Xtol Vs Rodinal for Film Developing

[braxus]

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?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Here are a couple examples, same film stock, same camera:



.EDU Ultra (Fomapan) 400, Parodinal 1:50, Super Ikonta B (80mm f/2.9 Tessar).



.EDU Ultra (Fomapan) 400, Xtol Stock (replenished), Super Ikonta B (80mm f/2.9 Tessar).

 

[PhotoJim]

Experiment with it. I find that on small formats, it should only be used on very slow films. If you are shooting sheet film, you can process pretty much anything in it unless you are making monster enlargements.

While I don't use Rodinal much, one of its best attributes is its extremely long shelf life. An opened bottle can last for many, many years. So you don't need to use it often to justify having a bottle of it around.

 

[Pieter12]

My experience is Rodinal gives very well-defined grain, for some it makes prints look too grainy. I like it because it also makes prints look sharp and well-defined.

 

[Acticus]

Depends on the film. Rodinal and Tmax 400 is amazing. Rodinal and HP5, not so much.

 

[Pieter12]

Depends on the film. Rodinal and Tmax 400 is amazing. Rodinal and HP5, not so much.

To each his own. Medium format HP5+ at 160 in Rodinal is my go-to combination, probably 90% of what I shoot.

 

[mshchem]

I've used XTOL since it came out. If I was starting fresh, I would buy a bottle of that beautiful Adox made Rodinal, and a syringe and not fuss with mixing and storing solutions. There's a good reason why Rodinal has been around forever.

 

[JensH]

Hi,

try to see what you like.
Rodinal for preserving the film's grain structure,
Xtol for reduced graininess,
or go to PMK or other Pyro developers... great with PF4Plus btw.

Best
Jens

 

[Athiril]

Rodinal gives much rougher grain, and loses a little speed. Xtol gives finest grain, highest sharpness, and highest film speed all in one (at full strength or replenished, not diluted). Fyi: Rodinal 1+100 stand decreases sharpness contrary to what everyone else will tell you, at least it does on FP4+, my results dropped from around 55 lp/mm in both Rodinal 1+25 and Xtol to around 40 lp/mm. Also if you shoot FP4+ a lot, the addition of 5mg to 1 Litre of working developer of potassium iodide (measure 1g, dissolve in water, add water to make 1L, stir, measure out 5mL with a syringe or graduated measuring cylinder for 5mg etc) almost doubled the resolution I got off FP4+ (works in both Rodinal and Xtol).

Under normal developing conditions I dont think there is a practical difference between 1+25 and 1+50 in Rodinal apart from longer developing times. You can also get Xtol results out of Rodinal by adding potassium thiocyanate, but on some films the developing time drastically decreases.

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.

 

[braxus]

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?

 

[Pentode]

Both developers can give very different results based upon dilution so you'll probably have to play around a bit to find what you like. I haven't used Xtol in a long time but I seem to recall that using it 1:1 or straight/replenished gave me similar tonality to D-76 with marginally more sharpness and speed. Rodinal gives me much different tonality to D-76 (the difference is most notable in the mid tones) and more prominent grain. I haven't noticed a considerable difference in speed between D-76 1:1 and Rodinal 1+50. As others said, you'll probably want to experiment a bit.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Depends on the film. Rodinal and Tmax 400 is amazing. Rodinal and HP5, not so much.

I agree. Rodinal and HP5 didn't look as good as Xtol 1+1. Much better match.

 

[braxus]

Pentode- how would you describe the tonality differences between these two (or is it just mid tones) in what you got with your results? What do the mid tones look like compared to each other?

 

[Pentode]

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 think one of the reasons Rodinal is so popular is that it's so flexible. At 1+25 it's more solvent and higher contrast, at 1+50 it's getting into acutance territory with very sharp, pronounced grain and a bit of compensation and by the time you get to 1+100 it's a very compensating developer with much lower contrast. Xtol is flexible based upon dilution, too, but I don't think the effects are as pronounced. I think that Xtol is a little sharper than Rodinal in general. Rodinal tends to compress the mid tones a bit - at least in my experience.

 

[Pentode]

Pentode- how would you describe the tonality differences between these two (or is it just mid tones) in what you got with your results? What do the mid tones look like compared to each other?

I wish I had used Xtol more recently so I could be more articulate.... For me Rodinal seems to accentuate low and high key
tones while mid tones take a bit of a back seat - some people refer to it as the "soot and chalk" look. Xtol, as I remember it, gives much more even tonality. It's very smooth, straight across the board.

From a purely technical standpoint I believe that Xtol is a superior developer, offering better speed and sharpness, but superior is in the eye of the beholder. D-76 is my main developer but I find myself using Rodinal more and more lately because I really like it's tones with slow films. ....even if the specs suggest that Xtol is "better".

 

[braxus]

Compress the mid tones. Interesting. So would you say less tones in that description? Would Rodinal be a good choice for portraits for example? Soot and chalk is a good example. To me it sounds like it boosts contrast.

So if you really want that gritty look, use Rodinal?

 

[Pentode]

Compress the mid tones. Interesting. So would you say less tones in that description? Would Rodinal be a good choice for portraits for example?

Anything is a good choice for portraits, depending upon what you want your portraits to look like! In the 1990s I liked shooting portraits with Kodak Technical Pan.

 

[braxus]

Technical pan is no mid tones- all black and white. Unless you used their special developer for it. Very much like a charcoal painting. I take it that was what you were after? So I take it if I want to preserve mid tones, don't use Rodinal? Would you say it darkens the mid tones downwards?

 

[removed account4]

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?

Hi Braxus

I think so many people use Rodinal ( there have been IDK 4 or 5 or ? different versions over the years and RO9 seems to be one of the last ones released and according to Mirko it is sort of like ( or is ? ) the original formulation... a lot of people use it because there is sort of a cult that surrounds the use of that developer. People find a bottle that is 75 or 80 years old and it is still working. people do extreme dilutions with it and stand development with it so they can be part of the cult >>. as you can see. >>. https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/the-church-of-rodinal.6323/
I suppose that sort of developer has its uses, just like long scale low contrast vit c based developers like Xtol, and even mixing the 2 developers together like Les McLean recommend ... might be worth a try. I've Never had luck with Xtol in the years I spent ( wasted?) trying to get it to work for me.
best to try these things and see what you like for your shooting and processing style. horses for courses and all that. ...

 

[Colin Corneau]

Depends on the film. Rodinal and Tmax 400 is amazing. Rodinal and HP5, not so much.

This has been my experience too. But...the final and only real answer is try it out yourself. Some get great results in various combinations. There's just too many variables from person to person to make a definitive comparison.

 

[radiant]

5x7" Foma 100 @ 50, Rodinal 1+25 with 30sec agitation interval (DSLR'ed on light table)

I see mid tones

 

[braxus]

I see a bit of contrast boost in that shot. Lovely picture, though the white areas are blown out a bit.

 

[radiant]

I see a bit of contrast boost in that shot. Lovely picture, though the white areas are blown out a bit.

Hey thanks. And you are right, I had boosted it and too much.. Here it is with linear curve.

 

[braxus]

Certainly not as dramatic a shot as the first one. The white is still almost blown out- I wonder if that was the DSLR doing that? There is noticable grain for a 100 speed film at 5x7 size. I wouldn't have expected to see that in these pics.

 

[radiant]

Certainly not as dramatic a shot as the first one. The white is still almost blown out- I wonder if that was the DSLR doing that? There is noticable grain for a 100 speed film at 5x7 size. I wouldn't have expected to see that in these pics.

The negative was shot just to make a digital contact print so it might be that I have not exposed long enough when shooting with DSLR. I just do it handheld and approximate the exposure.

Nice that you noticed the grain The recipe is from another thread where question was how to achieve "normal" tone but visible grain. I wanted to try the same development recipe for sheet film. I think I can see the grain with plain eyes from the negative (or maybe I'm just biased). The recipe is just overexpose - overdevelop with more rapid agitation interval.

The highlights might be blown on camera or maybe those are just dense because of the development method..