Calling all Rodinal Users!

lynnb said:
I find Rodinal works well with 35mm APX100 with normal development as per Agfa data sheet, but faster 35m films in Rodinal leads to unacceptably coarse grain. I find it's fine for faster films (HP5+) in 120 though.
Click to expand...

Rodinal and APX 100 is a heavenly match.

I also like it with TMY-2. 1:50 in both cases.
 
I like punchy, contrasty, grainy black and white.

Tri-X in Rodinal 1:25, 7.5 minutes. Longer if you really want to push the contrast. I think Ralph Gibson goes for like 11 minutes at 1:25.

HC-110 lacks the punch but has smoother tones.

The only thing I've found with more punch and grain is Dektol (paper developer).
 
Funny how some say that HC110 lacks punch, I tried Rodinal, still have an unopened bottle in my Oak chest. I tried 1:25, 1:50, 1:100 and stand for all the Ilford films and some slower Kodak films.
Never got great contrast, and the grain was too gritty for me.
Yes, I did Film EI test rolls first, but, just didn't like me I guess.
I do have a rigid workflow as far as prep and developing/agitation goes.

I get much better contrast and tonal range with HC110 H or B
I also shoot TMax 400 99% of the time.

I may Rodinal a try again... but with 100-200 EI ranges.

And it is interesting to read that HC110 is similar....
 
while the exact formula for HC110 isn't known to me, it seems to be certain that it is a hydroquinone/pyralidone based developer (http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/index.html). rodinal, on the other hand, is based on aminophenole. that means: chemically completely different.

the fact, that they both are handled somehow similarly, doesn't make them similar on the chemical side ...

my experience with rodinal is, that some film work well with stand development (fomapan 100 in 1+100), others don't (HP5+ prefers a traditional regime in 1+50). you may come to different conclusions, however - a lot depends on your dev regime, and the local water quality. so, by all means, go ahead and try yourself. recipes are available for free in the 'net, take them as starting point to develop your own procedure.
 
sebastel said:
while the exact formula for HC110 isn't known to me, it seems to be certain that it is a hydroquinone/pyralidone based developer (Kodak HC-110 Developer - Unofficial Resource Page).
Click to expand...

HC110 uses dimezone, hydroquinone and catechol, and the alkaline accelerators are two derivatives of ethanolamine.

sebastel said:
rodinal, on the other hand, is based on aminophenole. that means: chemically completely different.
Click to expand...

Further, the accelerator in Rodinal is potassium hydroxide.

Importantly they have different speed and tonal characteristics. Rodinal gives ISO speeds about 1 stop slower than box speeds with normal dilution and development with most films, while HC110 provides close to or slightly above box speed. Rodinal depresses midtones, which is why it gives that dark, moody look, while HC110 provides higher relative toe and midtone speed, providing a more open look with brighter midtones. This is all given the same CI.

Both have a reputation for lasting a long time. For Rodinal this is because of stability combined with historically excellent packaging from Agfa. New versions often don't last as long because the packaging is different and the formula is less stable. HC110 lasts a really long time because no water is used in the solvent and oxygen doesn't dissolve and therefore the components cannot oxidise.

Both have been copied. There are lots of para-aminophenol-hydroxide developers which are like Rodinal, and LegacyPro L110 from Freestyle is very similar to HC110, but uses a less viscous solvent.

Marty
 
Last edited:
I don't see why people are always bashing Rodinal. I find it really really good with Tri-X, APX100, Silvermax and Neopan400 (not so nice with HP5+ but then again, I find that film flat and too grainy in any soup)
Well, I only tried XTOL and Diafine besides Rodinal. I found XTOL had too few advantages to justify using it over Rodinal with the short shelf life and all.
The only soup that might best Rodinal for my use is HC110

Semi stand doesn't produce uneven negs at least it never did for me.

Tri-X is also not just 250 ASA in my book .. maybe if you pull to enrich tonality but then WHY? if I want more tonality I go for TMAX100 or APX100
Tri-X is anything between 200 and 1600 when dropped in Rodinal 1+100 for an hour or two. maybe the neg is a bit thin or a bit thick on either side but absolutely useful when you are not into fine art printing.
 
My experience was with Original Rodinal by Agfa.
I used from 60"s till Agfa went belly up.
The Blazinol, nice was not Rodinal.
It aged and went bad.
Rodinal lasted years, in an opened bottle.
Blazinol also ate thru one plastic bottle.(less than 1 year).
Tri-X is not the Tri-X of my youth.
The new Tri-X curls badly, unusable in my scanner.

I moved on.
HC-110 is lovely.
Easy to use, nice tonal range, grain I can live with.
Ilford fills the space. HP5 and Kentmere 400 and 100 marketed by Ilford.
 
I like it for semi stand most with trix my alltime favorite film. Fill more liquid as needed in and in the half I turn the can twice. In MF it gives nice tonality and it is easy to use.

01.jpg


best
 
I should note that I found two stand workarounds that helped with uneven development:

- Periodic agitation. I inverted 4 times over the course of development and found that was sufficient. I may have been able to do even less but didn't experiment enough to find out.

- Putting an empty spool under the film I was developing. Even with little agitation, the very bottom of the film seemed to be more active than the rest. I assume the solution was 'settling'. An empty spool at the bottom of the tank kept the film in the range of the solution that was more consistent. Unfortunately this only worked for 35mm for me as I develop in 500ml batches.
 
Brian Legge said:
I should note that I found two stand workarounds that helped with uneven development:

- Periodic agitation. I inverted 4 times over the course of development and found that was sufficient. I may have been able to do even less but didn't experiment enough to find out.

- Putting an empty spool under the film I was developing. Even with little agitation, the very bottom of the film seemed to be more active than the rest. I assume the solution was 'settling'. An empty spool at the bottom of the tank kept the film in the range of the solution that was more consistent. Unfortunately this only worked for 35mm for me as I develop in 500ml batches.
Click to expand...

Those are interesting, good thinking, or you could just not do stand.
 
I used Rodinal for years. The big majority of my pictures are made on Kodak films and Rodinal. Here are a few pics.

179.jpg


rowley+park_swing.jpg


stary+rynek_s.jpg


More recently i switched to HC-110. I think i prefer the tonality it gives with Tri-X
stary%2Brynek_s.jpg


230.jpg


park.jpg
 
Stand is going to bit you. If it were good , Kodak and Ilford would recommend it & they do not.

If you are having issues with normal development, read instructions. Currently recommends 5 to 7 inversions in 5 sec every 30 sec. I have done it and it works.

There are a few rules you must follow. Immerse film fast so developer proceeds from dry edge across film quickly. This precludes pouring thru top as it is not fast and does not wet film evenly ( except for plastic tanks). Drop film in, cap, start inversions immediately.

Two inversions with a twist in 5 sec works. So does rolling a stainless tank half full with empty reel on top. 16 oz tank, two reels, bottom with film, 8 oz of developer. Rolling not for plastic tank.

First rule, quick immersion.
Second is agitation must be random and vigorous enough to replenish all the spent developer. If not, you get under developed thin areas and or streaks.

You may pour out through the top with 1 and 2 reel tanks.

If you have too muck contrast, cut time, not agitation.

Now figure what you are doing wrong. You know all the secrets as does the whole world.
 
I think FP-4 and Rodinal 1:75 is a match made in Heaven. I've had wonderful results-sharpness and tonal range have been superb. Even when Agfapan 400 was available Rodinal is what I used. If that film was still available it would be my 400 speed film.

An example of FP-4 and Rodinal with the M2 and 50 f2 lens...

M2FP401 by David Fincher, on Flickr
 
I don't use it for 135, but for 120 certainly. Just adore Acros and FP4+ in 1:50 for 10-11min. More or less box speed for both. 10 inversions initially, 3 every min thereafter.
 
stausauser said:
many great examples here.
I can't get good results whatever i try.
This is rollei rpx100 in r09.

Figuren.jpeg
Click to expand...

excess in grain could be caused by wrong exposure or too much agitation. Fro the standard process I usually go for once or twice a minute with very subtle movements, i.e. never shake! slightly tilt the tank - never upside down, let's say 60° max. tilt and then slowly rotate along it's axis. With semi-stand I'm even gentler .. I always tell the people rather like a glass of whiskey.
 
My mother recently found a bottle of Rodinal I left in my parents house from when I had a darkroom there 20 yrs ago. It had been opened and part of it used. To see if it worked, I developed a roll of film in it. Here's a photo from the roll:

motel-chairs-flag.jpg


Film is Tri-X exposed at EI-320 in a Canon New F-1 with 100mm f2.8 FDn lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom