differing thermometer. As mentioned, it's best to using it as a starting place for a film/developer combination you can't find any manufactures info on. With your film (FP4+) and developer (Rodinal) I'd start with what the manufactures say. Then tweak your exposure, development times and temp to your liking. Pretty much all the different Rodinal developers out there are darn close to the same.

 

[logan2z]

FWIW, I shoot FP4+ at an EI=100 and develop it in Adox Rodinal for 11 minutes 45 seconds at 68F - effectively what the massive dev chart calls for (12 minutes). I've been happy with the results so far.

 

[runswithsizzers]

According to Adox's web site under "Developing for Rodinal", it points to the Digital Truth site which gives a development time of 15 minutes for the film speed and dilution that I will be using but when I click on the data sheet button from Adox's same page it leads me to an Agfa PDF file that gives a time of 18 minutes at the same dilution and temperature with an agitation method of one inversion for every 30 seconds, while the Digital Truth site doesn't specify an agitation method.

This is a common problem for those of us who need guidance when developing a roll of film which is new to us: Where do we get a (more-or-less) reliable starting time?

For me, DigitalTruth -- aka, The Massive Development Chart (MDC) -- is always the source of last resort. And, I really dislike the trend of some film and chemistry manufacturers handing off the task of determining starting-point development times to Digital Truth. Or rather delegating the task to persons of unknown abilities and habits, who provide DigitalTruth with much of their data.

Some development times in the MDC have been tested enough to have a reasonable amount of precision, and other times have not -- but we have no way to judge which is which. I made several suggestions to DigitalTruth, including a suggestion to annotate those results which come directly from manufacturers, and also to annotate results which come from a very small sample of non-vetted submitters. In his reply, Jon Mided who has been curating the MDC for "25+ years" said:

"First of all, every time is manually examined, unlike every other online database which allows totally unchecked data to be entered. If a time does not look accurate based on other related data, then it is discarded or is put in a separate unpublished area where it can be reviewed at a later data if more information becomes available. If we waited for five separate testers to submit data, very little new data would ever be added and this would restrict people’s ability to find starting points. The key thing here is that all development times are starting points, there is no such thing as an absolute time. There are 20,000+ times in the chart, so it is simply unrealistic to expect every single entry to be as accurate as any other. There will be variance, but every time should be a useful starting point and any time which we discover to be misleading is removed."​

​

"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."​

​

"Finally, there are several sites and apps which have stolen our data and many people who don’t seem to realised the time and effort which has gone in over 25 years to build the chart and simply think they have free unlicensed access to use it for their own profit. I wish the world was full of ethical people, but running an online site has taught me that there is a very large body of people with no ethics whatsoever. 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. Basically, if we publish the sources, the people can rip us off and demonstrate that they have not infringed on the copyrighted data. This has always bothered me as I would love to publish the sources and they are in the database, but they are hidden from any access. All I can suggest is that if you have any questions about sources for specific times, just write to me and ask and I will let you know."​

Two or three times, I have pointed out contradictions in their published times or times that don't make sense, and the MDC was quickly edited to clean up the outliers. So I give DigitalTruth credit for doing what they do -- but whenever possible, I would prefer to use a starting time provided directly by either the film manufacturer or by the chemistry manufacturer. If a film or chemistry manufacturer cannot be bothered to do enough testing to provide any "official" recommended starting times for processing, then I am more inclined to buy from other manufacturers who have made the effort.

 

[John Wiegerink]

This is a common problem for those of us who need guidance when developing a roll of film which is new to us: Where do we get a (more-or-less) reliable starting time?

For me, DigitalTruth -- aka, The Massive Development Chart (MDC) -- is always the source of last resort. And, I really dislike the trend of some film and chemistry manufacturers handing off the task of determining starting-point development times to Digital Truth. Or rather delegating the task to persons of unknown abilities and habits, who provide DigitalTruth with much of their data.

Some development times in the MDC have been tested enough to have a reasonable amount of precision, and other times have not -- but we have no way to judge which is which. I made several suggestions to DigitalTruth, including a suggestion to annotate those results which come directly from manufacturers, and also to annotate results which come from a very small sample of non-vetted submitters. In his reply, Jon Mided who has been curating the MDC for "25+ years" said:

"First of all, every time is manually examined, unlike every other online database which allows totally unchecked data to be entered. If a time does not look accurate based on other related data, then it is discarded or is put in a separate unpublished area where it can be reviewed at a later data if more information becomes available. If we waited for five separate testers to submit data, very little new data would ever be added and this would restrict people’s ability to find starting points. The key thing here is that all development times are starting points, there is no such thing as an absolute time. There are 20,000+ times in the chart, so it is simply unrealistic to expect every single entry to be as accurate as any other. There will be variance, but every time should be a useful starting point and any time which we discover to be misleading is removed."​

​

"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."​

​

"Finally, there are several sites and apps which have stolen our data and many people who don’t seem to realised the time and effort which has gone in over 25 years to build the chart and simply think they have free unlicensed access to use it for their own profit. I wish the world was full of ethical people, but running an online site has taught me that there is a very large body of people with no ethics whatsoever. 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. Basically, if we publish the sources, the people can rip us off and demonstrate that they have not infringed on the copyrighted data. This has always bothered me as I would love to publish the sources and they are in the database, but they are hidden from any access. All I can suggest is that if you have any questions about sources for specific times, just write to me and ask and I will let you know."​

Two or three times, I have pointed out contradictions in their published times or times that don't make sense, and the MDC was quickly edited to clean up the outliers. So I give DigitalTruth credit for doing what they do -- but whenever possible, I would prefer to use a starting time provided directly by either the film manufacturer or by the chemistry manufacturer. If a film or chemistry manufacturer cannot be bothered to do enough testing to provide any "official" recommended starting times for processing, then I am more inclined to buy from other manufacturers who have made the effort.

These "shadow" film companies are multipling like rabbits. This forum helps weed out where and who actually manufactures said film, but there are still unknowns when it comes to development times for some of this repackaged film. The MDC come to the rescue with some of these, but with others you might have to wing it. My biggest problem with the MDC is that they will list a ISO 100 film rated at ISO 100 at say 5 minutes developing time and right below that the chart says the same ISO 100 film rated at a EI of 400 has a development time of 4.5 minutes in the same developer and processed the same way. Now that just doesn't add up as we all know.

 

[runswithsizzers]

[...] My biggest problem with the MDC is that they will list a ISO 100 film rated at ISO 100 at say 5 minutes developing time and right below that the chart says the same ISO 100 film rated at a EI of 400 has a development time of 4.5 minutes in the same developer and processed the same way. Now that just doesn't add up as we all know.

If you want to bring any such inconsistancies to the attention of Jon Mided (Managing Director, Digitaltruth Photo Ltd.) at sales@digitaltruth.com, then he will decide if the unexpected result should be removed from the database.

 

[What About Bob]

I did end up doing some printing last night but I couldn't print for too long due to ammonia fumes. I have to get my hands on the older fixers that I used to use. Those didn't bother me. I have ample space in my room and bathroom, ventilation in both rooms and two windows that were partially cracked open and the fumes from the fixer were still getting to me. I felt the need to not be as close to the fixer tray and get ready to back away. It wasn't fun. Ammonia of any kind throws me for a loop, I immediately react to it. I don't mind the old fixer smells. This may sound kind of oddballish but I kind of like the old fixer smell, probably because it also brings back good memories of my past darkroom experiences when I was a yute.

What I was working with: Ilford FP4+, bracketed exposures - Developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 15 minutes at 68F/20C. Initial agitation for the first minute then two inversions every minute. Developer stayed at a constant 68F/20C. Inversions were on the soft side and about 2 seconds per inversion. Ilford multigrade paper, pearl surface. Liquidol developer at around 69F/20.5C, Sprint block stop bath and TF-5 fixer.

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.

I think with the normal exposures that if the development was increased just ever-so-slightly then this would be a winner for an overcast type of day and would open up the whites a little more. Going from 15 to 18 minutes could do it. That made me think back to that Agfa PDF that stated 18 minutes. Next time I will try 18 minutes under the same overcast day conditions.

The one stop overexposed shots opened up the shadows and did brighten up the whites a little to how the whites actually appeared, though slightly blown in some areas that would require some minor burning in. The one stop overexposed shots would be good on a sunny day with a slightly less development for the highlights.

I did not noticed any objectionable grain at all. It was there but it was so muted. I was working with Ilford FP4+ and Rodinal 1:50 for 15 minutes. I have to say that Rodinal is a really capable developer.

I did accidentally double expose one of the sets of images, the under and normal shots on the last scene overlapped. I forgot to wind the film ahead, lol. At the time I was confused as to why I was on frame 12 when I thought I had all ready made three bracketed exposures of four different scenes and that the roll should have been finished. The overlap bummed me out in a way because on the normal exposure of the last scene I had a guy entering the door in the scene and that would have been a good shot.

 

[koraks]

couldn't print for too long due to ammonia fumes.

TF-5 fixer

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.

Great to hear you're back to printing again, keep it up!

 

[What About Bob]

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.

Great to hear you're back to printing again, keep it up!

Thanks koraks