What's so special about Rodinal

[BetterSense]

Ok I was done with developers, but I keep hearing about how Rodinal increases sharpness, and is an "acutance" developer.

I use Diafine a lot for roll films for the speed boost without the "pushed" look. I don't expect perfect negatives out of my cameras when I'm guessing exposure anyway or relying on my XA2's programmed autoexposure. Diafine is forgiving, tends to give printable negatives, is really easy to use, and is extremely cheap.

Diafine just doesn't play well with all films and sometimes I want to control development or achieve a more 'normal' tonal scale, such as with sheet film. My 'normal' developer is D23, replenished. It lasts forever, works very well IMO (quite D76ish really) and is very cheap because its replenished. I've tried other developers and frankly I think the differences are negligible between say xtol or d76 or hc110 or whatever. I could take or leave any of them.

The only developers that sound like they might have a separate niche are the staining developers, and I'm not interested in them because they tend to be more toxic. And then Rodinal, which is a cheap and imminently convenient syrup-developer.

I'm just a sucker for sharpness, and people always say Rodinal is sharp. They also say it's grainy, but I don't care about grain...small formats are always grainy and large ones never are, so I don't worry about it. I've seen some supposed back-to-back scan comparisons between identically exposed negatives and the results favor Rodinal in a non-subtle way in sharpness. It really looks like unsharp mask has been applied, consistent with the "acutance" angle.

Do you really think rodinal is special in this or some other way?

 

[polyglot]

It's a non-solvent developer, unlike D-76. D-76 in high concentrations will dissolve your grain and give you better tonality in tradeoff for a tiny loss of detail. Rodinal won't - it will just give you the image, grain and all, with all possible detail. It can also have mild adjacency effects (like unsharp mask) at high dilutions; this will increase accutance and make images look sharper. Local exhaustion of developer in highlights adjacent to shadows will push the shadows down and vice-versa: that's how the adjacency happens. The effect is stronger the less you agitate, with stand development being the extreme.

Rodinal works beautifully with fine-grained films IMHO, e.g. Pan-F. HP5 135 in Rodinal is very very crunchy.

 

[gainer]

The Pyrocat series should not be any more toxic than D-76. Catechol has the same molecular formula as hydroquinone, but with one OH in a different place. If you were to substitute hydroquinone for catechol in Pyrocat, you would get a different stain color. Pyrogallol is a different story. Even so, Hutchings is more likely to die from old age than from his work with PMK IMHO.

Try Pyrocat MC some time just for fun.

 

[thisismyname09]

Recently I've been reading up on Rodinal, and I found an interesting combination: Rodinal and Xtol, for those who don't like the grainyness of rodinal but want something sharper than Xtol/d67/etc. The formula I found was 100mL stock Xtol, 5mL stock rodinal, and 400mL water, with development for a roll of Tri-X being about 9 minutes. I'm going to give it a try as soon as I get ahold of some rodinal.

Then again, if you don't mind the grain at all, just go with straight Rodinal.

 

[Ian Grant]

Patrick, Pyrocatechin gives off semi-toxic organic vapour (unlike Hydroquinone) which shouldn't be inhaled for too long, it's fine in the quantities used in a developer.

Rodinal gives very fine grain with APX100, Tmax100/200 and Ilford Delta 100, and similar films, as well as Pan F and the Adox/Efke 25/50/100. This is the reason it made such a strong come back as a developer in Europe in the mid 80's and 90's, before also gaining favour in North America.

In one sense p-Aminophenol is unique as it's the only developing agent that's stable in a single solution, highly concentrated, highly alkaline developer.

It's the combination of fine grain and high acutance that people like, but Sandy King's Pyrocat HD is another excellent developer with similar attributes nad gives better overall control of tonality and in particular the highlight.

Ian

 

[Harry Lime]

They also say it's grainy, but I don't care about grain...small formats are always grainy and large ones never are, so I don't worry about it.

I think that's an excessively broad statement. Obviously 135 is always going to be grainer than 120 etc., but something like Tri-X in Rodinal can look seriously grainy. I mean sandpaper grainy. Take a look at 'Workers' by Salgado.

I don't shoot a lot of slow speed film anymore. It's primarily Tri-X for me these days, but Rodinal delivers beautiful results with slow, fine grain films. Excellent tonality and razor sharp negs. It has a nice compensating effect if used as a stand developer. And it lasts seemingly forever.

 

[abeku]

Most of my films are developed in Rodinal. I use it routinely for the MF and LF. For the 135-films, I use both Rodinal and D-76 depending on what I want to achieve.
As mentioned earlier in the thread, the negatives come out very sharp with a great accutance. The grain is not a problem, since I'm always doing stand-develepment. Even the grain of Neopan 1600 comes out with pleasant look!
I've also tried stain developers, they are very fine too, but I found the negatives achieved with Rodinal just as good when handled in the darkroom.
Fwiw, some great Rodinal films are: Agfa APX, Fomapan 100, Fuji acros and Ilford delta 100 (all stand-developed).

 

[luxikon]

APX 100 (135) developed in Rodinal 1+50 at 16°C for 22 min rotation gives great negatives with no remarkable grain printed on 24x30 cm under my conditions.

 

[Brandon D.]

Very good mid-tone detail.

 

[Anon Ymous]

APX 100 (135) developed in Rodinal 1+50 at 16°C for 22 min rotation gives great negatives with no remarkable grain printed on 24x30 cm under my conditions.

APX100 (135), shot at 100, developed in Rodinal 1+50 at 20°C for 13', small tank. I can't print 30x45cm, I don't have the trays, space etc, but I've printed parts of the projected image with smaller papers. I included parts with uniform areas* and I can say that they have obvious grain when looking closely. Viewing the image from 60cm, the grain is smooth. Sharpness on the other hand is remarkable. You can see the fine details easily.

I've also developed Tri-X in D76 1+1 and Rodinal. I can't say that I've done "scientific" tests to compare these combinations; that would require developing to the same density etc, but I can say that D76 1+1 gives somewhat finer grain, at the expense of sharpness. When I say "somewhat finer grain" I mean that, don't expect miracles.

So, if you don't mind grain, Rodinal is an excellent developer.

* ...where grain becomes more obvious

 

[dancqu]

p
In one sense p-Aminophenol is unique as it's the only
developing agent that's stable in a single solution, highly
concentrated, highly alkaline developer.

It's the combination of fine grain and high acutance
that people like, Ian

Highly alkaline. That accounts for it producing larger than
usual grain with fast films. Expect similar results of other
high ph developers such as Beutler's and FX-1; two
carbonated developers. Dan

 

[AlanC]

A lot depends on how you use these developers.

D76 at 1 + 3 is just as sharp as rodinal, and far less grainy.

Pyrocat HD is as sharp, and fine grained at 1+1+100, but at 2+2+100 is almost as grainy as rodinal.

Rodinal semi-stand at 1+50 gives more shadow detail than Pyrocat HD, and controls the highlights just as well.

Alan Clark

 

[Ian Grant]

A major difference between Rodinal & Pyrocat HD can be seen when used with films like HP5 or the old Fortepan 400. The HP5/Pyrocat combination is superb quite different to HP5 and Rodinal. With slower films the differences are more subtle, both are very capable developers in the right hands.

Ian

 

[luxikon]

@ Anon Ymos

Developing film in Rodinal at lower temperatures (eg 16°C) reduces grain. That's the common experience of some members of the German APHOG forum.

 

[Ian Grant]

That shouldn't be the case, I process at higher temperatures in the Summer as ambient indoor temperatures/water etc tend to be 25-26°C so I process at that temperature, and in the winter I process at 20°C. No difference whatsoever in grain size, but I'm very careful to ensure every step including washing is within +/- 1°

However I suspect that those who think they are getting finer grain at 16°C are really only achieving it because there's less chance of micro-reticulation, which is caused by sudden changes in processing temperatures and sloppy technique. Micro-reticulation isn't like classic reticulation where the gelatin distorts & crazes, instead it causes grain clumping as the gelatin expands & shrinks.

The higher the temperature the more the gelatin swells so the more careful you need to be with temperature differentials. So it's more technique than temperature that's important.

Testing temperatures last week I found it was easy to keep the whole process sequence including washing within +/- 0.2°C while processing at 26°C. In fact it was effortless as that was the ambient & water supply temperature .

Ian

 

[Anon Ymous]

@ Anon Ymos

Developing film in Rodinal at lower temperatures (eg 16°C) reduces grain. That's the common experience of some members of the German APHOG forum.

That's an interesting observation, although such temperatures would be rather impractical down here in the summer. On the other hand, I'd like to know how that comparison was made. Do they develop their film to the same contrast/density as when developing at 20°C?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

As a former Rodinal user I can only say - try it and make a large print. You won't be looking at the grain unless you're a 'the glass is half empty' kind of guy.

If you get processing right with Rodinal you will get beautiful tonality and sharpness. Grain vanishes as you move away from the print to view at a distance. Tonality and sharpness does not.

 

[luxikon]

@ Anon Ymos

Yes, I've tested my film speed (80 ASA) (density) and developing time (contrast) for my printing conditions at this temperature of course.

 

[George Collier]

Thomas - why "former" user? I seem to remember some pretty enthusiastic posts from you on Rodinal in the past year or so?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

George - one reason only. Xtol replenished. I've changed how I shoot somewhat, and I am a very strong believer in using materials that are available around the corner. Rodinal has to be mail ordered now, while I can purchase Xtol in the photo store down the road.

So I use Xtol for everything and alter agitation to get the results I want. I shoot Tmax 400 as my only film when I can afford it, the rest of the time Arista EDU 100 (or what's been generously given to me by others).
I find that I get every result that I want from replenished Xtol, and I process enough film to keep the batch in good strong condition. I simply don't have a need for Rodinal, as lovely as it is. I stopped chasing magic bullets and am focusing on technique rather than materials.

 

[Mike1234]

I stopped chasing magic bullets and am focusing on technique rather than materials.

Ahh... but choice of materials IS part of technique.

 

[nworth]

Rodinal is not special, but it has some qualities that people like. It is a very old developer, and it has a distinguished track record, even with modern films. One of Rodinal's most important characteristics is the long shelf life of the concentrate, especially in full, well sealed containers. The liquid concentrate will last for many years in a sealed container, and for a quite a long time in an opened container. Another nice thing about Rodinal is that it is a liquid that is diluted (typically 1:50 or 1:100) for use. The high dilutions make it quite economical. Being as old as it is, it was not designed as an acutance developer, but it has all the characteristics of one. It produces excellent sharpness, but it does not exaggerate the edge effects. Most people like the look of films processed in this developer. It is not particularly grainy, but the grain is very sharp and distinct. It also produces beautiful gradations with most films. Incidentally, it can be used sucessfully with just about any film, which is a plus.

 

[Jehu]

When I first tried Rodnal last year, I did a quick comparison with HC-110:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/17555839@N03/3441235379/

This shot is less than a centimeter wide on the negative. I was so impressed by it that, for a while, I used Rodinal for everything. After developing several rolls of Delta 400 in Rodinal I figured out that it's great for ISO 100 but it's really not good for ISO 400. The grain was terrible. Now I use HC-110 for the Delta 400 / Tmax 400.

I hope that helps.

 

[Anscojohn]

Do you really think rodinal is special in this or some other way?[/QUOTE]

********
I have used Rodinal, intermittently, since the 1960s. In the early 1970s, I used it for 35mm and 6x7 copy negs of vintage photographs. When Rodinal disappeared from the American market--ca. 1976 I began using FG-7. My goal was contrast control plus "sharpness."
When Rodinal came back to the American market, made in the USA for a time, I felt it required more solution to get the same results I had experienced hitherto.
I shall add that with both Rodinal and with FG-7, shooting on KB-14 in 35mm, I used sulfited working solution.
In my experience, Rodinal worked fine for my uses. But FG-7 worked just as well.
At this juncture, it is MY OPINION, that Rodinal is not worth the effort. I cannot think of one Rodinal-negative print I actually showed to people. Oh, well, yes; one. Souped in early 1970s-Rodinal, 1:50, on outdated Panatomic-X. I made excuses because it was so grainy. I also admit that I probably overdeveloped it.

If I were giving Better Sense some advice; I would suggest using DK-25R replenisher the same way one would use Beutler's developer; rather than getting mixed up with Rodinal.

Oh, yes, if you wish to see what Rodinal can do in the hands of a skilled user, google Costa Manos's Boston series. He souped them in Rodinal; he also had to print on Nr. 4 paper most of the time.

 

[Bosaiya]

This shot is less than a centimeter wide on the negative. I was so impressed by it that, for a while, I used Rodinal for everything. After developing several rolls of Delta 400 in Rodinal I figured out that it's great for ISO 100 but it's really not good for ISO 400. The grain was terrible. Now I use HC-110 for the Delta 400 / Tmax 400.

I find it's outstanding with Neopan 400.