What's so special about Rodinal

Rodinal is/was also very versatile. It would be able to 'do something good' with any film available, in many different ways.
So i don't think there is a single answer to how it is excellent, or what exactly is excellent about it.

And let's not beat about the bush and instead just openly admit that it was extremely popular too because it was cheap.
That alone (well... together with the unending shelf life) made it very popular.

(Yet, i haven't used Rodinal since, what?, the late 1970s, early 1980s. But i have a bottle now, and plan to start having fun with it soon. Never tried it on TMax, and that being my staple B&W film, i like what you say, Ian!)

OK, very good details in the shadows and no blocking up of highlight details. Overall good tone separation, (mid tones as well).

Being "clean" working unlike ID-11/D76 which because of it;s slight solvent physical development action helps the shadows.

I can get similar tonality from ID-11 but at the expense of grain and without the same edge sharpness, it's a balance.

Comparing Rodinal to Pyrrocat HD, the final images are fairly similar but with a touch better edge sharpness, and negatives are remarkably easy to print.

It's all very subjective.

Ian

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Ian,

Thanks for your reply.

When you say 'excellent tonality' - that can mean a million things and is a largely subjective statement. What exactly is excellent? How are shadows, mid-tones, and highlights rendered in relation to each other, and how are they compared to other developers? How are they excellent?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, Q.G., but I think that is a bit of a vague answer.

Surely we must have specific reasons, other than convenience and economy, to use certain developers. In comparison to cost of time, film, paper, and other equipment, any film developer is pretty much dirt cheap.

I know I have highly specific reasons to use Kodak Xtol as my main developer. It's a question of having a developer that responds very well to agitation alterations in order to change how the end results come out in varying lighting conditions.
It excels in very harsh lighting, is great in normal lighting, and needs some help in flat lighting. I use it replenished for extreme sharpness, and a fine clean grain that looks great at large magnification as well as small.
By altering agitation, I get longer development times, which in turn gives better shadow detail. Mid-tones are moved up and down the film curve to a practical and printable place easily, and the highlights are compensated for to bring high contrast situations down to normal printable levels, without losing their intensity and spark.
As contrast flattens, I increase agitation, and development time is adjusted - once again to get the mid-tones in an appropriate place. So, it's an almost automatic developer for me where it's easy for me to place the mid-tones in a place where they are always nicely separated, and Xtol responds exceedingly well to this treatment.
I print with a condenser enlarger on Ilford MGIV matte paper using replenished Ethol LPD chemistry, and my negatives are tailored to fit that combination.
I use only TMax 400 film (when I can afford it, and sometimes an odd roll of Acros or TMax 100).

If I were to start using Rodinal, I would have to learn all of that again, but I would gain things like texture and glorious grain. So I am very interested in hearing how Rodinal responds to agitation, development time, exposure, building contrast and reducing contrast, and how the resulting tonality affects the print.

Thanks,

- Thomas

Thanks for elaborating, Ian.

Ian Grant said:

OK, very good details in the shadows and no blocking up of highlight details. Overall good tone separation, (mid tones as well).

Being "clean" working unlike ID-11/D76 which because of it;s slight solvent physical development action helps the shadows.

I can get similar tonality from ID-11 but at the expense of grain and without the same edge sharpness, it's a balance.

Comparing Rodinal to Pyrrocat HD, the final images are fairly similar but with a touch better edge sharpness, and negatives are remarkably easy to print.

It's all very subjective.

Ian

Click to expand...

When you say 'excellent tonality' - that can mean a million things and is a largely subjective statement. What exactly is excellent? How are shadows, mid-tones, and highlights rendered in relation to each other, and how are they compared to other developers? How are they excellent?

Click to expand...

I understand your questions. They are the same questions I had before I started using it. I wanted to know what the difference was. "It has unique tonality" everyone says. They are right. Why does it have unique tonality? Why does it look different? I dunno. It definitely looks different. I'm not sure how the contrast curve changes, or if Rodinal can somehow change the spectral sensitivity of the film, or if this subjective "tonality" change is all from the different grain structure itself, or what. But it looks different. It looks good. It looks "vivid" or "clear". It's not out of the realm of possibility that it could have an identical contrast curve, etc to another film and still look 'different'. As anyone who works with audio knows, just because you can't measure a difference doesn't mean you can't perceive a difference. Photography is basically an illusion as it is; most of the "Look" comes from our brain to start with, so maybe it's not so crazy to attribute the difference in look to pure psychology. For me, the proof of the picture is in the looking at it, and Rodinal makes my pictures look different compared to other developers. Try it, look at the pictures, and see if you like the difference.

Thomas,

I use Rodinal because... =)

I wanted to standardize on one developer. I had used D76, Rodinal and Pyrocat HD. I felt the Rodinal and Pyrocat HD negs made prints that I liked the best. I could not tell a difference between prints made using those two developers and I liked the ease of measuring out Rodinal and buying it in a single solution. I also liked the idea of having a non stained negative for scanning.

I found using Rodinal at high dilutions with limited agitation allowed me to give plenty of exposure and still keep highlights in check.


I keep everything the same, Time/Temp/Agitation and simply use dilution to adjust contrast. It's very simple and repeatable for me. Using only one variable allows for quick learning!

Rodinal appears to yield very sharp negatives and gives a similar look with my two films, TMY2 and FP4+.

Also, I think using the oldest commercial developer is neat and I like the orange box, seriously. However, those are bonuses of course and would not make the decision for me...

Shawn

I know that it's difficult to describe those differences. The human body is really good at telling differences with its senses, but it's terrible at telling how much.

I like your analogy to audio as well.

Normally I'm not interested in quantifying things. I get enough of that at work, where every move I make is quantified in dollars for productivity and justifying my existence.
So with my vocation, or passion, that is photography I would rather just get away from that.

I used to use Edwal 12 as a developer also, and I will bring that back into my arsenal, because it really excels in flat lighting. It makes a distinctive S-curve out of most films, and therefore gives contrast that looks fantastic in a print. Scientists proclaim a straight line curve, but since we're artists we don't care so much. Those negs print with such ease - if you get it right there is very little dodging and burning required.
Then I'll use Xtol for everything else, according to my previous explanation.

Then there's pinhole photography, and this is where I thought Rodinal might fit. I'll get off my a$$ and do it myself soon enough, but it's interesting to hear solid evidence of how it affects print quality before we invest the time in actually using it. But that has been a very hard thing to understand - it seems I can't get a straight answer to the question of how using Rodinal actually affects the outcome of a print, compared to something processed in ID-11/D76 or HC-110.
My other candidate is HC-110 or Ilfotec HC.

- Thomas

BetterSense said:

I dunno. It definitely looks different. How? I dunno. It does though. I'm not sure how the contrast curve changes, or if Rodinal can somehow change the spectral sensitivity of the film, or if this subjective "tonality" change is all from the different grain structure itself, or what. But it looks different. It looks good. It looks "vivid" or "clear". It's not out of the realm of possibility that it could have an identical contrast curve, etc to another film and still look 'different'. As anyone who works with audio knows, just because you can't measure a difference doesn't mean you can't perceive a difference. For me, the proof of the picture is in the looking at it, and Rodinal makes my pictures look different compared to other developers.

Click to expand...

Thomas Bertilsson said:

I'm sorry, Q.G., but I think that is a bit of a vague answer.

Click to expand...

Don't be. That was the point of the answer.
Rodinal is many things to many people.

Q.G. said:

Don't be. That was the point of the answer.
Rodinal is many things to many people.

Click to expand...

I'm still interested in what those 'things' are - and particularly in terms of print quality.

Thanks, Shawn!

What difference did you see in the prints you made with D76 negs versus Rodinal/Pyrocat? How did you interpret them to like them better?

Thanks for helping out,

- Thomas

Shawn Dougherty said:

Thomas,

I use Rodinal because... =)

I wanted to standardize on one developer. I had used D76, Rodinal and Pyrocat HD. I felt the Rodinal and Pyrocat HD negs made prints that I liked the best. I could not tell a difference between prints made using those two developers and I liked the ease of measuring out Rodinal and buying it in a single solution. I also liked the idea of having a non stained negative for scanning.

I found using Rodinal at high dilutions with limited agitation allowed me to give plenty of exposure and still keep highlights in check.


I keep everything the same, Time/Temp/Agitation and simply use dilution to adjust contrast. It's very simple and repeatable for me. Using only one variable allows for quick learning!

Rodinal appears to yield very sharp negatives and gives a similar look with my two films, TMY2 and FP4+.

Also, I think using the oldest commercial developer is neat and I like the orange box, seriously. However, those are bonuses of course and would not make the decision for me...

Shawn

Click to expand...

Thomas Bertilsson said:

I'm still interested in what those 'things' are - and particularly in terms of print quality.

Click to expand...

Of course you are.

Which particular use of Rodinal would you want to hear about?

Myself, i would like to hear how Ian treats T-Max in Rodinal.
So i have a starting point, and don't have to try all of the many possibilities myself.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Thanks, Shawn!

What difference did you see in the prints you made with D76 negs versus Rodinal/Pyrocat? How did you interpret them to like them better?

Thanks for helping out,

- Thomas

Click to expand...

I thought they looked sharper and that the highlights had more separation. I didn't like mixing up the D76 and having to use it in a given time period, either. BTW, I was using D76 at 1:1. That was a few years ago.... I think the most important thing was that I stuck with one developer and have been "learning it" ever since.

Shawn

Any use, really. All I want to know is - how did it improve the prints enough for anyone to choose Rodinal over other developers?

I just want some clear cut observations that can be considered an objective answer to my question of - how did it improve the prints?

It's pretty simple, and a judgment anybody choosing a developer should ask themselves. That's what matters in the end, isn't it? The print.

Two print scans attached. Teacher is in very high contrast lighting. Baby squirrel in low contrast lighting. One Xtol, the other Edwal 12. Processed and both printed at Grade 2 filtration to similar contrast. (Sorry for the scan quality on the squirrel).
That's how those two developers compliment each other in practical terms.

I'm just wondering how Rodinal would fit in, that's all.

Q.G. said:

Of course you are.

Which particular use of Rodinal would you want to hear about?

Myself, i would like to hear how Ian treats T-Max in Rodinal.
So i have a starting point, and don't have to try all of the many possibilities myself.

Click to expand...

Perfect. Thanks, Shawn! That is extremely helpful.

Shawn Dougherty said:

I thought they looked sharper and that the highlights had more separation. I didn't like mixing up the D76 and having to use it in a given time period, either. BTW, I was using D76 at 1:1. That was a few years ago.... I think the most important thing was that I stuck with one developer and have been "learning it" ever since.

Shawn

Click to expand...