What's the status of Rodinal?

[Hans Borjes]

Now I also have the direct telephone extension to Mrs. Schuhmacher (+4921315236169), but still wasn't told a dealer where I can order single bottles :-(

 

[Ed Sukach]

I am about to start a crusade against some of the wide-spread, locked-in-stone ... and wildly irrational myths, based on half truths, in photography... "The most information is transmitted to the film at the largest aperture" ... "Because of the `Callier Effect', a condenser based enlarger system is superior".... "Slow speed light means poor images..."

I submit that NO developer has the capacity to, or effect of "reducing" - OR "increasing" the actual grain in film. The grain is established in the film manufacturing process and is immutable.

What IS possible is for different developers to "smear" the grain structure, so that it APPEARS to be less well defined... less noticeable. Rodinal does NOT do this... it works "cleanly" and the individual grains will, for the most part, be as they are in the emulsion.

I will suggest that those who take an inherently "large grained" fast film and try to "cheat" by using a "fine grain developer" learn rapidly that there is NO free lunch. Gaining the appearance of fine grain is done at the expense of other desirable characteristics ... "acutance" - sharpness being one. As one diffuses the grain boundaries, the edge definition suffers as well.

From my experience (note 1) it is best to use a fine-grain film if you want fine grain.

If you want speed, be prepared to accept the appearance of some grain structure.

To me that is THE "Rosetta Stone Secret" that will enable one to produce the technically best possible images.

Note 1 ... Of COURSE everyone is allowed to do whatever they want to do. I do not, nor do I want to, have the power or desire to dominate anyone. I simply do not adhere to the "ANY grain is a MORTAL SIN philosophy. There are other things in life - and photography - that are far more important.

 

[argus]

I use Rodinal myself, but only for LF in drums: Continuous agitation in Rodinal 1:25.

Ole, you must be joking or do you love graininess?
I guess it's not a big issue in contact prints anyway...

G

 

[srs5694]

I submit that NO developer has the capacity to, or effect of "reducing" - OR "increasing" the actual grain in film. The grain is established in the film manufacturing process and is immutable.

What IS possible is for different developers to "smear" the grain structure, so that it APPEARS to be less well defined... less noticeable. Rodinal does NOT do this... it works "cleanly" and the individual grains will, for the most part, be as they are in the emulsion.

I'm not sure this is entirely correct. I say this because of a rather odd experience, which I've verified on two rolls of film: Svema FN64 developed in XTOL 1+1 produces monstrous grain compared to the same film developed in Rodinal 1+25 or 1+50. Here are a couple of 600x600 crops from 2700 dpi scans to demonstrate:

http://www.rodsbooks.com/svema-rodinal.jpg
http://www.rodsbooks.com/svema-xtol.jpg

The Rodinal scan was from a roll developed at 1+50 dilution. Ordinarily, of course, XTOL is known as a "fine-grained" developer -- or as you say, it "smears" the grain, or as many others say, the high sulfite content dissolves some of the grain. Something about XTOL, though, just doesn't get along with something about Svema FN64. I don't claim to know what's happening in that combination, but the effect is awful, and it seems to affect the grain in more than the usual way. Not only is the grain huge, but development isn't particularly even -- a fact that doesn't come across in my scan.

 

[Gerald Koch]

I submit that NO developer has the capacity to, or effect of "reducing" - OR "increasing" the actual grain in film. The grain is established in the film manufacturing process and is immutable.

This is not true. Several texts on photographic chemistry contain photomicrographs of the grain structure produced by various developers. For example, the grain produced by developers containing phenylenediamine is particularly fine, albeit it at the expense of film speed.

Kodak states that Xtol does produce measureably finer grain without loss of film speed or acutance than other developers.

 

[Gerald Koch]

I'm not sure this is entirely correct. I say this because of a rather odd experience, which I've verified on two rolls of film: Svema FN64 developed in XTOL 1+1 produces monstrous grain compared to the same film developed in Rodinal 1+25 or 1+50. Here are a couple of 600x600 crops from 2700 dpi scans to demonstrate.

This is a common misconception. What is commonly thought of as grain in a print is not the grain in the negative but an image caused by the clear areas between the grains. In order to see the actual silver grains you must look at the negative directly with a microscope.

 

[ZorkiKat]

Whats "Bromide Drag?

"Bromide drag" is the retardation of development caused by the relatively increased concentration of bromides released as exposed silver halides develop. Usually local, and in well-exposed areas where development activity is the greatest. Agitation prevents this from happening because the released bromides get spread into the solution and fresh/unused developing agent is circulated.

Jay

 

[Ed Sukach]

...This is not true. Several texts on photographic chemistry contain photomicrographs of the grain structure produced by various developers. For example, the grain produced by developers containing phenylenediamine is particularly fine, albeit it at the expense of film speed.

Careful, here ... grain STUCTURE is not the same as grain size. To produce a finer grain any agent would have to fracture the existing individual grains into smaller sizes. I'm not sure that would be possible - comments from anyone more knowledgable ..?? ... But I would imagine that the affected grain, after exposure, and fracturing ... would be ... uh ... what would it be like?

Kodak states that Xtol does produce measureably finer grain without loss of film speed or acutance than other developers.

I won't ague this. I am wondering about the source from within Kodak, though. Is this included in a Technical Data Sheet, from Engineering - or from the "Sales" group? I would be grateful (I can always learn something new!!) if you could cite a source or provide a link to the information.

BTW ... I guess it doesn't do that with *every* film.

 

[Gerald Koch]

While the size of the grains are determined during the manufacture of the emulsion, the choice of developer or developing agent determines how much of each grain is actually converted to metallic silver. This why a speed loss is experienced when using phenylenediamine. Far less of each grain is converted to silver as compared to other developing agents. This results in finer grain but at a price of less speed. The grains are not fractured, any undeveloped portions of the grain are dissolved in the fixer.

There was an article in Photo Techniques by the two inventers of Xtol which discussed how different it was from other developers.

 

[Ed Sukach]

... the choice of developer or developing agent determines how much of each grain is actually converted to metallic silver.

Even more interesting!!! This sounds a lot like the idea that conversion occurs at a "molecular" level ... and only a fraction of the individual grain will be left after fixing. Questions ... If only "some" of the metallic silver is left, doesn't density lessen significanlty? I've always believed that the entire grain is converted from the action of light ... does XTol .. or any other developer "eat away" the grain in some fashion?

There was an article in Photo Techniques by the two inventers of Xtol which discussed how different it was from other developers.

I would dearly LOVE to read that article ... can you, or anyone else here, lead me to it?

The grains are not fractured, any undeveloped portions of the grain are dissolved in the fixer.

Forgive me for the less than efficient quoting ... do I read this correctly ... " XTol only reacts with part of the individual grain?

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Even more interesting!!! This sounds a lot like the idea that conversion occurs at a "molecular" level ... and only a fraction of the individual grain will be left after fixing. Questions ... If only "some" of the metallic silver is left, doesn't density lessen significanlty? I've always believed that the entire grain is converted from the action of light ... does XTol .. or any other developer "eat away" the grain in some fashion?

Uh, yes -- development occurs at a molecular level. There are all sorts of chemical processes going on during film development - reagent concentration effects, pH effects, reaction rates, diffusion effects, suppresion effects from development byproducts - just to list a few. All ar the molecular level.

It takes time to reduce the silver contained in any grain of silver halide into metallic silver. If you stop the development process before the developer has convered all the silver, then you will be left with some metallic silver and some silver halide from the original halide crystal.

If all of each grain was reduced everytime you made an exposure, then you would not be able to control contrast with development time, as every exposed grain would be reduced completely to metallic silver.

Keep in mind, that I'm not saying that all of the halide crystal can not be completely reduced. It can given sufficient development time. I'm just saying that it is not the simply on/off, yes/no, undeveloped/developed situation that you seem to be thinking it is...

I would dearly LOVE to read that article ... can you, or anyone else here, lead me to it?

www.phototechmag.com Look for the article on the development of XTOL. I don't know if they have it online, you may have to order a back issue.

Forgive me for the less than efficient quoting ... do I read this correctly ... " XTol only reacts with part of the individual grain?

Every developer only reacts with part of the individual grain. How much of the grain gets converted depends on all the factors I mentioned above and many more.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Very well. Then the final image will be composed of smaller individual grains spaced at a greater distance. I would prefer smaller grains at a higher number of grains per unit area. If each grain is only partially developed and the remainder washed away, what is necessary to mainitain a proper density?

There may very well be ways to justify the use of so-called fine grain developers, but I still maintain that the best results, if one is seeking "fine grain", will be produced with fine-grain film.

 

[Nathan Smith]

It appears that A&O has simply taken over the manufacture of Rodinal (and some other Agfa products presumably) to include the name, factory, etc., is that true?

The Integra site announces that "AgfaPhoto Chemicals Are Back!" ... no mention of A&O, which implies that A&O must be licensing the name as well (?)

If all this is true, then it sounds as if they'd planned a rather seamless handing-over of the production - except that in the panic that ensued all of the existing stocks got bought off the shelves.

Nathan

 

[Gerald Koch]

A&O bought the chemical rights from Agfa Photo with the intent of supplying chemicals for color processing labs. These labs still generate profit in Europe. There was no initial thought of supplying B&W chemicals. It was only when it became apparant that a market still existed that they decided to supply such items as Rodinal. If we wish for this to continue then analog enthusiasts need to keep it profitable for A&O.

 

[Nathan Smith]

Unfortunately A&O might not see a real quick return on investment - a lot of people have several lifetimes worth of the stuff after the recent buying frenzy (hopefully they didn't buy it all on ePay for the glorious prices it was going for there for a spell)

Nathan