Which Rodinal?

Hello Folks, I'm thinking of developing some film in Rodinal. I went to the Freestyle site, and they have three Rodinals: Foma, Compard (Agfa?), and Adox. Any reason to suspect that one is preferable to the others?

Tnx,

-- Mark

Nope

(waits to be contradicted ...)

As I understood, at least ADOX and Compard (R09) are made according to the original Agfa formula and are practically the same. I myself have always used the "R09". ADOX recently acquired the right to use again the name Rodinal in US, but it's still called Adox Adonal here in Europe.

I've used all three depending on what I can find the cheapest. Can't tell a bit of difference in my results between them.

Thanks Folks!

The only reason to use Rodinal is to get grain like golf balls. If you like that look all of the ones on the market will give you the result you are looking for.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

And we're off!
Another episode of The Rodinal Wars starts ...

I'll just make myself comfortable :munch:

pdeeh said:

And we're off!
Another episode of The Rodinal Wars starts ...

I'll just make myself comfortable :munch:

Click to expand...

What episode?

With the SW soundtrack on the background!

Sent from my GT-S6500D using Tapatalk 2

David Allen said:

The only reason to use Rodinal is to get grain like golf balls. If you like that look all of the ones on the market will give you the result you are looking for.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Click to expand...

Rodinal is one of the best film developers available and if used correctly it will not give grain like golf balls.

Alright, I'll be the first...
Adox and Compard, Rodinal, R09, and Adonal, from what I know, are just rebadges of each other.
I've read (coz if you read it on the internet it must be true) that Foma Fomadon is a slight bit different, with slightly different times (that probably won't make a difference anyway).

and it begins :munch:

I kinda like grain, so I'll give it a try ...

And I'm certainly not interested in starting any wars ...

Mirko from Adox made a post here a few months back that explained why the Adox Rodinal (AKA Adonal) is closest to the last official version of Agfa Rodinal. I've used Adonal and Agfa Rodinal side by side and the results are exactly the same. As for people trotting out that old trope "grain like golf balls" it shows a lack of basic understanding of film developing. A developer alone is not going to make the grain bigger - how can that be? Some devs increase the apparent sharpness of the grain edge, such as Rodinal, but do not make the grain bigger. The only think I know of that makes grain bigger is over developing and that would apply to all devs.

Rodinal has a very long history, and has gone through a number of changes during that history. That history includes such disruptive events as one or more World Wars.

There is no current patent protection for any (most?) of the various versions.

Other manufacturers have historically made developers with strong similarities to Rodinal.

It is difficult to refer to any particular variant of Rodinal as "the" Rodinal. The various contenders each have a good claim to part of its legacy.

In times gone by (like the 1970s, when I last used it or printed from others' Rodinal developed negatives), Rodinal did accentuate the graininess of older films, especially in smaller formats. Most modern films are quite different now.

I like grainless enlargements but I'll never give up accutance for finer grain.

cliveh said:

Rodinal is one of the best film developers available and if used correctly it will not give grain like golf balls.

Click to expand...

i was told in one thread that it could yield grainless (tri x and hp5) 35mm negatives enlarged to 3 feet by 4 feet ...

i have always seen rather grainy film processed in rodinol ( no matter which one )
...

like with all things internet, test for oneself and .... YMMV

Over the past few months I've used Compard RO9, the last of a 9-year-old bottle of Agfa Rodinal, and a recently opened bottle of Adox Rodinal to develop Kodak and Ilford 120 film at 1:50. I've gotten 100% consistency with all three developers.

I like Rodinal for some subjects and always have some available, but personally, I find HC-110 more to my taste these days. Either keeps really well, so when my mood swings back to Rodinal, It comes back out of the cupboard..

I've been using Rodinal exclusively for about 9 months. I had previously used D-76, XTOL, and Ilfotec DD-X. Out of the for I definately prefer Rodinal I've mainly been using it with T-Max 100 and Tri-X. It seems to give fairly fine grain with Tri-X, and almost no discernable grain with T-Max 100 in 35mm.

David Allen said:

The only reason to use Rodinal is to get grain like golf balls. If you like that look all of the ones on the market will give you the result you are looking for.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Click to expand...

My primary reason for using Rodinal is the tonality it produces, not large grain.

MattKing said:

Rodinal has a very long history, and has gone through a number of changes during that history. That history includes such disruptive events as one or more World Wars.

Click to expand...

During WW1 Rodinal was unavailable in the US. This led a photographer by the name of Paul L Anderson to develop a substitute which used p-methylaminophenol hemisulfate (Metol, Elon,...) instead of p-aminophenol. He called his developer Kalogen and it was marketed for a few years after the war. His notebook and a sample advertisement are in the Library of Congress archives.

A magical developer just does not exist. I would challenge anyone when presented with a group of negatives produced by several (non-staining) developers to pick out those developed by Rodinal. This would be particularly true for the Rodinal-like developers mentioned by the OP. It simply cannot be done.

mfohl said:

And I'm certainly not interested in starting any wars ...

Click to expand...

It's been a long running war with lengthy periods of inactivity, but there's always the possibility of a skirmish breaking out as an unintended consequence of an innocent party's action

Michael W said:

Mirko from Adox made a post here a few months back that explained why the Adox Rodinal (AKA Adonal) is closest to the last official version of Agfa Rodinal. I've used Adonal and Agfa Rodinal side by side and the results are exactly the same. As for people trotting out that old trope "grain like golf balls" it shows a lack of basic understanding of film developing. A developer alone is not going to make the grain bigger - how can that be? Some devs increase the apparent sharpness of the grain edge, such as Rodinal, but do not make the grain bigger. The only think I know of that makes grain bigger is over developing and that would apply to all devs.

Click to expand...

Just read (there was a url link here which no longer exists) to answer all your questions, so you can close this thread before the "I-hate-love-Rodinal-discussion" starts all over again :munch::munch::munch::munch::munch::munch:

I'm not sure if Rodinal gives huge grain, but it does give the grain a pronounced sharpness and very hight edge acutance, at least in my experience. This produces a very up-front negative, and dazzling prints on glossy. I normally used it at 1:32, and I've not done any stand techniques. I like it at 1:64 with new Tri-X, too. Again, a very sharp negative with excellent graduation and edge acutance.

I used it with ASA 100-125 grain films in medium format and 127 (which I shot quite a bit of because I had several Yashica 44s), and again, a vibrant print. I liked it in 35mm too, it was really my "go to" developer for Plus-X, my favorite medium speed film, in all formats.

If I wanted a smoother tonal gradation and a more classic print, I used HP5 in HC110, 1:64 for 11 minutes, in all formats, including sub-miniature half-frame. All this is based on prior experience in my film days (which have just returned). I see no difference in today's Rodinal from the heydeys - at all. My current films look exactly like they used to.

With medium format, grain and 8x10 prints wasn't an issue, but the excellent acutance with this developer produced crisp and beautiful prints on Plus-X. That's why I used it with this film. So really, I used those two developers (HC110 and Rodinal) because they produced a different kind of print the way I used them, and used Rodinal with Plus-X and HC110 with HP5, and with Tri-X when I used it. I didn't care for Rodinal with HP5, and I didn't like HC110 with Plus-X. So I was a happy guy and had arrived at what worked for me.

That was then, and now is now. I'm still looking for a replacement for Plus-X in 35mm and 120 so I've only shot test rolls in my recent film renaissance and won't comment on Rodinal on the Efke type films I've shot in 4x4 and developed in Rodinal, because I haven't printed them, yet. But with the films like Delta 100 or 100TMax (which is my favorite of those I've tested so far), I prefer XTol to Rodinal.

Where is the high priest?