Bill, What about Rodinal?

[mhv]

Just a correction, but D-23 is not a low contrast developer, if by "low contrast" we agree on the meaning of "developer meant to reduce contrast to a N-2 or intended to tame the extreme contrast of specialty films like Tech Pan."

D-23 is D-76 without the hydroquinone, and was meant to make replenishement easier. It's sharp, cheap, and gives similar results to most ordinary developers.

 

[Uncle Bill]

I am a rodinal 1:50 fan with slower films like Foma 200 and 100 and Efke 100, things get interesting when I go to 400 ISO in which case I go to the goo that is HC110.

I have been playing with Diafine a bit lately using Agfa APX 400 shot at 500 ISO and I have been quite happy with the results provided you shoot in a contrastly situation. I really do like getting the shadow detail in the negative.

 

[jan normandale]

Bill could you show us some of the results that you like using Rodinal, either your own or someone else's work you admire. I'm interested in improving my developing skills and I'm not sure it's me or the chemicals. My HC110 seems fine, however the Rodinal seems to lack that punch I associate with it as a developer.

Also do you have any recollections of film/Rodinal combos that delivered that contrasty image, sometimes with lots of grain and others moderate grain?

thanks and btw, I'm glad you're visiting here!

Jan

 

[Sisyphus]

My combination is Tri-x and Rodinal 1:25; grain is controlled through temperature of my water and development time. The other combination is also AGFA 100 and Rodinal.

I stocked up on everything before the demise of Agfa, I also happen to have a few boxes of portriga and Insignia and stored properly. When I break them out to print, I will also break out the 100 year old scotch.

if you want to see examples of the work please visit my website and blog.

 

[David Goldfarb]

Parodinal sounds like the future for me. I've got a lot of Tylenol. This is a great forum.

You know, my wife was going to throw out an out of date bottle of Tylenol, so just for the heck of it I made up a batch of paRodinal, and it's a perfectly good film developer. The formula is here, among other places--

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/21181-rodinal-substitutes-5.html#post218406

I've attached a quick scan of a test neg. Details: Linhof Tech V 4x5" with a 2.25x3.25" sheet film back, 360/5.5 Tele-Xenar, Y2 filter, 1/50 sec., f:18, J&C Classic 200 (Fortepan) rated at EI 200, paRodinal (1+50), 12 min., 68 deg. F, agitation every 30 sec. in a tray.

 

[xayraa33]

Bill, I have been trying to find a great Nuts 'n Bolts article that you wrote in Popular Photography around the fall of 1978 concerning sulphited Rodinal and also about D76 at 1:3 for slow films for accutance and shadow detail development.
Any idea where I can find that article?

 

[Bill Pierce]

You would think that a high acutance dilute developer wouldn't make a difference on a fairly big sheet film neg such as the example David posted. And yet I have 8x10 negs slightly cropped and blown up to 16x20 prints where every hair on the head of a subject in a 3/4's shot is defined. I also have similar shots developed in some of the rougher developers used for sheet film that clearly don't show the same high definition in similar prints.

Since the majority of my work is digital, 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film is almost the only film I use (8x10 still has the edge on a DSLR.). It's interesting that these formats still attract unusual developers like the Rodinal clones and Pyro - and, perhaps, justifiably.

Bill

 

[Bill Pierce]

Bill, I have been trying to find a great Nuts 'n Bolts article that you wrote in Popular Photography around the fall of 1978 concerning sulphited Rodinal and also about D76 at 1:3 for slow films for accutance and shadow detail development.
Any idea where I can find that article?

Not the slightest. But that's not a bad thing. Films have changed. Emulsions are thinner, sharper and probably a little less able to handle a big brightness range or display incredible exposure latitude (the same thing, really). So, whatever I said is out of date - especially if I said anything specific about dilutions, times, e.t.c..

Your always going to get the best results when you determine the best development time (or dilution or added sulfite) with tests with your own meters, enlargers, water supplies, taste, whatever. It's hard to convince people that published times, e.t.c., are just suggestions and not the gospel. (also film speeds...) Sadly, nothing beats taking the time to determine your own time with black and white film. And it probably accounts for some of the popularity of one-hour labs and color.

Bill