Xtol Vs Rodinal for Film Developing

[guangong]

Rodinal is my primary developer for bw still,photography. When Agfa announced discontinuance I bought a stash. One nice thing about Rodinal...ma one shot developer...makes life simple.

 

[MattKing]

I am going to suggest that you do a test with a couple of rolls - once you have your new developing tank and reels .
Rodinal has its strengths, and it stores well.
But X-Tol is a much better general purpose developer.
So it is a good idea to have both.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Rodinal has its strengths, and it stores well.
But X-Tol is a much better general purpose developer.
So it is a good idea to have both.

This should go on the wall.

Now that I've tried it, replenished Xtol or a work-alike will be in my darkroom forever, but next weekend's chemistry mixing is to make up half a liter of Parodinal concentrate. There are some times when Xtol stock isn't what I want...

 

[pentaxuser]

For what is worth my history on developers is: ID11, Rodinal, Ilfosol, DDX and Xtol. The latter being my sole developer for about 10 years. My darkroom printing has very largely been 5x7 prints with the very occasional 8x10 and I cannot recall prints from Rodinal developed film being that much sharper than those from any of the other films developed from the other developers

I suspect that if Xtol had been given to me from the start, I may never have used any of the others but all were OK. Most of not all my "crap" prints have been the result of poorly exposed negatives or poorly executed prints in the darkroom and none down to the special qualities of the developer.

I'll leave the quest for the holy grail to Indiana Jones and Dan Brown


pentaxuser

 

[John Wiegerink]

I pretty much use just three developers now. They are, in order of usage, Xtol-R, Pyrocat-HDC and Rodinal. The biggest advantage of Xtol-R for me is the fact that I have no problem using a sheet film tank to develop my sheet film now. Cost and developer down the drain are a thing of the past now. Also, the results are very consistent. If I have a scene where I need to retain detail in very bright highlights I'll use Pyrocat in my SP-445 tank, but that is rare since Xtol-R with reduced development works very well most of the time. I only use Rodinal when I want that "snappy" look and I'm not making huge enlargements. I like Rodinal for male portraits when the subject has facial hair or stubble. Once I got the hang of using replenished developers I would never go back to one-shot. Oh, and I have 3+ years on my last batch of Xtol-R. I guess that's another advantage for me, but not as big as the ability to use a large tank for 4X5 without waste. You don't have to agree with me or my thoughts on the subject, but it's something I'll follow from now on. JohnW

 

[Athiril]

Athiril, You make it sound like the only thing Rodinal does is make the grain larger/courser. Surely it has other benefits as well. Or why would people use it over Xtol? I understand Rodinal makes the grain sharper, but compared to Xtol, is there any difference in sharpness? Especially since Xtol has high sharpness too? Does Rodinal bring out the tones more? Or anything else?

I was interested in this difference, and for sharpness Rodinal stand was the worst (the addition of potassium iodide removed this difference and made it as sharp as Rodinal 1+25 and Xtol both with potassium iodide), Rodinal 1+25 and Xtol were identical in sharpness for me, checked it on line charts, checking on a Flextight 949 (same as the X5). You may get different tonal curves, thats not something I checked, but may be the most important for image look, but I think they will be quite similar as most developers, and all look similar to D76, T-Max 100 in T-Max developer can have an upswept curve, and probably in HC110 too I think, theres, I spent more time using colour in medium format for stuff I wanted to photograph, and not much B&W, though I gave it up and use digital solely now, though I think I may want to use 35mm B&W now for some things. And yeah Rodinal has the convenience, cost and shelf life advantage.

For grain I found Rollei 80s to be similar in grain in full strength Xtol vs Rodinal 1+25, only a slight difference, not a notable difference vs every other film.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I was interested in this difference, and for sharpness Rodinal stand was the worst (the addition of potassium iodide removed this difference and made it as sharp as Rodinal 1+25 and Xtol both with potassium iodide), Rodinal 1+25 and Xtol were identical in sharpness for me, checked it on line charts, checking on a Flextight 949 (same as the X5). You may get different tonal curves, thats not something I checked, but may be the most important for image look, but I think they will be quite similar as most developers, and all look similar to D76, T-Max 100 in T-Max developer can have an upswept curve, and probably in HC110 too I think, theres, I spent more time using colour in medium format for stuff I wanted to photograph, and not much B&W, though I gave it up and use digital solely now, though I think I may want to use 35mm B&W now for some things. And yeah Rodinal has the convenience, cost and shelf life advantage.

For grain I found Rollei 80s to be similar in grain in full strength Xtol vs Rodinal 1+25, only a slight difference, not a notable difference vs every other film.

Yes, as the box speed of the film gets lower the difference in the two developers narrows. The big difference is in films like Foma 400, HP5+, Ultrafine-X where grain is bigger to begin with. With those films and Rodinal less solvency of grain the film grain will show more in the final product. I'm not against grain showing in my prints with certain subjects, but I was raised (Photography 101 class) to try and suppress grain as much as possible and still have your print not turn to mush. That's a habit that I just can't seem to break. JohnW

 

[Paul Howell]

In my way of thinking one size developer does not fit all. There are many factors that come into play. The shot, how the photographer visualizes the shot, what film and developer combo best meets his/her visualization. Out of necessity most commercial labs pick one developer. Extol is very good choice for a commercial lab nice balance of grain, speed, tone, low toxicity, and it's replenishable. For the home darkroom, no need to be so restricted, at the same time how many rolls do you shoot a month? I shoot 3 to 4 short rolls of 35mm a week, in the winter when the temperatures drop in the desert add 1 to 3 rolls of 120 and 6 to 8 sheets of 4X5 a month, I currently have D76, (general purpose) Rodinal (acuity), a small bottle of Studental, (great tones and grain), and MCM 100 (tight grain, semi compensation.) . I may replace D76 with HC110 or the Iflord version just to free up some space un my under the skin cabinet, waiting to see what the verdict is on the Kodaks new HC 110 formula.

As your current lab is using Extol if you have room for 5 lt mix stick with Extol then add Rondinal. Over time you figure out what you like.

Is you lab wet printing your negatives or are scanning?

 

[Athiril]

Yes, as the box speed of the film gets lower the difference in the two developers narrows. The big difference is in films like Foma 400, HP5+, Ultrafine-X where grain is bigger to begin with. With those films and Rodinal less solvency of grain the film grain will show more in the final product. I'm not against grain showing in my prints with certain subjects, but I was raised (Photography 101 class) to try and suppress grain as much as possible and still have your print not turn to mush. That's a habit that I just can't seem to break. JohnW

Rodinal still looks good to me, and I found little difference in Rollei 80s, as an exception. I still found a notable difference in T-Max 100. Xtol was as sharp as Rodinal in everything I tried. 'Mush' in this case would only occur with a soft image where grain would mask that somewhat.

 

[braxus]

The lab I use now uses Ilfotec DD. My old lab used Xtol. I used the old lab for many years. They scan all films and then print digitally. I believe they can do analog prints, but that is custom and expensive. And only in larger size prints.

 

[pentaxuser]

The lab I use now uses Ilfotec DD.

How do you like the prints from DD negs. If they look good then the try DDX the home user's equivalent. Not the cheapest but very good

pentaxuser

 

[braxus]

I dont really have any complaints with DD on the films I've had done. But Ive never had prints made from those negs and the scans were low rez. So I cannot say for sure. I had more rolls done in Xtol in the past. Xtol is a lot like D76, which is a developer I have used myself.

 

[Athiril]

I found some test samples that people might be interested in, based on T-Max 100, so you can see what is happening.

The grain itself becomes lower in contrast, so appears smoother. Not an issue on T-Max 100, but on rougher grain films, this might actually cause issues in shadows and blacks if you want your shadows to appear black rather than grey or smoky. If you try to set levels or print shadows that are black, you may find either the higher contrast grain makes it appear smoky, with sparse grain. It can also improve details somewhat too.

Fyi, in the last example, the modified Rodinal has had potassium thiocyanate (which is what makes it become fine grained) and potassium iodide added if I recall.

Obviously dont use T-Max if you want the appearance of grain in your images.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Rodinal has neither the edge sharpness, speed utilisation or fine grain that Xtol can deliver with modern (post 50's-70's) emulsions. It is however very long lasting, has very low fog & somewhat more visible/ coarser granularity. Pick the aesthetic you can/ want to live with.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I might use Rodinal when I want grain to be more obvious. Though then I could also just use a higher speed film with Xtol.

Very good!
I'd add: Xtol, even diluted 1+3, is solvent, so faster emulsions may offer bigger mushed grain than slower films, but that bigger grain is never sharp as with Rodinal.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Athiril, You make it sound like the only thing Rodinal does is make the grain larger/courser. Surely it has other benefits as well. Or why would people use it over Xtol? I understand Rodinal makes the grain sharper, but compared to Xtol, is there any difference in sharpness? Especially since Xtol has high sharpness too? Does Rodinal bring out the tones more? Or anything else?

Rodinal does three things: it doesn't dissolve grain, it makes middle tones a bit darker, and it makes film lose some speed... It has its place because it keeps well and because it's cheap... Terrible for pushing, great for films below ISO400 shot at half box speed... That's for 35mm film: for 120 and LF grain is no limit.

 

[braxus]

I'm starting to wonder if I really even need Rodinal now. Xtol seems to do everything I need. All Rodinal seems to do is define the grain more. I might pick up some HC110 though, as I use a lot of really old films. It would help with the fog.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The big deal with having more than one developer is for backup. If you're ready to develop, do a leader test, and find your developer has died suddenly (it happens!), you can mix up a tank of Rodinal in a couple minutes and get the job done. Even if you have a bag of Xtol powder on hand, you have to find the 5L pail, mix Part A until it's all dissolved, then mix part B until it's all dissolved, then divide up your stock solution into the small bottles -- before you're ready to process.

And sure, you can find your Rodinal has gone bad, too. Keep some instant coffee and laundry soda around, too...

 

[Bormental]

It's tempting to supplement my Xtol-R routine with some Rodinal, just to shake things up. I shoot Delta 100, Delta 400, HP5+ and all three Fomapan speeds. Which ones would be good to try with Rodinal? My Xtol results are perfectly satisfactory, I am looking for special effects here. Thanks!

 

[braxus]

I could snip off an amount to test sure. But hopefully it wont need it. I think I will use HC110 for my backup, since it too keeps well.

 

[M Carter]

Never used XTol, but I suspect it could become a favorite of mine.

But beyond all the super-close-up detailed tests of Rodinal... I fond it just has some sort of "personality" (I use it 1+50 which seems to reduce grain and give a bit more speed); I use it when shooting ruins or things where I want some "spookiness" or drama to come through; I use DD-X for everything else. Rodinal is a more "artsy/esoteric" developer for me, where DD-X is more "clean/reality".

I know you guys with your densitometers are rolling your eyes, but that feeling and distinction has served me very well.

To me, this is a "rodinal subject" - Rollei IR400, deep red (not IR) filter, it's about a 100 speed film in Rodinal -

 

[Lachlan Young]

I shoot Delta 100, Delta 400, HP5+ and all three Fomapan speeds. Which ones would be good to try with Rodinal?

All of them! You might want to check the last Agfa data sheet here (pg.7 for Rodinal) and the Foma catalogue here (pg.5 - R09 and Rodinal can be regarded as functionally equivalent enough for a starting point). Bear in mind both Agfa and Foma recommend times for a gamma of 0.65 (usually equals about a Contrast Index/ Average Gradient of 0.6) which some feel is on the long side - especially those who preferred condenser light sources for enlarging. The other warning about the Agfa (and Foma) speed recommendations is that they may be rather a stretch unless you are keying your exposure to the shadows (and even then).

 

[Bormental]

I'll start with Foma 400 in 35mm. Something tells me I'll get plenty of special effects right away

 

[Athiril]

Special effect? Hmm try Rodinal 1+50 at 35 degrees on Foma 400 then, Im sure it will be unique

 

[baachitraka]

I decided on these two developers for my foray back into developing my own films. I have never used Rodinal on any films I have done in the past, but this developer is always so recommended by many. Xtol I have lots of experience with at labs, but I haven't used it when I've developed myself either. I always used D76 in the past when I did my own rolls. That said Xtol and Rodinal will be in my cupboard.

When would one use one over the other when making a choice on developers? Does it really bring out qualities of certain films? I heard the tonality of Rodinal is very good, though I never had an issue there with Xtol on that. Rodinal has a harder grain. Larger grain. What else can you tell me on both of these? When would you chose either of these? Also what is the difference between 1:25 and 1:50 in Rodinal?

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...urve-of-a-rodinal-negative.55746/#post-813421

Depends on the subject and lightning conditions...