I am going to take Tom A's advice.
Please tell us your take on Rodinal.
Stephen
Please tell us your take on Rodinal.
Stephen
Bill, What about Rodinal?
- Thread starter CameraQuest
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 27
- Views 6K
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Rodinal. Well, Rodinal was an Agfa liquid developer concentrate popular in the days when developers had a greater effect on black-and-white films than they do now. There were low contrast developers like all metol D-23. There was D-76, the middle of the road standard. There were effective speed gainers like Acufine. There were fine grain, solvent developers like Microdol that traded acutance for a less visible grain pattern and lower effective film speed. There were high acutance, dilute developers like Ethol Tec and Rodinal but they clearly revealed the grain pattern of the film.
Rodinal could be used at dilutions from 1:25 to 1:100 for most films. Films like Tech Pan could be processed at even higher dilutions. There was an adjacency effect at high dilutions. When bright and dark areas butted together in the picture, the dilute developer would exhaust in the highlights and remain strong in the shadows. Right at that line where the two tones butted together, the unweakened shadow developer would increase the development of the light tone. If you controlled the agitation, didn't agitate too much, this would create an effect not unlike the unsharp mask in Photoshop. It enhanced the "sharpness" of the image. But it was too grainy for most of us Tri-X and HP4 and 5 users. So I added sodium sulfite to a 1:75 mix and got a good compromise between acutance and grain.
Part of the appeal of this mix was you could change the sulfite concentration between 50 and 100 grams per litre and change the Rodinal concentration from 1:25 to 1:100 and come up with a developer tailored to your tastes.
The real advantage was that no published development times existed. People worked out times that produced the negatives they wanted instead of blindly following the developer manufacturer's recommendations, which were only recommendations and, with all the variables possible in the process, could produce awful negatives for some people.
Those days are long gone. It's not just that there is no Rodinal. Films today are less effected by developer choice. And in many respects they deliver better results than when we were all arguing the difference between Harvey's Panthermic 777 and Acufine.
Rodinal could be used at dilutions from 1:25 to 1:100 for most films. Films like Tech Pan could be processed at even higher dilutions. There was an adjacency effect at high dilutions. When bright and dark areas butted together in the picture, the dilute developer would exhaust in the highlights and remain strong in the shadows. Right at that line where the two tones butted together, the unweakened shadow developer would increase the development of the light tone. If you controlled the agitation, didn't agitate too much, this would create an effect not unlike the unsharp mask in Photoshop. It enhanced the "sharpness" of the image. But it was too grainy for most of us Tri-X and HP4 and 5 users. So I added sodium sulfite to a 1:75 mix and got a good compromise between acutance and grain.
Part of the appeal of this mix was you could change the sulfite concentration between 50 and 100 grams per litre and change the Rodinal concentration from 1:25 to 1:100 and come up with a developer tailored to your tastes.
The real advantage was that no published development times existed. People worked out times that produced the negatives they wanted instead of blindly following the developer manufacturer's recommendations, which were only recommendations and, with all the variables possible in the process, could produce awful negatives for some people.
Those days are long gone. It's not just that there is no Rodinal. Films today are less effected by developer choice. And in many respects they deliver better results than when we were all arguing the difference between Harvey's Panthermic 777 and Acufine.
David Goldfarb
Well-known
There's still Rodinal, manufactured by A&O who took over Agfa's chemical production, and there's Fomadon R09 manufactured by Foma in the Czech Republic, said to be based on an earlier version of Rodinal, both available from Freestyle. D-76, Microdol-X, Acufine, Ethol T.E.C. and even Harvey's 777 are all still in current production. 777 I think you have to order directly from the manufacturer in Kentucky. D-23 you have to make yourself, but it's just metol and sulfite, so it's a fairly simple homebrew formula.
There's also a developer similar to Rodinal known as Parodinal that can be made from Tylenol, lye, and sodium sulfite, if you're desperate and stuck in some remote location where Rodinal is unavailable--
http://www.digitaltruth.com/techdata/parodinal.php
There's also a developer similar to Rodinal known as Parodinal that can be made from Tylenol, lye, and sodium sulfite, if you're desperate and stuck in some remote location where Rodinal is unavailable--
http://www.digitaltruth.com/techdata/parodinal.php
Last edited:
Bill Pierce
Well-known
David -
Many thanks for the update. Working in news I've been digital for a long time. I still use film in some small point and pushes, an 8x10 view and M6 and 7's. But that's intermittent personal work. The darkroom is down to 76, Xtol and (dare I mention it) a liquid concentrate from Freestyle. And I have to confess, with the exception of a few prints for collectors, silver prints have been replaced with inkjets. You are the folks who are going to educate me on what is new in film. And I would also love to hear from you on your perspectives on the M8.
Pierce
Many thanks for the update. Working in news I've been digital for a long time. I still use film in some small point and pushes, an 8x10 view and M6 and 7's. But that's intermittent personal work. The darkroom is down to 76, Xtol and (dare I mention it) a liquid concentrate from Freestyle. And I have to confess, with the exception of a few prints for collectors, silver prints have been replaced with inkjets. You are the folks who are going to educate me on what is new in film. And I would also love to hear from you on your perspectives on the M8.
Pierce
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Parodinal sounds like the future for me. I've got a lot of Tylenol. This is a great forum.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Bill: One thing you mentioned very much intrigues me ... I'll get to it in a second. As David mentions, Rodinal still exists, and lookalikes are available. In another thread about Xtol, I mentioned a Rodinal-Xtol combination which I am going to try. While Rodinal's rendition of grain in Tri-X, HP5, etc., is sometimes not everyone's cup of tea, there IS the acutance and edge effects, the tonality, that are so very attractive. What I've seen of the Rodinal-Xtol combination is that it combines Rodinal's tonality and acutance with a different (more pleasing?) grain rendition.
Now, on to my comment about ... modern films. You mention that current emulsions are much less subject to the differences in developer. I have no reason to doubt this even though I am not one to try a variety of films and spend months doing film-developer combination tests. But I do know that modern emulsions (even from the last 20 years or so) are much less subject to zone system development techniques, e.g. N+, N- development, etc.
The flip side of this, though, is that I think some of the emulsions are the best they've ever been. I know there are a body of folks who have gnashed their teeth over Kodak "ruining" Tri-X, "It's not like it was!", etc. Yet I find the current Tri-X to be the best ever. I concede that the older emulsions were different, and that in certain situations maybe they would produce a "better" look for a given shot. I feel the same way about Pan F+, i.e. that it is better than previous versions, though I don't use it a lot so my judgment of it is quite casual. The only other b&w film I'm using with any regularity is APX100, and I like it better than any other film (that I've used recently) in its speed class.
So, not to steer this thread too far off track, and realizing you are mostly using the M8 and other digital cameras now ...
How much Tri-X or other b&w film are you shooting these days? Given your admission that there currently isn't any Rodinal in your darkroom, have you used any of the current Tri-X with Rodinal at all? If not, would you ever venture to give that combination, and/or the Rodinal-Xtol combination a try?
Earl
Now, on to my comment about ... modern films. You mention that current emulsions are much less subject to the differences in developer. I have no reason to doubt this even though I am not one to try a variety of films and spend months doing film-developer combination tests. But I do know that modern emulsions (even from the last 20 years or so) are much less subject to zone system development techniques, e.g. N+, N- development, etc.
The flip side of this, though, is that I think some of the emulsions are the best they've ever been. I know there are a body of folks who have gnashed their teeth over Kodak "ruining" Tri-X, "It's not like it was!", etc. Yet I find the current Tri-X to be the best ever. I concede that the older emulsions were different, and that in certain situations maybe they would produce a "better" look for a given shot. I feel the same way about Pan F+, i.e. that it is better than previous versions, though I don't use it a lot so my judgment of it is quite casual. The only other b&w film I'm using with any regularity is APX100, and I like it better than any other film (that I've used recently) in its speed class.
So, not to steer this thread too far off track, and realizing you are mostly using the M8 and other digital cameras now ...
How much Tri-X or other b&w film are you shooting these days? Given your admission that there currently isn't any Rodinal in your darkroom, have you used any of the current Tri-X with Rodinal at all? If not, would you ever venture to give that combination, and/or the Rodinal-Xtol combination a try?
Earl
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Earl -
I'm shooting Tri when I'm at home and souping my own film. It's mostly coming up in Xtol. On the road I'm shooting Ilford XP2 and having it processed at pro labs or sometimes the local 1 hour photo. My feeling is that Tri, which was initially formulated to have, among other qualities, exposure latitude (metering wasn't quite as sophisticated as it is now and a lot of folks came close to guessing) has held onto much of that quality which you can think of as latitude or the ability to hold a long range of tones. I think the latest generation is sharper and not quite as able to capture that broad range of tones, but still way ahead of films like T-Max 400 in that respect.
Shooting less film has meant that I really have little experience with the current slower films. I tend to turn to large format rather than slow film. The big negative gives you much of what you look for in slow 35 films - sharpness, tone, what have you, but goes a long way in making the choice of developer pretty uncritical.
Bill
I'm shooting Tri when I'm at home and souping my own film. It's mostly coming up in Xtol. On the road I'm shooting Ilford XP2 and having it processed at pro labs or sometimes the local 1 hour photo. My feeling is that Tri, which was initially formulated to have, among other qualities, exposure latitude (metering wasn't quite as sophisticated as it is now and a lot of folks came close to guessing) has held onto much of that quality which you can think of as latitude or the ability to hold a long range of tones. I think the latest generation is sharper and not quite as able to capture that broad range of tones, but still way ahead of films like T-Max 400 in that respect.
Shooting less film has meant that I really have little experience with the current slower films. I tend to turn to large format rather than slow film. The big negative gives you much of what you look for in slow 35 films - sharpness, tone, what have you, but goes a long way in making the choice of developer pretty uncritical.
Bill
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Thanks, Bill. I am getting back to my 4x5, shooting Tri-X in that size. I turn to slower films in 35mm when I can't (or don't want to!) schlep the Toyo, lens(es) and tripod.
Earl
Earl
oftheherd
Veteran
Interesting thread. Thanks all. I haven't souped my own chemicals in over 30 years. I'm getting the itch. However, I will probably stay with more popular films and developers. I can barely make time to develop my own b/w. Keep this going. Nostalgia and modern mix well for me.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Earl -
Also try shooting some Ilford HP5 sheet. The TX Pro sheet film is pretty different from 35 TX. In some ways it's a studio film. It needs you to fill in the shadows. The shoulder of its curve is such that it either blocks the highlights or gives you sparkling highlights - same thing, two perspectives. Avedon used TX Pro, usually with relatively shadowless lighting. Look at that white background and the contrast in the faces. That's TX Pro with just a little push.
Also try shooting some Ilford HP5 sheet. The TX Pro sheet film is pretty different from 35 TX. In some ways it's a studio film. It needs you to fill in the shadows. The shoulder of its curve is such that it either blocks the highlights or gives you sparkling highlights - same thing, two perspectives. Avedon used TX Pro, usually with relatively shadowless lighting. Look at that white background and the contrast in the faces. That's TX Pro with just a little push.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Bill: Thanks for the tip. Years ago, when I was shooting a lot of 4x5, I used both HP5/HP5+ and Tri-X, plus some other emulsions such as APX and FP4/FP4+.
Right now I have a 50-sheet box of TXP320, with 42 sheets remaining, so I will finish that off, but will get some HP5+ as well.
The first 8 sheets of TX were shot last month at Lake Superior as 2 panoramics -- 4 shots for each scene with Fujinon 150, so ~220º total field of view. The exposures are not developed yet, but I hope to get to them very soon. The contrast range was, shall we say, "interesting", so it will be fun to see how things worked.
Thanks again,
Earl
Right now I have a 50-sheet box of TXP320, with 42 sheets remaining, so I will finish that off, but will get some HP5+ as well.
The first 8 sheets of TX were shot last month at Lake Superior as 2 panoramics -- 4 shots for each scene with Fujinon 150, so ~220º total field of view. The exposures are not developed yet, but I hope to get to them very soon. The contrast range was, shall we say, "interesting", so it will be fun to see how things worked.
Thanks again,
Earl
newsgrunt
Well-known
Bill,
Have you tried souping your 8x10 in pyro ? I'm using, albeit infrequently, PMK Pyro and the stain takes some getting used to. I'm looking to see if the acutance and tonal range is everything the pyro evangelists say it is. Otherwise, an apo lens on a large neg should be more than enough really.
Fred
Have you tried souping your 8x10 in pyro ? I'm using, albeit infrequently, PMK Pyro and the stain takes some getting used to. I'm looking to see if the acutance and tonal range is everything the pyro evangelists say it is. Otherwise, an apo lens on a large neg should be more than enough really.
Fred
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Fred - It's been awhile since my schedule has allowed me to explore all the nooks and crannies that exist for us. I've never tried pyro in spite of all the wonderful things I've heard. I think Amidol and platinum printing were the last things I tried just for the fun of it. And to be honest, I was using the Weston's Amidol formula in the hope it would turn my fingernails black. I figured it was sort of a Goth thing for older photographers.
I'm actually trying to simplify all my procedures and standardize the basic materials. Sort of simplify things and concentrate on taking personal pictures and producing good sets of exhibition prints. That said, I'm not so sure that I'm succeeding.
Bill
I'm actually trying to simplify all my procedures and standardize the basic materials. Sort of simplify things and concentrate on taking personal pictures and producing good sets of exhibition prints. That said, I'm not so sure that I'm succeeding.
Bill
Dogman
Veteran
I'm a newbie at the forums although I've lurked for some time. Somehow I missed the Bill Pierce forum so I'm coming late to the opera.
Sometime in the early 1970's, I read an article by Bill Pierce in Camera 35 about using Rodinal with sulfite for Tri-X. I gave it a try and liked it so much I've continued using the 1:75 dilution with 2/3 coffee scoop of sulfite per roll ever since. I believe you gave a time of 11.5 minutes at 68 degrees for normally processed Tri-X. That's always been my starting point with the concoction since then.
I'm using Ilford films moreso these days than Kodak and the Rodinal/sulfite advice works well with HP5+, FP4+ and PanF+. If I have several batches of film to run, I use D76 1:1 to save time, otherwise, I prefer the look of the Rodinal/sulfite developer. I've also found that HP5+ can be pushed-processed to an EI of 800 by changing the dilution to 1:50 and keeping the same processing time. I haven't shot it at an EI of 1600 yet but I see no reason why a 1:25 dilution won't work adequately.
It's been about 35 years since I read that article and I've always wanted to thank you for that bit of advice, Bill Pierce. Now I've finally gotten the chance.😀
Sometime in the early 1970's, I read an article by Bill Pierce in Camera 35 about using Rodinal with sulfite for Tri-X. I gave it a try and liked it so much I've continued using the 1:75 dilution with 2/3 coffee scoop of sulfite per roll ever since. I believe you gave a time of 11.5 minutes at 68 degrees for normally processed Tri-X. That's always been my starting point with the concoction since then.
I'm using Ilford films moreso these days than Kodak and the Rodinal/sulfite advice works well with HP5+, FP4+ and PanF+. If I have several batches of film to run, I use D76 1:1 to save time, otherwise, I prefer the look of the Rodinal/sulfite developer. I've also found that HP5+ can be pushed-processed to an EI of 800 by changing the dilution to 1:50 and keeping the same processing time. I haven't shot it at an EI of 1600 yet but I see no reason why a 1:25 dilution won't work adequately.
It's been about 35 years since I read that article and I've always wanted to thank you for that bit of advice, Bill Pierce. Now I've finally gotten the chance.😀
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Very interesting info. Does this apply only to sheet "Pro" (aka Pan?) Tri-X?Bill Pierce said:
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
Dogman- if you like Rodianl with sodium sulfite added, you should try it with sodium ascorbate added. Same tonality results, but finer grain, and possibly better edge effects. Add 4-5 grams per liter of mixed Rodinal (I use 1:75 most often) and watch.
This advice comes via Patrick Gainer at unblinkingeye.com. Read more here: http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html
This advice comes via Patrick Gainer at unblinkingeye.com. Read more here: http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html
Dogman
Veteran
Yep, Gainer has recommended that to me before. Since I have about 50 pounds of sufite on hand, I probably will stick with it for the time being.😉
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Gabriel M.A. said:
The TX Pro that has the weird shoulder curve is the TX with a speed rating of 320. It was available in 120, 220 and sheet. But, with film supplies changing all the time, I suspect it may just end up as a sheet film.
The TX 35-mm film with Pro in the name is rated at 400; that's just another generation of the TX 35 folks have used for years.
aoresteen
Well-known
Great thread guys!! Over the years I've simplified my life with using one film & developer when I can. I started using HP5 when it came out in 1976 and have been with it since. In a pinch TRI-X will do but I prefer HP5+ in 35mm, 120, & 5x7. For 220 it's TXP & 127 is FORTE. For my 6x9 view I have a stash of Verichrome Pan 120 in my freezer but that's another story.
Ditto for my developer. I have used HC-110B since 1977 or so. D-76 will do if I run out of the orange goo. I have gotten very consistant results with HC110 for years.
Bill, have you ever used HC110? I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.
Right now I'm deployed in Iraq. Today I shipped my developing gear back home as I just can't get a dust free place to dry my film. I'd hate to ruin my film with all the dust that is here. I even carried a bottle of HC110 over with me but the dust in Iraq is just terrible. I'm shipping my film to a lab back in the states. I haven't had a lab do my B&W developing since 1977.
Ditto for my developer. I have used HC-110B since 1977 or so. D-76 will do if I run out of the orange goo. I have gotten very consistant results with HC110 for years.
Bill, have you ever used HC110? I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.
Right now I'm deployed in Iraq. Today I shipped my developing gear back home as I just can't get a dust free place to dry my film. I'd hate to ruin my film with all the dust that is here. I even carried a bottle of HC110 over with me but the dust in Iraq is just terrible. I'm shipping my film to a lab back in the states. I haven't had a lab do my B&W developing since 1977.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
aoresteen said:
I used to use the B dilution and sometimes diluted it even more. It all came about because I read that Ansel Adams used HC110B.
My gut feeling is that the days that the developer was a major factor in the ball game have in most cases passed. We can choose from a range of general purpose developers and get good results. More important sticking with one developer until we come up with times, agitation, e.t.c. that produce the negative we want. Within that spectrum of general purpose developers and convention films, I think experience, fine tuning and, finally, repeatability are probably more important than the specific developer.
Bill
