Push it; push it real good.

This is what originally got me to buy Rodinal. However, now I've kept it because the developer is really that good. I enjoy using it and it makes my life easier.
 
Right on. I'm glad to have helped.

I use Rodinal almost all the time, now; pushes, pulls, and straight up.

Stephanie Brim said:
This is what originally got me to buy Rodinal. However, now I've kept it because the developer is really that good. I enjoy using it and it makes my life easier.
Click to expand...
 
Heh. Now I'm raiding the Formulary as well...and thinking of trying PMK with Tri-X as I've heard some good things. I just got some TF-4 fixer. With how cheap that stuff is (and tha't REALLY cheap, mind you), I may buy more and keep it on the shelf just in case.
 
Patrick: IME Tri-X is best @ 200 anyway. But the nastiness of PMK is there, from what I've heard, so that's a consideration. I really like the look of Tri-X in PMK form the samples I've seen. It's a very different look from Rodinal and many other developers. I may try it at some point, but for some reason I think it would be with sheet film for me. Dunno why, it's just one of those things.
 
merciful said:
Right on. I'm glad to have helped.

I use Rodinal almost all the time, now; pushes, pulls, and straight up.
Click to expand...

Merciful,

It's been a while since my last post to this thread - I trust you're doing well!

I hope to steal some time later this week to test a couple of batches of Tri-X, pushed a-la-Rodinal Semi-Stand. I'll post my results.

Question for you - I noticed you mention scanning the negatives with a CoolScan 8000. I'm wondering... Is it possible that your negatives scan better then they print?

Reason I ask: I recently shot a rolll of TX400 @ 3200, (35mm Nikon F100 w/85mm 1.8) and developed it in Rodinal 1:50, for around 45 minutes @ 70F. Interesting thing here... The negs were compleley unprintable - and I tried on both ilford matt fb & Kentmere FB. However, when you look at the emulsion side of the negative over a dark surface - the reflection of the "positive" is visible. In that reflection I can clearly make out a beautiful scene! But it won't print!

Your take on this?

Best,
Daniel
 
Well, thanks; I hope the same for you.

It's possible that they might scan better than print, as I have neither the facilities nor access to a good printer here to test; but I'm confident that they far exceed unprintable. My 3200 negs in particular have a great tonal range and plenty of density. If you'd like to PM your address to me, I'll find a properly exposed but uninspired neg and mail it to you.
 
Hi,

back to where this thread started, I exposed two TMax 400 films at ISO1600 and developed in Rodinal as such:

one film using Rodinal 1+50, 22', 4 times 5 seconds agitation
other film using Rodinal 1+100, 50', stand development

The films are still drying, so I didn't do scanning yet. Of the first film, only a couple of slides can be scanned (those taken in daylight), because my camera meter (Pentax ES) isn't up to low light metering, as it seems :-(.

First appreciation of the negatives:

the first film seems very well OK, rather low shadow detail, so maybe it could have taken a bit more development time. On the overall it's quite low density.

the second film looks OK as well, but this one has quite dense highlights, so this may cause difficulties for scanning. Here development time could be decreased.

I wonder if the scans will give away an idea about the effect of different dilution...

Keep you informed!

Groeten,

VIc
 
cameosis said:
and his custom tag is a reference to curtis mayfield's song "pusherman". superfly!
Click to expand...

Damn, Curtis is good.

(...is the code word.)
 
vicmortelmans said:
the first film seems very well OK, rather low shadow detail, so maybe it could have taken a bit more development time. On the overall it's quite low density.
Click to expand...

While extended development time does increase the low end of the curve somewhat, at your times there is almost no way increasing time would possibly bring in more shadow detail.

just fyi...

allan
 
Evaluation of the scanned pictures: I'm far more pleased with the 1+100 dilution results concerning shadow detail! But there's still plenty of room for improvement.

rodinal 1+50 22'
200612_0061_stadspark_02.tif.jpg

rodinal 1+100 50'
200612_0062_kinderboerderij-thuis_24.tif.jpg

Groeten,

Vic
 
iSerious said:
Did you actually print the negs on photo paper under an enlarger?
Click to expand...

No, they're scanned from negative with my not-so-very-expensive filmscanner.

Do you think printing would give better shadow detail?

Groeten,

Vic
 
I remember starting off with Rodinal then stopped processing my own film for a few years because I lacked the time.

Recently I bought some D76 -__________-

No, I don't know what was going through my mind. I'll be stocking up on Rodinal this weekend as I understand they aren't making it anymore
 
I do believe that pushing up to 12800 or even 25000 yields magnificent results. You have to take into account though that the end result is a metter of taste and also choice of the image. Pushing a busy street scene will turn out horrible whilst pushing an image of a single ballerina, spot lit, on a dim lit vast stage, dressed in a white whatever the things ballerinas wear is called, will turn out beautifully. You have to select the images to push...

I mainly use tri-x in rodinal 100:1 60 minutes with 12 - 36 inversions of which 50% take place in the first 15 minutes or so.... this produces very nice results. But you need to test and invest some time to see what comes out for you best ....
 
What do you think is the best method for pushing HP5+? I use Rodinal a lot but never tried to push anything with it. I'd like to take HP5 to maybe 800 or 1600 sometimes. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom