Using Rodinal to Push Portra 400

C-41 Control 3200


Rodinal pre-treatment + C-41 3200



These scans were done raw, the C-41 control had levels applied in Photoshop for a basic balance, then the same levels settings were applied to the Rodinal pre-treatment, to show the relative difference between the two.


The Rodinal pre-treatment + C-41 seems to hold slightly better shadow detail, significantly better grain, and appears as if it would support moderately better image detail.


Here are some crops (from a high end scan), these were re-levelled individually this time quickly
C-41 control 3200


Rodinal pre-treatment + C-41 3200



Should also mention Rodinal forms some very weak colour dye, though when I've tried to use it before, it all but disappears after a bleach and fix. Here is a shot at 200, that only had Rodinal 1+100 10 min stand, stop, wash and dry (no bleach or fix).




Apart from a colour difference between the two 200 shots, I cannot find any other significant difference in image quality. The difference between the 200 and 3200 Rodinal pre-treatment shots being that the 200 would have received a lot more development and density than the small amount the 3200 would have gotten, perhaps the same difference in grain could be achieved with much less development in Rodinal at box speed, and I wonder how it would compare to a solvent type developer pre-treatment.

These are very nice results, I will probably repeat them with Portra 400 and Superia 800 soon. Since your EI3200 sample looks a bit low in contrast, I wonder how it would look after an 1-2 stop push.

Right now we have two theories about how this Rodinal pretreatment works: contrast reduction in the highlights, or activation of barely exposed grains. A nice way to find which one is correct would be repeating that test with dilute PC-TEA. PC-TEA is known to give higher emulsion speed than Rodinal and also contains no solvent, so its effect on shadow detail in this process would be revealing.

Any point of experimenting with something like process it in Diafine or Emofin first, as they are known to work well with high ISO / underexposure, and then process in C-41 per normal?

I am asking only because I have some Diafine in the jugs

I think best results would be obtained by pre-flash + pre-treatment with B&W dev + long push in C-41, as pre-flash + long C-41 push has given the best high speed results so far for speed and quality (it's on page 2 of this thread), this eked out a little more 'natural' speed, so may give more with pre-flash + push, as well as finer grain.

Emofin will develop a colour negative already I think, as iirc it has a PPD based developer in it.

Diafine will give too strong of a negative I think (at least for box speed), as I found no improvement at box speed, box speed shot had a much stronger b&w neg than the 3200 one. I suspect best results are obtained with a very weakly developed b&w negative. You can always give it a go, just bracket it.

At the very least, you'll get finer grained shadows in extreme low exposure zones at box speed doing the above.

I wouldn't mind trying a more dilute split-bath type developer, or a very dilute version of an xtol type developer with some solvent added. I think some type of extreme compensating developer that's limited to forming only very low density would be good to try.

Wow, these are the exact results I was hoping to see. The grain structure is significantly more appealing at ISO 3200 with the Rodinal pretreat, the same effect as it has in Tri-X I've shot at ISO 3200. The grain is there but it appears smaller and the color noise in the dark areas seems more appealing as well. It also appears the color changes are manageable, nothing went to wonky. Thanks for checking this out. I would have probably toasted my first try since I was thinking 30 minutes pretreat. 10 minutes in Rodinal 1:100 followed by normal C-41 seems to be right on the mark.......... Looks like a winner.

Athiril said:

C-41 Control 3200

Rodinal pre-treatment + C-41 3200

These scans were done raw, the C-41 control had levels applied in Photoshop for a basic balance, then the same levels settings were applied to the Rodinal pre-treatment, to show the relative difference between the two.


The Rodinal pre-treatment + C-41 seems to hold slightly better shadow detail, significantly better grain, and appears as if it would support moderately better image detail.


Here are some crops (from a high end scan), these were re-levelled individually this time quickly
C-41 control 3200

Rodinal pre-treatment + C-41 3200

Should also mention Rodinal forms some very weak colour dye, though when I've tried to use it before, it all but disappears after a bleach and fix. Here is a shot at 200, that only had Rodinal 1+100 10 min stand, stop, wash and dry (no bleach or fix).

Apart from a colour difference between the two 200 shots, I cannot find any other significant difference in image quality. The difference between the 200 and 3200 Rodinal pre-treatment shots being that the 200 would have received a lot more development and density than the small amount the 3200 would have gotten, perhaps the same difference in grain could be achieved with much less development in Rodinal at box speed, and I wonder how it would compare to a solvent type developer pre-treatment.

Click to expand...

Hmm... I also use 2-bath Pyrocat a lot. Might that work? I can dilute it further. Currently, I use 1:12

This is the very first attempt. Everything except the results is speculation. You'd have to test, and compare it against a control strip from the same roll

I think that you might find that repeated runs through the C41 process after the Rodinal, and using the rehal bleach will sharpen the toe and give an effective speed increase by changing the toe contrast into usable image. I've done this sort of "amplification" before and used multiple rehal cycles.

PE

That'd be interesting.. you'd also get the negative from Rodinal adding to the dye image too.

follow me, In my very limited experience with semi-stand developing the diluted Rodinal seems to give a very appealing (to me anyway) look to the grain at higher ISO's in B&W film. The Tetenal and Digibase C-41 is not as nice when pushed. I thought a partial development in 1:100 Rodinal for some period of time, rinse, then complete the color development with a normal or pull C-41 process might let me obtain a negative with decent color and reduced grain compared to normal push.

It took me a while but I finally got around to processing some film with a Rodinal Pre-Treatment. This is from a football game where the best exposure I could get on the field for Portra 400 at 1/250th and f/2.8 was about 2 and 1/3rd stop under exposed (ISO 2000 equivalent) so I decided it was time to try out the Rodinal pre-treat. I'm very happy with the results.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lamarlamb/sets/72157649126917440/

This looks very nice! I am very tempted to do this myself with the next roll. I can confirm that your results look a lot better than my attempts to push Portra 400 to EI 1600 ...

Since you are processing at home, if you do a hard push in developer combined with a pre-flash you will get significantly better results.

The pre-flash + push method improvement in recordable shadow detail was significantly better than the improvement the Rodinal 1:100 stand for 10 minutes before normal developing improvement. Given a push the Rodinal pre-treatment may work better though, I think combined with a pre-flash and push it'd be better again with possibly 1+ stops gain, allowing a lower pre-flash as well, and a faster speed rating when combined.

With a pre-flash and push on it's own I think you could go to 3200 and 6400 on Portra 400 better than what you've got here at EI 2000.

I want to try pre-flashing but I'll have to figure out how to apply the pre-flash for my shooting situations. I looked back at an old post where I had asked about pre-flashes and it reminded me I had a couple of challenges. If I pre-flash an entire roll up front how do I make sure the frames line up again after I rewind and re-load. If I use the double exposure method I will need to learn to apply that functionality in a situation where I may want to take successive shots quickly. I never intentionally double expose so I've only done it by accident with some old cameras....

If you are using 135 film, then just use a marker to make your own "start" mark on the film leader. Load the film so that it is definitely on the take up spool, choose a piece of the camera as a guide (eg. the side of the frame), draw your mark, then make a careful note of how many blank exposures you give before starting shooting your flash exposures. Upon rewinding, keep the film tail out for simplicity and reload using the same start mark, alignment point and number of blanks. The film will be registered (near enough) by the sprocket holes and the counting mechanism built in to the camera.

On a normal 135 camera, a double exposure button usually just disengages the sprocket-drive from the shutter-cocking, so the next exposure is not a full eight sprocket holes long because of the partial sprocket clutch (if that's what the thing is called?) rotation needed to re-engage the drive. Effectively choosing a double-exposure like this means you need to wind on a blank frame (shoot with lens covered for example) to avoid overlapping frames.

I made my preflashes with a 2 ply tissue folded in half over the front of the lens. My C-41 developing time was 6 minutes at 38 celsius. I metered through the lens so it'd meter 18% grey etc. Then exposed 6 stops below that.

I used the double exposure method so I change the preflash amount each frame. As I didn't know what would amount would work. For Superior 800 it was 6 stops below middle grey for box speed. I'd use that as a starting point.

I'm going to shoot a roll of 160NS this evening and try it out again.

I'd like to try preflashing, but have no idea where to start. I've an Dead Link Removed, would this work as well as your tissue?

Truzi said:

I'd like to try preflashing, but have no idea where to start. I've an Dead Link Removed, would this work as well as your tissue?

Click to expand...

Use it on a digital camera and take a photo with it, if you get an even flat frame with it, then yes. 6 stops below the meter indication for box speed is the starting point I found for a heavy push. I don't think it'll work as well for normal processing.

I don't own a digital camera. I'll probably just try it with a cheap roll sometime. Thanx for the 6-stop starting point. Does it matter how I achieve that, as in shutter v. aperture?

It can due to the reciprocity failure characteristics of your film.

PE

That 6 stop starting point is metered through whatever material is front of the lens as well btw.

If normal exposure is fine up to say 1 second for example without correction, then 6 stops under would be fine up to 1/60th without correction.

"Adjustments for Long and Short Exposures
No filter correction or exposure compensation is required
for PORTRA 400 Film for exposures from 1⁄10,000 second
to 1 second. For critical applications with longer exposure
times, make tests und
er your conditions."

However, since you are bordering on the extreme lowest developable exposure in the toe in a heavy push here, I would assume you may lose a bit at the border where reciprocity correction isn't an issue in normal circumstances in normal processing where you wouldn't notice or normally be able to detect.

Better to keep above that if possible, but your testing will reveal exactly what you need with bracketed pre-flashes, you'll see lousy images, until all of a sudden, one of them will suddenly jump up in density and shadow detail.

Dan, can you give us some indication how quickly you have to take the actual shot after the preflash? I would assume that if too much time passes, the whole effect disappears, yes?

This method, together with Cinestilll 800 must give a tremendous combo for Christmas shots ...

PS: I there a chance that instead of Rodinal we could use Michael R.'s low contrast full emulsion speed developers for the predev step?

I still do not get pre-flashing method very clearly yet.

- Meter the scene.
- 6-stops under-exposure for pre-flashing.
- Shoot with metered value.

- Develop with Rodinal 1+100 for 10mins.
- Continue with C-41.

Unfortunatley, most of my 135 cameras do not have double exposure feature but I may try with Rolleicord if the above method is correct.

Photo Engineer said:

If you want a negative image from a negative film, and you are aiming for about 2 stops over or under, you should never push or pull. You don't need to. More than that change and you will probably want to.

Portra as a reversal film will give some odd colors and an orange background. Ask Dan (Athiril) for the exact procedures he used. AFAIK, he has gotten the best results so far. I've done it, but to me it is a waste of good film (IMHO).

PE

Click to expand...

It will be ok in local mini lab at 1600 if you are not too fussy and scan and process...

I've shot 2 exposures out of 9 of Pro 160NS @ EI 2500, using a pre-flash, I'll have to finish off the roll and see how it turns out.

baachitraka said:

I still do not get pre-flashing method very clearly yet.

- Meter the scene.
- 6-stops under-exposure for pre-flashing.
- Shoot with metered value.

- Develop with Rodinal 1+100 for 10mins.
- Continue with C-41.

Unfortunatley, most of my 135 cameras do not have double exposure feature but I may try with Rolleicord if the above method is correct.

Click to expand...

Pre-flash isn't an exposure of the actual scene, it's an exposure of basically an even grey area, it's like taking a photo of a grey card, and then taking your photo on top of that exposure, it's a very very light fogging. I simply used a few layers of tissue over the front of the lens to get an even neutrally coloured non-textured exposure etc.


My developing process was simply C-41 at 38c for 6 minutes instead of the usual 3m 15s. The Rodinal thing was a separate thing that seemed to improve underexposed shots, slightly better shadow detail and better grain. It sounds like it would stack well with pre-flashing and pushing, but I don't want to introduce too many variables that aren't thoroughly tested all at once, I don't tend to do this often, as I don't find I need high speed film that much, I could use a digital camera with better results, or a tripod for landscapes, or more commonly, I'll simply use off camera flash with my RB67 for portraits.

Rudeofus said:

Dan, can you give us some indication how quickly you have to take the actual shot after the preflash? I would assume that if too much time passes, the whole effect disappears, yes?

This method, together with Cinestilll 800 must give a tremendous combo for Christmas shots ...

PS: I there a chance that instead of Rodinal we could use Michael R.'s low contrast full emulsion speed developers for the predev step?

Click to expand...

Don't know how the effect lasts, I've always done mine before I take the shot. Newspaper photographers back in the day used to use something like Tri-X, pre-flash several rolls before heading out, and reload the rolls etc, so it should last a while. Though they probably did it the night before or a few hours before.

The only film I know of that's particularly known for latent image fading is Pan F+, and that's still quite a while (relatively quite fast compared to other films though). On the other hand the pre-flashing is on the very extreme of the toe, at the threshold of the smallest exposure recordable essentially.


Best to test, and nail down some facts and workable procedures before introducing other unknowns, so you will know if they're having an impact on the results or not.


I didn't use any 'predev' step for the pre-flash example I shown, which is a superior improvement compared to predev without pre-flash etc.

In any case, the 'predev' idea is to use only mild b&w development before continuing normal C-41, I just thought it might a bigger latent image for the C-41 dev to work off of. Rodinal 1+100 was selected, as out of all the commercial B&W developers I've tried on C-41 film, it tends to give the most even development of the layers in comparison to each other. So it should be fine as long as you're not developing a full negative etc.

The pre-dev only gives a small improvement, but I imagine that improvement would increase with a C-41 push and would stack well with pre-flash to get a little bit more out of it.







And about the 6 stops under thing, that was through my AE-1's meter, on specifically Superia 800 X-TRA. I would use it as a starting point, and not rely on it as a guaranteed working pre-flash amount, meter's and user's vary, as do films.

7 stops under there was absolutely zero effect, all of a sudden at 6, everything suddenly jumped to life in the image at a C-41 process time of 6 minutes, I think I tried normal processing with very little benefit as well btw, I can't remember for sure, but I remember writing off normal processing as pointless for this.

You will need to make a few frames with differing pre-flash amounts (one with no-preflash as a control), you'll see when it comes to life.