rodinal (fomadon r09) what dilution/agitation for finest grain?

[lex]

i am wondering (as the title states) what people think the optimal dilution and agitation method is to achieve the finest grain structure with rodinal. 1+25? 1+50? 1+100? or even more?

i tried some stand @ 1+100 for an hour and the grain was way worse that my attempts with 1+50 and 1+100 (normal times and agitation), now i am on a backlash to get the finest grain with good contrast i can out of my film and developer (fomapan 100 and fomadon r09).

 

[fishtek]

We're on a similar mission, Lex! I've been souping Arista 100 EDU Ultra with Rodinal the last couple times, both with 1:100 dilution. First was for 10 minutes, second for 8 minutes, with a single inversion/agitation each minute, at 68 degrees. Check my gallery for the few most recent pix to see what transpired.\

The experiment continues...

Regards!
Don

 

[Trius]

I will have to give some negs deep inspection. I've been using 1:100 with 30 sec. of initial agitation, then 5 sec. every 3 minutes thereafter.

But the bigger question is: What film are you talking about? I am using the technique above for both Tri-X (@ EI 250) and APX 100 (@ EI 100), and so far I like what I see. See my signature for my thoughts on fine grain. For me, I am after acutance and tonal scale.

 

[Socke]

Fomadon or Calbe R09 is slightly different to rodinal as far as dilution is concernced. It's more 1:20, 1:40 and probably 1:80 but I haven't read about the latter.

This said, I get reasonable fine grain with APX100 in 1:40 at 20°C, 17 minutes with 3 agitations every minute. For fine grain I prefer Ilford FP4 in Neofin blue.

 

[lex]

We're on a similar mission, Lex! I've been souping Arista 100 EDU Ultra with Rodinal the last couple times, both with 1:100 dilution. First was for 10 minutes, second for 8 minutes, with a single inversion/agitation each minute, at 68 degrees. Check my gallery for the few most recent pix to see what transpired.\

The experiment continues...

Regards!
Don

indeed! i have found 14m @ 70deg 1:100 (1:80 in fomadon r09) to be good. my latest (click my flickr) was hour stand and it was soo grainy.

I will have to give some negs deep inspection. I've been using 1:100 with 30 sec. of initial agitation, then 5 sec. every 3 minutes thereafter.

But the bigger question is: What film are you talking about? I am using the technique above for both Tri-X (@ EI 250) and APX 100 (@ EI 100), and so far I like what I see. See my signature for my thoughts on fine grain. For me, I am after acutance and tonal scale.

cool, ihave been using fomapan 100 (similar to apx 100) @100ei. perhaps fine grain is bourgeois, but i want to be able to achieve it, to have that process as another tool. idealy i would love to have fine grain and smooth tones with good contrast, but i guess everyone strives for that... i also have a cheap scanner so the better the neg the cleaner the scan and we all know what scanners do to grain.

Fomadon or Calbe R09 is slightly different to rodinal as far as dilution is concernced. It's more 1:20, 1:40 and probably 1:80 but I haven't read about the latter.

This said, I get reasonable fine grain with APX100 in 1:40 at 20°C, 17 minutes with 3 agitations every minute. For fine grain I prefer Ilford FP4 in Neofin blue.

yep, though usually in posts i translate into rodinal dilutions for the ease of everyone.

17mins @70 @1:40 (50) is impressively long. those are times i approch with 1:80 (100). are your negs fairly dense? i think the next attempt might be 1:20 (25), experimentation is the key i guess!

 

[Socke]

17mins @70 @1:40 (50) is impressively long. those are times i approch with 1:80 (100). are your negs fairly dense? i think the next attempt might be 1:20 (25), experimentation is the key i guess!

Somewhat, but they scan well.

 

[Trius]

lex: Just to be clear ... my sig line about "fine grain" is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I have nothing against fine grain, indeed when I want fine grain I reach for Pan F+, albeit while mourning the loss of APX25.

Good luck on your quest!

 

[lex]

any capacity to comprehend humour is lost when i just wake up 😉


i am visiting cali for a week so i can not soup till i get back. the plus is that i will have a few rolls to experiment with...

 

[350D_user]

17mins @70 @1:40 (50) is impressively long. those are times i approch with 1:80 (100). are your negs fairly dense? i think the next attempt might be 1:20 (25), experimentation is the key i guess!

Dunno about anyone else, but keep us posted with your findings. I'm almost out of LC29 and am on the prowl for another developer.

 

[ZorkiKat]

Film grain is determined by the emulsion. Its size is set when the emulsion is made. Developers only conceal/supress its structure or reveal it. The latter is what happens when that emulsion is developed in Rodinal.

Generally, higher Rodinal dilutions (more water that is) will give finer grain, so TriX developed in 1+100 will show less apparent grain than if its developed in 1+25.

Foma/Calbe/ORWO R09 is not significantly different from Agfa Rodinal. The dilutions quoted for the former (eg 1+40 instead of 1+50) is not really an indication of substantial differences in formulation. It's just that the manufacturer gave different dilutions. R09 can be diluted at 1+50 and the same Rodinal 1+50 times can be used, and the same results can be expected of the same film developed in it. And there isn't also much difference between a 1+20 and 1+25 dilution or 1+40 and 1+50.

Longer development times do make the grain more obvious. Stand development will make the grain pattern stronger than at the usual development times. Try using Tri-X at 1+100, and develop for about 18-20 minutes, instead of stand-developing for an hour or so. The grain pattern should come out finer. Longer development (than necessary) will give denser negatives. Denser negatives will make the grains appear larger.

Go for "thinner" negatives- developed just long enough to have density in the shadows, and not too much density in the highlights. This is what usually what Rodinal will give when used at the official times at higher dilutions.

Note that highly diluted Rodinal can cause speed loss with some films, faster ones in particular. Officially, 1+100 will give an emulsion speed of only EI200-250 (developed at 15 mins 20C), but an extended development should make up for the lost speed and round it off at around EI400 in the end.

My TriX developed in Rodinal is always grainier than TriX developed in D76. ISO 400 films have larger grain to begin with. However how obvious the grain pattern is depends on the dilution. Fine grain films, like Ilford Pan F (ISO 50) always come out with very fine grain
even at 1+25 dilutions.

Jay

 

[Bryce]

This is a topic I've spent a fair bit of time and energy on, read about, and experimented with. I like Rodinal's sharp, angular, sand like grain so well. If only I could control its size better...
Here's something I've actually tried that actually seemed to make a useful difference without destroying the character of the grain:

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html

I ended up trying the ascorbate and borax trick, and the results were a little too un-rodinal like for me. I then tried developing with half as much as Mr. Gainer suggested of both the ascorbate and the borax, and- to my eye- bingo. My FP4 negs had distinctly smaller but still very crip and sandy grain structure.
The only real downer was finding the chemicals (a health food store had the ascorbate), having to mix them, and having to sort out the new, shorter developing times.
Try it, you may like it.

 

[lex]

zorkicat, bryce and patrick: thanks for the insightful replies and information! i really liked the part about the golden triad of developing.

i return home tomorrow and i am going to get some rolls in the soup (1+25). i will post some when i get everything scanned.

@socke: nice looking pic, highlights look good. that looks like a dutch bike!

 

[Bryce]

Here is a discussion from P-net about sodium ascorbate and Rodinal.

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002bNh

I agree that the difference is not all that dramatic, but it is quite real. It may or may not be worth the effort depending on your taste, the size of your negative, and the size of your enlargements.
I personally use the combination with 35mm negatives and not with medium format.

 

[lex]

here are some results from the 1+20 dilution. i really could not tell much difference and i actually think i like my 1+80 soup better. click my flickr for more!

<P>

fomapan 100 fomadon r09 1+20 4.5mins@70deg

<P>

fomapan 100 fomadon r09 1+20 4.5mins@70deg

<P>

fomapan 100 fomadon r09 1+20 4mins@70deg

all had a yellow filter

 

[rich815]

here are some results from the 1+20 dilution. i really could not tell much difference and i actually think i like my 1+80 soup better. click my flickr for more!

all had a yellow filter

I like the look alright in terms of sharpness (best I can tell from a small JPEG anyway) but the highlights are totally blown and the shadows clipped especially in the photo of the girl. Was that in the neg or your scan or post processing?

 

[ZivcoPhoto]

I've got to agree with ZorkiKat, if you use the Agfa "special" development times for Rodinal at 1-100 for APX 100 and Tri-X you'll see some really excellent results and in the case of the Tri-X (rated at 200) the grain will be smaller than with D76 or with standard Rodinal dilutions. I especially like the beautiful tones and shadow detail of the APX 100 that result from Rodinal 1-100.

At 68 degress F, 20 minutes, with gentle but constant agitation ( 13-15 inversions) for the first 30 seconds, and one slow inversion every thirty seconds thereafter, my results have been very nice. The last three minutes I'll agitate only once. Of course I use stop bath promptly and proper quick fix procedures. Temperature is closely controlled.

 

[lex]

i need to check the negs again, but i think it is a combo of neg, scan/post. my method (using vuescan) is to lock the exposure to a clear piece of film and then scan as a image so that the app does not try and filter the image for a particular film type. i do think because i am trying to get my "raw" scan to hold as much information as possible. i take the raw scanner output and invert it in photoshop and level it. then i use aperture for my final touches. i usually apply contrast and mid contrast liberally but i try not to blow the 'lights (keeping an eye on the histo). in the shot of the girl i thought the ribbing detail was visable in the part of her shirt that was in the light. was it there or in her hair that they were blown? the clips i can see.

thanks for your thoughts!

I like the look alright in terms of sharpness (best I can tell from a small JPEG anyway) but the highlights are totally blown and the shadows clipped especially in the photo of the girl. Was that in the neg or your scan or post processing?