Dilution of Rodinal?

[remegius]

Just looked. The sheet in the 500ml bottle of Rodinal I bought a month ago does not have 1+100 information, either.

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Developers/Times_Rodinal/Rodinal.pdf

 

[Trius]

IIRC, the sheet in the box has never had the 1:100 dilution. I suppose Agfa just never bothered to test that dilution, as they felt 1:25 and 1:50 were sufficient, or whatever. Sorta like HC-110 Dilution H ... not an official Kodak dilution, but used by a lot of workers.

 

[charjohncarter]

Well, whatever, 1+100, as Trius has shown with his 1+100 tree, this dilution works great. I wish I could do that. Something to shoot for, at least in my case. Thanks Trius.

 

[EmilGil]

Stock solution? 😕

I get the impression Rodinal is quite different to use than the Ilford and Tetenal developers I've used before.

Rodinal is a bit different, yes. The main features are a sharp but pronounced grain, not fuzzy as when using D76. Higher dilutions will preserve highlights better than low dilutions but with a slight increase in grain. It's also pretty sensitive to agitation, keep it low to start with or you'll see the contrast sky-rocket.

What I meant with "stock solution" was the solution in the bottle you bought, perhaps "concentrate" would have been a better word.

 

[kully]

Hallo Emil,

What do you mean by reduced agitation?

Every minute I knock the tank against the work surface a couple times, swirl left for 5 seconds, swirl right for 5 seconds and then knock the tank again a couple of times. Should I cut this down?

 

[EmilGil]

Your agitation scheme is more of a "normal" one. If you like the results, I see no point in changing your procedures. I usually run APX100 in 1:50 for 15 minutes with a twist or two every 30s.

Reduced agitation is something like one twist per hour 🙂 It's often used in combination with extremely high dilutions, 1:100 or 1:200, and looong development times, 1-2 hours, in stand development. I have never tried but it's said to give even better control of contrast and highlights than normal development.

 

[kully]

Cheers Emil, I havn't used Rodinal enough to reach any conclusion of my own, so I am borrowing others 🙂

 

[titrisol]

1+25
1+50
or 1+100
each of them has advantages and disadvanateges
please read the article appreciating rodinal in unblinkingeye.com

PS. get a syringe from your pharmacist to measure the amounts of rodinal in your working solution
it is a loit easier

Hi folks,

Just a quick question.

What is the dilution of AGFA Rodinal?

I've just bought a some but I can't see any ifo on the bottle.

Cheers!

Bob.

TO: OurManInTangier
APX100 was manufactured by AGFA which is now defunct. however the film can be bought as Rollei Retro 100 from Fotohuis and others

To: Kully
Reduced agitation is once every 5 minutes or so, which is practiucal fro times above 30 minutes.
The idea is to allow developer to be consumed in the highlights thus preventing too much contrast.
Semi stand is once every 30 minutes
Stand is none

 

[Bobfrance]

First test.

First test.

Thanks for all the imput guys.
You more than made up for the fact that AGFA didn't include any istructions with my bottle. 🙂

Well I've just done my first roll.

The good news is - it's not blank. Although the negs look very thin/pale.
Any idea what I am doing to cause this?

I mixed a 1+25 solution (4ml dev to 1 litre of water) all chemicals & water were at 20 degC

I developed for 8 mins giving about 30 seconds initial agitation and then and inversion every 2 minutes.

Despite being thin the negs seemed to scan in suprisingly well.
I've attached a couple of examples.

All feedback more than welcome. 🙂

Bob.

 

[Trius]

Bob: I can't argue with that result.

 

[Bobfrance]

Thanks Trius.

I must admit I was worried when I first saw the negs. I thought they were blank!
I'm hugely suprised they scanned so well.

Anyone have any thoughts on what happened?

 

[oscroft]

Despite being thin the negs seemed to scan in suprisingly well.

Yes, it is often thought that thinner negs scan better (and I'd agree). Contrast is more important than (and very different to) negative density, but I have to say I've often developed film in Rodinal very similarly to the way you did and I don't get especially thin negatives.

 

[Trius]

I agree with Alan; my negs with similar procedure are not that thin. Short of an error in dilution, I wonder about the water. Could a high iron content cause this effect?

 

[Bryce]

Do you really mean 4mL Rodinal to 1 L of water? That would give you very thin negatives.... You were after a 1:25 solution, and mixing one liter right? That would mean (1/25)•1000=40 mL, not 4 mL! Unless you typed wrong, you have developed your film at a dilution of 1+250 and that would certainly explain thin, low contrast negatives.
Hope this solves the problem!

 

[LeicaM3]

I mixed a 1+25 solution (4ml dev to 1 litre of water) all chemicals & water were at 20 degC

I developed for 8 mins giving about 30 seconds initial agitation and then and inversion every 2 minutes.

You mean 40 ml.
In a 1:250 mix at 8 minutes you wouldn't see much on the neg 😀

 

[Bobfrance]

Doh!

Doh!

Ha ha, you're right guys! 😱

I think I've just had my first senior moment.

That certainly explains it. I remember thinking at the time "only 4ml? This rodinal will last me forever!"

Well at least I've proved something - you can still get scannable negs from a 1:250 mix or Rodinal.

*Instantly dies of embarrasment*

 

[Trius]

The funny thing is, when I saw "4ml", I "read" 40ml. Who's embarrassed now?

 

[titrisol]

naah 1+250 is good enough for long development times....
fill your tank, agitate a couple of times. Watch a college basketball game and then stop - fix and presto!