Darkroom accident - Neopan 400 @ 800 in Rodinal

[wintoid]

The irony of my situation is that I wanted to experiment with Rodinal and Neopan because whilst there's much to love in Neopan, I've always had problems with separating the blacks, even at ISO200, and I was hoping that Rodinal's characteristic curve would help me to rescue some of that detail. I just didn't reckon on pushing hehehehe. I had originally rated this film at 800 with the intention of processing in Acutol, which works very well at that speed.

 

[kaiyen]

Drew,
Well, if the argument is that knowing the EI would've led to using a different developer, then we're talking about a whole different situation . The question was whether the results gotten with that particular combination, using those off-the-cuff calculations, were okay or not.

But, in the end, we agree.

allan

 

[kaiyen]

So Allan, suppose I had developed it for a shorter period of time, wouldn't I be right in thinking that less silver would be on the emulsion, which would then mean that the highlights would be less bright, which would then mean that if I adjust in my scanning software so that the brightest highlight is white, the dark greys would get brighter, giving me more detail in the shadows? Sorry I'm having difficulty articulating what I mean. I hope you understand.

I think I understand what you mean. Unfortunately, the answer is "not really," since the film's response curve, in that developer, is not linear in the shadow areas (the toe). Simply bringing the highlights over doesn't mean that you'll get a corresponding shift in the midtones. And, again, anything darker than middle grey (well, probably more like 1/2 stop darker than middle gray and more) is going to be about exposure, not development. the only way to make your greys brighter in that range is to increase exposure. That's why many people rate, say, TXT at 250 instead of 400 in certain developers.

and I was hoping that Rodinal's characteristic curve would help me to rescue some of that detail.

Well, each film/dev HD curve is different but, in general and unless my memory is wrong, rodinal results in a relatively long toe. This means that density increase does not become linear with exposure until fairly high amounts of light (and we're still talking shadows here, so not much light) hits the film. This is why it's a speed-decreasing developer in general. so there is no way that Rodinal will help you rescue shadow detail - in general, it costs you shadow detail in exchange for moderate acutance and smooth midtones. This is not counting modified development techniques such as stand development, of course, in which case compensation comes into play big time.

allan

 

[drewbarb]

Allan- I think you're right- we were both heading for the same point. I meant to get there in my last post, but lost the plot.

Anyway, your memory does serve- Rodinal does have a long toe. I would say it often yields high accutance, at the expense of moderate grain and of course, it's famous speed decrease. (Which is why it's such a bad choice for a push developer, unfortunately for Wintoid). Given enough exposure, it gives excellent long tonality, even in shadow areas- not that this would have helped in this situation.

Wintoid- I'd love to see some of your results from the Acutol process you were originally aiming at. I've never used Acutol. Can you post some examples?

 

[giellaleafapmu]

edit: judging by giellaleafapmu's post maybe I didn't remember correctly.

You remember right, the theory says that 1 stop pushing development is done by adding 50% more time but the few times I push films I use less time (by the way, I almost never push films, in 35mm I rather tend to "pull" films). Since in the original post it was said that +50% time gave a thick negative I taught that maybe this could work also for other persons...

Anyway, for me developping is not exact science, I am sure there are infinitely many "correct answer" to this...

Giella lea Fapmu

 

[wintoid]

Wintoid- I'd love to see some of your results from the Acutol process you were originally aiming at. I've never used Acutol. Can you post some examples?

Sure, here are a couple of scrappy shots done with Neopan 400 @ ISO 650 with Acutol. I understand Allan is saying shadow detail is determined by exposure, but I felt Neopan with Acutol showed better shadow detail than most developers. I can't remember where I got the recommendation for Neopan and Acutol @ 650 from. It was some zealot on the net who keeps popping up trying to tell everyone that it's better than anything in the known universe. Out of curiosity, I tried it and liked it. Perhaps I should just standardise on it and be damned. My long term aim is to find a way to get more shadow detail out of Neopan 400.

Could anyone provide an idiots guide to long toes and short toes please?

 

[Trius]

at the expense of moderate grain and of course, it's famous speed decrease. (Which is why it's such a bad choice for a push developer

????

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4441&highlight=12,800

 

[drewbarb]

That's a really interesting thread, Trius, thanks. But I think it's still safe to say that Rodinal is known to be a speed decreasing developer- as Roman says (from the same thread)

And yes, it is true, Rodinal _in regular use_ is not good for pushing (that is, low dilutions, regular inversion schemes) - but things are different when using it in high dilution with minimal/no agitationhttp://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4441&page=5&highlight=12,800

I have read the rest of the thread, and will do some experimenting with Rodinall as a stand developer for pushing, and see what I think. So thanks again.

BTW- I fixed the format of the Push/Pull Chart I posted earlier in this thread, so it will download properly now- sorry about the earlier screw up on that for anyone who was interested...

 

[Trius]

Drewbarb: Yes, it is "speed decreasing" (though that phrase bothers me, for some reason) under "normal" conditions ... but this whole question of true film speed is a can of worms that we are dangerously ( ) close to opening. I think that topic deserves its own thread...

When Roger Hicks was still on RFF, he categorically stated that film speed is partially determined by the developer used ... at least that is my recollection without searching for the post. I respond with anything contradictory at the time, but I'm not sure I believe that.

I'll consider starting another thread on this subject; I'm not sure it would be useful.

 

[drewbarb]

Drewbarb: Yes, it is "speed decreasing" (though that phrase bothers me, for some reason) under "normal" conditions ... but this whole question of true film speed is a can of worms that we are dangerously ( ) close to opening. I think that topic deserves its own thread...

When Roger Hicks was still on RFF, he categorically stated that film speed is partially determined by the developer used ... at least that is my recollection without searching for the post. I respond with anything contradictory at the time, but I'm not sure I believe that.

I'll consider starting another thread on this subject; I'm not sure it would be useful.

Trius- now we're on the same page- I couldn't agree more. I should have been clear from the start about the relativity of the terms and conditions we are dealing with.

I am inclined to agree with Roger Hicks about film speed being partly determined by developer used- I have done enough testing to know that "standard", "normal" or at least acceptable curves can be achieved through a range of combinations of speed and developers. But I very am interested to hear your thoughts- there's always more to learn.

Anyway, I think it might be time for a new thread if we are going to take this discussion further.

 

[wintoid]

Feel free to continue from my point of view. It seems very relevant and exactly the sort of thing I want to hear about.

 

[kaiyen]

I'm surprised to hear that Roger would say that speed is partially determined by the developer used. Of course, there is a fundamental speed difference between a 25 speed film and a 400 speed film (box speed). But, other than special development techniques (like merciful used and that I use quite often), it's almost always the developer chosen that gives speed. A test on PN a while back found that, when developed to the same contrast, the results from something like 15 different developers looked almost identical in terms of tones and the middle of the curve. What was dramatically different was speed. And speed is defined, in this case and to me in all cases, as the amount of shadow detail obtained.

Getting into "true" film speed is a can of worms. Rather, I think the word "true" should be avoided. Let's say that there is a film speed which can be identified based on shadow detail that may or may not be the same as the box speed, based on the developer being used. Whether one wants to call that "true" or not is different - "true" implies right vs. wrong. But the idea of determining a speed which would be a starting point for the results one wants is useful. It's also useful to examine a films "pushability" by looking at how it retains or loses shadow detail as one decreases exposure. Again, this is looking at shadow detail.

this is the can of worms that I always seem to open whenever I post about anything, anyway

allan

 

[Trius]

Allan: I started a new thread: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=455307#post455307

Can of worms already opened!

BTW, I consider "box speed" to be a guide at best, a hope at worst. I have no hesitance to use the word "true" because in my world, of course, I get to define "true"!