Highway 61
Revisited
I have experienced some extreme weakness of some 3 years old Rodinal although kept in a dark, dry, cool place. That was the exact same Rodinal as the one you displayed on post #33. Like gb hill's one, mine had turned into a burnt reddish stuff and I could see some solid particles on the interior surfaces of the bottle. The films came out very severely underdeveloped. Yes all the parameters were good, yes I had used more than 5ml of pure Rodinal to prepare the diluted solution at the last moment.
This is why, for domestic use, and low quantity of films processed a month, and given that we should all be concerned with not wasting chemicals, powder developers sold in small pouches are a better solution when seen from my window.
Not everyone has the time to make tests and a densitometer available at home.
Especially if you think that any obvious rendition differences between Rodinal (& all its clones) and, say, fresh D76 1+1 very properly used are still to be clearly demonstrated on most of the classic ISO 100 35mm films we now find on the market (FP4+, Kentmere 100, Ilford Pan 100, Fomapan 100, old stocks of genuine APX100, and all that Rollei/Adox/Maco stuff of mysterious origins and specs).
I won't speak of ISO 400 films here, not to light any fire.
I recently wet printed some 8x11" FB sheets off a Fomapan 100 35mm roll developed in D76 1+1 : the blacks are dense blacks, the whites are white yet not blown out, the acutance is extremely high, the resolution is stunning with lots of details. And it was shot using an old Nikkormat FTN and its built-in meter, and an as old Nikkor 50mm f/2.
Although this superb film is said to be at its best in Rodinal 1+50, I don't think that I could have got better results using whatever else than what I routinely used to develop it.
This is why, for domestic use, and low quantity of films processed a month, and given that we should all be concerned with not wasting chemicals, powder developers sold in small pouches are a better solution when seen from my window.
Not everyone has the time to make tests and a densitometer available at home.
Especially if you think that any obvious rendition differences between Rodinal (& all its clones) and, say, fresh D76 1+1 very properly used are still to be clearly demonstrated on most of the classic ISO 100 35mm films we now find on the market (FP4+, Kentmere 100, Ilford Pan 100, Fomapan 100, old stocks of genuine APX100, and all that Rollei/Adox/Maco stuff of mysterious origins and specs).
I won't speak of ISO 400 films here, not to light any fire.
I recently wet printed some 8x11" FB sheets off a Fomapan 100 35mm roll developed in D76 1+1 : the blacks are dense blacks, the whites are white yet not blown out, the acutance is extremely high, the resolution is stunning with lots of details. And it was shot using an old Nikkormat FTN and its built-in meter, and an as old Nikkor 50mm f/2.
Although this superb film is said to be at its best in Rodinal 1+50, I don't think that I could have got better results using whatever else than what I routinely used to develop it.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
It would be difficult to surmise over the internet what went wrong with your Rodinal, or indeed if the lack of density was due to low developer activity or contamination lowering the p.h.
Normally Rodinal will develop some crystals due to the Ostwald ripening process. Athough I use desitometers and p.h meters to check the developer there is no need to do this, a simple 'dip test' will suffice.
The rendering of Rodinal with different film types is harder to qualtify and mainly down to personal taste, I haven't seen that much of a difference between D76 and Rodinal grain size under a microscope; although the grain morpholgy and final shape will differ due to promoted physical development, filliment growth etc.
I understand you have a preference for D76 and love the way it renders grain, I too use it as a basline for my experiments with different developers; it isn't however a panacea but rather a compromise (like all developers) slightly less grain than Rodinal with slightly less accutance-both are just tools which in good hands can give excellent results.
I use Fomapan 100 in 4x5, 120 and 35mm I wouldn't say it was best in Rodinal, I suppose it depends on what compromises you're willing to put up with.
Foma 100 is about 50-64 effective speed in Rodinal at the 1:50 dilution, care will be needed with exposure to ensure good shadow detail-results can often look flat and thin otherwise.
The best devlopers I've found for the Foma range are the ones that give the full ISO speed normally DDX or Microphen the latter being the one Foma used to get their ISO classification (check the data sheet)
I recently printed some 35mm shots from Foma 100 developed in Rodinal 1:50 they have very good tonal properties and made good prints on the Fomatone 131 paper I print on-shot on a 1973 Nikkormat EL with 50mm F2 HC warm an subtle just a hint of grain on a 9x12 when observed really closely which disapears into sharpness at correct viewing.
We all have our preferred methods, and developers. Mine is Rodinal for most films unless I need speed when Microphen/DDX is the choice (despite the smooth look)
Normally Rodinal will develop some crystals due to the Ostwald ripening process. Athough I use desitometers and p.h meters to check the developer there is no need to do this, a simple 'dip test' will suffice.
The rendering of Rodinal with different film types is harder to qualtify and mainly down to personal taste, I haven't seen that much of a difference between D76 and Rodinal grain size under a microscope; although the grain morpholgy and final shape will differ due to promoted physical development, filliment growth etc.
I understand you have a preference for D76 and love the way it renders grain, I too use it as a basline for my experiments with different developers; it isn't however a panacea but rather a compromise (like all developers) slightly less grain than Rodinal with slightly less accutance-both are just tools which in good hands can give excellent results.
I use Fomapan 100 in 4x5, 120 and 35mm I wouldn't say it was best in Rodinal, I suppose it depends on what compromises you're willing to put up with.
Foma 100 is about 50-64 effective speed in Rodinal at the 1:50 dilution, care will be needed with exposure to ensure good shadow detail-results can often look flat and thin otherwise.
The best devlopers I've found for the Foma range are the ones that give the full ISO speed normally DDX or Microphen the latter being the one Foma used to get their ISO classification (check the data sheet)
I recently printed some 35mm shots from Foma 100 developed in Rodinal 1:50 they have very good tonal properties and made good prints on the Fomatone 131 paper I print on-shot on a 1973 Nikkormat EL with 50mm F2 HC warm an subtle just a hint of grain on a 9x12 when observed really closely which disapears into sharpness at correct viewing.
We all have our preferred methods, and developers. Mine is Rodinal for most films unless I need speed when Microphen/DDX is the choice (despite the smooth look)
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
how long is the shelf life of Rodinal in an unopened bottle. I have an unopened bottle that must be at least 7 or 8 years old. Should I just pitch it?
plummerl
Well-known
I just ran a roll of Neopan 1600 thru some Rodinal (unopened) that had to be at least 12 years old (likely longer
). Film was processed at 1:50 and came out perfect.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Sounds promising! I'll give it a try.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Bottle first opened 1987. Film developed last month or so or 3. Yes, good negs! This was the true, real, actual, Agfa Rodinal. Very., very dark and only half a bottle left. Stored in my garage for.....um.....a few years I put it in a box of stuff when I decomissioned the darkroom in the early 2000s.
Now, rest assured, I have a newer bottle of Rodinal (fake Rodinal) along with HC110 and recent D-76 in my processing kit. So, I can use chems that mostly assure me of good results. That is, if the person exposing the film knew what he was doing.....
I think I'll try the garage Rodinal again next year. I expect good negs.
I put it in a box of stuff when I decomissioned the darkroom in the early 2000s. Now, rest assured, I have a newer bottle of Rodinal (fake Rodinal) along with HC110 and recent D-76 in my processing kit. So, I can use chems that mostly assure me of good results. That is, if the person exposing the film knew what he was doing.....
I think I'll try the garage Rodinal again next year. I expect good negs.
Fotohuis
Well-known
I have a closed Agfa Rodinal 500ml bottle from 1973. It was together with some Microdol-X, Microphen 10 liter packings, Tetenal Emofin 2x2,5 liter from a closed photo lab.
Apart from my own reference Agfa Rodinal from 2003 which is still working. I did a test in 2007 with the 2003 Rodinal (then 4 y.o.) and indeed only small differences read on the densitometer.
Interesting what the stuff from 1973 is doing ......
Apart from my own reference Agfa Rodinal from 2003 which is still working. I did a test in 2007 with the 2003 Rodinal (then 4 y.o.) and indeed only small differences read on the densitometer.
Interesting what the stuff from 1973 is doing ......
Ronald M
Veteran
I had a bottle purchased in 1996, which I decanted to a glass sealed bottle. Over ten years I used a little at a time ending with a half bottle. I worked fine for ten years.
1:100 is low concentration. You will need 16 oz for a roll.
1:100 is low concentration. You will need 16 oz for a roll.
leicapixie
Well-known
I have since moved to HC-110
It is wonderful, no more base fog, clean images, less messy grain.
Kentmere 400 works OK but 400 ISO better at 200 ISO.
I had the Original Formula for Rodinal.
I think Agfa did it in a special way, so new versions are not copies..
I also don't remember TRI-X so curly.
Moved on to Ilford HP5+ and Kentmere, for flatness.
Filzkoeter
stray animal
Shoot at 400 and try it for 11-12 minutes in dilution H, agitation 30 sec. + 2-3 agitations every minute
Back to the thread: Once I had also the rest of a bottle of Rodinal that just died on me, perfectly clear film, no development at all.
tho60
Well-known
Wine and Rodinal
Wine and Rodinal
Some people claim that Rodinal is like wine, the older, the better. Reportedly, someone found a bottle of Rodinal from 1961 and it works superior than new ones.
Wine and Rodinal
Some people claim that Rodinal is like wine, the older, the better. Reportedly, someone found a bottle of Rodinal from 1961 and it works superior than new ones.
Fotohuis
Well-known
Of course 1961 was THE best year (because I was born then .... )
ColColt
Established
I bought some Adox Rodinal from Freestyle not long ago and it's a sort of tea color. I use it with FP-4(1:75) as I use to years ago and it did a superb job as it did with Tri-X. My go to developer for FP-4.
Fotohuis
Well-known
In general R09/Rodinal and Ilford/Harman emulsions are not the best combinations. Exception maybe PAN F+.