Xtol vs Rodinal

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Replenishing XTOL? You get 4L of it fresh and you could mix it 1:3, if you want to have it for long time.
I have tried Rodinal with my regular films and some new to me. Results were kind of unpredictable.
With XTOL it is much more consistent at 1:1 mix and no crazy grain. XTOL is my second choice after HC-110, which is superior to all common developers I have tried so far.

Replenishing Xtol you end up using about 70-80ml of stock per film. So from a 5L kit you get about 70 rolls of film developed. It's great economy, and I much prefer the results from Xtol while replenished than I do from diluted stock. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[removedacct1]

I honestly don't know. Never used Acros with Rodinal. I have some Acros at the house now, and it's been really great with replenished Xtol (in the past) and currently stock D76, which is a beautiful combination.

Thank you Thomas. I think the thing to do is shoot a roll and process in D-76 and see if that modifies the characteristics as compared to the Acros + Rodinal combo. So - I have my tasks set for today

 

[Axle]

I've been using Rodinal with Fuji Acros 100 (120 roll format w/Hasselblad) and I am getting the impression that Rodinal isn't doing me any favors as far as smooth tonality goes. Is it just a characteristic of Acros that in areas of smooth gradient (blue sky, for example) it tends to show what I would call "clumpy" grain, or is that something I am inducing by the use of Rodinal? I've heard some of you talk about "chemical reticulation" when using Rodinal, and I wonder if this is what I'm seeing here.... If so, I will gladly stick with my old friend D-76 or perhaps give Xtol a try. What about one of the pyrocat developers used with some of these "classic formula" films? (I am a fan of HP5 and Pan-F as well)

There are two developers I'll use with Acros 100 Xtol and PMK Pyro (rating the film at ASA-50 in Pyro).

In Xtol @ ASA-100, Bronica SQ-Ai, 80mm


In PMK @ ASA-50, 4x5

 

[flavio81]

I've been using Rodinal with Fuji Acros 100 (120 roll format w/Hasselblad) and I am getting the impression that Rodinal isn't doing me any favors as far as smooth tonality goes.

For what it's worth, Acros has a curious spectral sensitivity; it has a "valley" on the green color. In other words it is less sensitive to green. Additionally to that, to me it appears that Acros is a bit higher contrast than usual, which can be also be read as "it's real speed is not ISO 100 but slower".

Perhaps trying a green or yellow filter could give better midtones! I have used Acros and while i love the film for its smooth grain and sharpness, the tonality is a bit harsh, and I always wanted to try it using a filter, but never got the opportunity.

 

[Ian Grant]

Tonality is the most important difference between the two developers.

"Tonality is the most important difference between the two developers."

Thomas Bertilsson's title in a reply.

I sort of disagree because with Rodinal it's better to use dilution to control contrast rather than just development time, when you do this there's no real differences between the two developer.

The finest grain 35mm negatives I've made with a 100/125 ISO film (and seen from other photographers) were with Agfa AP100 and later APX100 processed in Rodinal and with excellent tonality (a good long tonal range), I can get similar results with Kodak Tmax 100 @ 50 EI & Rodinal and have quite a few hundred.

But then I can get almost identical results with replenished Xtol.

Ian

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

"Tonality is the most important difference between the two developers."

Thomas Bertilsson's title in a reply.

I sort of disagree because with Rodinal it's better to use dilution to control contrast rather than just development time, when you do this there's no real differences between the two developer.

The finest grain 35mm negatives I've made with a 100/125 ISO film (and seen from other photographers) were with Agfa AP100 and later APX100 processed in Rodinal and with excellent tonality (a good long tonal range), I can get similar results with Kodak Tmax 100 @ 50 EI & Rodinal and have quite a few hundred.

But then I can get almost identical results with replenished Xtol.

Ian

Ian, you know I respect your opinion. But I don't agree that Rodinal and Xtol are the same. Sure you can take Rodinal and overexpose the film more to gain similar shadow detail as with Xtol, and yes you can slow down agitation to bend a bit of a shoulder with Rodinal. But you still run a higher risk of blocking up highlights with Rodinal due to its developing power.

What I see is greater effective film speed with Xtol, which affects how I shoot. I simply don't get anywhere near the shadow detail with Rodinal. I can't. I have to give at least half a stop more speed.

And I do see a fair bit of difference in graininess, especially with Tri-X, TMax 400, and Fomapan films. It's not huge, but it's definitely evident.

To me it's clear as night and day, but I don't know if maybe it has to do with water quality, or developing technique, or something that I'm not aware of.

 

[Ian Grant]

Thomas the main reason I used Rodinal and Xtol was like you state Xtol gives finer grain with faster films compared to Rodinal, back then the only fast film I used Twas max400.

I was introduced to Rodinal by the late Peter Goldfield who had spent time assisting Minor White, he was the Agfa distributor in the UK for a while privately importing their B&W films, papers & chemistry after Agfa pulled out of the \UK consumer market.

Peter swore by the Rodinal AP/APX100 (& AP/APX25) combination and also Rodinal & Tmax100 and his results backed up his dissertations. I'd recently (late 1980's) been doing some film/developer testing looking for improvements over FP4 in ID-11 or Adox Borax MQ (which I preferred) so it was logical to give Rodinal a try.

We all work differently with our own preferences but my findings in some ways echo yours, I didn't like the contrast build up with Rodinal at 1:25 for normal contrast situations and found my negatives lacked the shadow details I required at 1:50, so I tried using it at 3:100 and that gave me the results I wanted. I had been using Zone System tests to find my optimal combination of film speed and development time. Rodinal gave me box speed - 100EI with APX100 and 50EI with Tmax100 (which matched Kodak's recommended speed for good tonality)

APX100 wasn't always in stock at my dealer so I used Tmax100 as well, 35mm, 120 & 5x4 all processed in Rodinal usually at 3:100 for the same time, only difference was the effctive EIs, 50 for the Tmax 100, 100 for the APX100, the negatives were remarkably similar and would print on the same grade for similar exposure times.

I was still dong some commercial work usually shooting 120 Tmax400 processed in replenished Xtol and would sometimes also process my APX100 or Tmax100 in the Xtol as well, I had the same effective film speeds in Xtol as I did in Rodinal and no noticeable difference in grain or tonality.

It is the film/developer combination combined with fine tuning the craft that gets the best out of a film, I wouldn't use or suggest Rodinal for FP4, HP5, Tri-X, Tmax400 etc.

Ian

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That's cool, Ian. You found ways to work that worked for you.

In the past APX 100 and 25 was all I used, together with Rodinal. Then came 200 rolls of TMax 100 into my life, and I used that with Rodinal too. I totally agree that those two films in Rodinal were just super. I love printing those negatives.
With that said, I happily use that developer with the films you recommend against using, but not to rebel against your obvious intelligence, but rather because I just love the results so darned much.

I maintain that I think Rodinal is a developer that adds a little bit of texture to my photographs, while Xtol yields smoother shifts in tone. That's how it works for me, particularly with TMax 400 which is my most used emulsion. Xtol holds back highlights some, and is to me the perfect developer for when light hits the subject directly. Rodinal continues in a straight line unless we slow agitation to every 3 minutes or every 5 minutes (which is a very useful trick), while Xtol shoulders off more.

The shadow detail department - I don't know what to say, Ian, other than I get at least a half stop more shadow speed with Xtol than I do Rodinal. Especially at 1:1.

I think I will just agree to disagree here, if that's OK. I know what I see, but I also don't discount any of your findings, because you have lots more experience than I do, and I really do respect your knowledge and opinion. But I also know what I see with my own two eyes.

 

[gone]

You might want to try TD-16 from Photographers' Formulary Ralph. I got weary pf the PH rising in my D76 and went to that developer. Essentially the same tonality and grain you would get from D76 (I have to give it 10% to 15% more developing time) and the last batch lasted 5 months before I ran out. It was consistent all the way through.

 

[Ian Grant]

That's cool, Ian. You found ways to work that worked for you.

In the past APX 100 and 25 was all I used, together with Rodinal. Then came 200 rolls of TMax 100 into my life, and I used that with Rodinal too. I totally agree that those two films in Rodinal were just super. I love printing those negatives.
With that said, I happily use that developer with the films you recommend against using, but not to rebel against your obvious intelligence, but rather because I just love the results so darned much.

I maintain that I think Rodinal is a developer that adds a little bit of texture to my photographs, while Xtol yields smoother shifts in tone. That's how it works for me, particularly with TMax 400 which is my most used emulsion. Xtol holds back highlights some, and is to me the perfect developer for when light hits the subject directly. Rodinal continues in a straight line unless we slow agitation to every 3 minutes or every 5 minutes (which is a very useful trick), while Xtol shoulders off more.

The shadow detail department - I don't know what to say, Ian, other than I get at least a half stop more shadow speed with Xtol than I do Rodinal. Especially at 1:1.

I think I will just agree to disagree here, if that's OK. I know what I see, but I also don't discount any of your findings, because you have lots more experience than I do, and I really do respect your knowledge and opinion. But I also know what I see with my own two eyes.

Actually we are agreeing mostly, I altered my choice of dilution with Rodinal to 3:100 because I wanted improved shadow detail compared to 1:50. I think the point often overlooked is we are both saying that is that there are some films which are really suited to Rodinal and others that aren't particularly.

Ian

 

[Xmas]

That's cool, Ian. You found ways to work that worked for you.

In the past APX 100 and 25 was all I used, together with Rodinal. Then came 200 rolls of TMax 100 into my life, and I used that with Rodinal too. I totally agree that those two films in Rodinal were just super. I love printing those negatives.
With that said, I happily use that developer with the films you recommend against using, but not to rebel against your obvious intelligence, but rather because I just love the results so darned much.

I maintain that I think Rodinal is a developer that adds a little bit of texture to my photographs, while Xtol yields smoother shifts in tone. That's how it works for me, particularly with TMax 400 which is my most used emulsion. Xtol holds back highlights some, and is to me the perfect developer for when light hits the subject directly. Rodinal continues in a straight line unless we slow agitation to every 3 minutes or every 5 minutes (which is a very useful trick), while Xtol shoulders off more.

The shadow detail department - I don't know what to say, Ian, other than I get at least a half stop more shadow speed with Xtol than I do Rodinal. Especially at 1:1.

I think I will just agree to disagree here, if that's OK. I know what I see, but I also don't discount any of your findings, because you have lots more experience than I do, and I really do respect your knowledge and opinion. But I also know what I see with my own two eyes.

There might be 2/3 of a stop above fog for xtol for similar gamma but only the very careful workers going to see that, or those with step wedge.

Donno about grain signature cause I like grain - 16x20 blind tests on brick wall shots maybe detectable.

People pick developers cause they are in the shop.

Few scratch mix.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

well said!

 

[moltogordo]

I've been reading this thread with interest because I'm now right back into developing and priting in B&W. Thomas said "I maintain that I think Rodinal is a developer that adds a little bit of texture to my photographs, while Xtol yields smoother shifts in tone."

This is what I'm finding. But it seems to depend a lot on the films.

I am looking for a certain "look", and I KNOW I can get the "look" I want from certain combinations. So I don't use a "standard" film, but standard "combinations".

Here's what my "Renaissance" has led me to use:

TMax 100, Rodinal 1:50 - produces very detailed and fine grained half-frame negatives, which is where I use this combination. Beautiful tonality and prints. I shoot more half-frame than all other formats combined, and this combo is dynamite. With my Mamiya C330 and that medium format neg in tandem with the Pen FT, I could actually do without 35mm full frame and not really miss it. I always carry a Pen F around with me in my bag, loaded with XP2. But that's another kettle of fish. This TMax-100 and Rodinal combination actually looks VERY similar - just a bit more contrast. Makes wonderful 5x7 prints, my favorite size.

FP4, Xtol stock - my choice in any format for portraiture. Prints beautifully on textured paper.

HP5, HC110 at 1:63 - my choice for general purpose photography. For medium and large formats, I seldom use anything else. Reliable, incredibly forgiving, and pictorially smooth and detailed on prints, especially Ilford Galerie.

Tri-X and Rodinal at 1:50 - my choice for general purpose photography in 35mm full frame. A bit more "punch" than HP5 in HC110

My current flame, Fomapan 400, Rodinal 1:25, for high impact grainy images in half-frame format This same film is very smooth and luminous in stock XTol, looking a lot like Tri-X in Rodinal.

I'm currently experimenting with TMAX 400, which produces incredibly beautiful prints in Xtol, and might become my favorite combination of all.

I'm also shooting some Kentmere 400, but have not printed it yet.

The combinations above produce consistent results for me, and I know what they are going to look like. I could probably get the same variety by using one film/developer combination in various exposure and development time guises, but frankly, I want to get out and shoot pictures more, for a while at least, before I play around again.