Help: Developing in Rodinal and Scanning - Help me improve my workflow

[tyrone.s]

After a break of some years I'm back into developing my own film and scanning to either upload to Flikr or print via inkjet or a photolab. I look at my images on the screen and I'm having trouble getting the sort of results that I'm looking for - a little less grain maybe but definately truer, more contrasty blacks that sort of 'peak' up out of a nicely balanced, smooth (?) grayscale range.

Could people please give me some ideas as to where to start to improve my images which I feel are lacking a bit of punch and are a little bit grainy after post processing.

Here's my workflow:

In a nutshell: I stand develop in Rodinal because I believe it brings as much detail as possible into shadow areas and helps even out the overall development of the negative in the first place. I then try for the lowest contrast 'flat' scan and then adjust levels and curves in post + correcting dust spots and scratches with the clone tool.

In detail

Wet develop:

I stand Develop in Rodinal 1+100 (either 6+600 for two rolls or 4+400 for 1 roll @ 20 degrees C. I agitate gently for 30 seconds, 2 bangs on counter and once more at 30 minutes. I get consistent results and can't see difference between 1 roll or 2. I Dump developer at 60 minutes (+/- a minute or 2 extra, then wash (no stop bath), fix for 5 - 6 minutes (Ilford fixer) based on how long a clipping of the negative takes to clear and then + 3 minutes. I wash and then final rinse with a drop of Kodak photoflow and hang dry. I've stopped using my fingers as a squeegee and let the roll hang (with weights) till dry. I live in the country and use (unfiltered) rainwater.

Scan:

Plustek Optifilm 7200. Running Vuescan in a Virtual Machine on XP with Chris Crawford's settings as best as I can with my scanner (set at 3600 dpi). These are Chris' settings that I've based mine on.

I scan to Tiff (16 bit) and get files that are about 30MB in size.

Post process:

This is where I have most problems. I use Linux for this (I run the scanner in a virtual machine on XP) and Gimp is 8 Bit for Tiffs. I open in Gimp and usually adjust Levels and then tweak the levels as a curve for fine tuning highs/lows/blacks. I then usually run unsharp mask at the default setting and use clone to fix up the numerous dust spots and scratches that I seem to get.

If I've stuffed up the initial exposure (i.e. sky is overexposed = no detail) I might duplicate the layer, adjust the curves to bring out underexposed section and then apply a mask and then create a graduated filter. This will bring out a lot of grain but it works much like lightroom's graduated filters.

At the moment I can't spend on Photoshop and / or Lightroom or a better scanner. I need some help using what I've got or free alternatives to help me. Frankly I'm not sure if I'm running down the wrong street with Rodinal in the first place. I should add that the Legacy Pro that I'm currently using is expired and hasn't been stored in any special way for the last couple of years when it wasn't being used.

A couple of samples:

These are Jupiter J8 on Contax II and taken yesterday:

2015-07-01-0014 by BigDragon, on Flickr


2015-07-01-0004 by BigDragon, on Flickr


2015-07-01-0003 by BigDragon, on Flickr

Voigtlander Vitomatic Ultron 2 and taken about a month ago:

Scan-150605-0002 by BigDragon, on Flickr

Yashica FXD, ML 50/1.4 and also taken about 4 weeks ago:

2015-06-20-0008 by BigDragon, on Flickr

And for reference taken maybe 3-4 years ago on the same film, developed in Rodinal (either 1:25 or 1+100) - scanned with same equipment and probably processed with the same sort of software.

img_0001 by BigDragon, on Flickr

So, any and all advice / opinions would be greatly appreciated. I feel that I've got consistency down but I'm just not developing and getting better at this and I'm not sure where best to start making changes.

Thanks!

 

[Ranchu]

Nearly everything you're doing is unfamiliar to me, and it's hard to say anything about it anyway because, "I open in Gimp and usually adjust Levels and then tweak the levels as a curve for fine tuning highs/lows/blacks." could be anything. But what the hell, I'll get the ball rolling.

All I know for sure is that if you want a different look, use a different developer. But you know that already...You might try developing for some of the contrast you want, rather than adding all of it in post. Where it says curve low, and curve high in the settings, try those at flat (.50?) (.00?), again, I've never used this software. Here is a thing though.


http://www.fotoimport.no/filmtest/fkd76.html

 

[Filzkoeter]

You are dumping away tons of tones when converting to 8-bit. I think the newer gimp versions are capable of 16-bit editing.

Dump the unsharp masking, in my opinion the plustek scanners are more then sharp enough without any sharpening in post... it mostly exaggerates the grain.
I was never happy with the tones I got from all the scanner software. You can try to scan raw-tif files with vuescan. so you get all the information without any adjustments from the software... raw-scans look horribly flat & dark (as negatives, very bright as positives) but they contain everything the scanner sees.
You need some software to convert those files like the ColorPerfect Plugin for Photoshop (costs money) or the Negfix8-script: https://sites.google.com/site/negfix/ (free)

 

[anerjee]

A couple of ideas.

First, reduce the temperature of the stand development to below 20degc C -- maybe to 18degs C.

Second, have Vuescan convert the scan to positive. Experiment with the film settings (T-max 400 etc) to get the look you like, to minimise post in GIMP.

 

[mfogiel]

I don't see anything which would be terribly wrong, but here are my points:
1- stand development will lead to uneven development no matter what, plus it accentuates the grain and creates Eberhardt effects - it is more indicated if you need to cope with extreme contrast landscapes, less so for people photography. I would go with D76 1+1 and plain vanilla processing for some time before trying to do something fancy
2) Edge sharpening accentuates the grain - I try to avoid it like a plague. If you want some more punch, you can use local sharpening , i.e. radius around 20 and amount around 40. BTW, do all the editing in 16 bit gray.
3) The general rule to get a well exposed and 3d looking image, is to push the exposure higher up the curve, and then shield the hard highlights by shorter development, plus in general for scanning you are better off with less dense negatives. To sum up: expose at half box speed and cut the dev time by around 25-30% and see how you like the results.

 

[tyrone.s]

Thank-you for four thoughtful replies! In the interim I've also tried a few different things myself:

Firstly I had dinner and red wine. Always a good move - everything 'glows' and looks great now. Problem solved! I'll drink wine when scanning in future. "Redinol"

No, I was strong and I actually restricted myself to two glasses (but they we're proper sized glasses) and then I rescanned with Vuescan's light grain reduction on. I tried RAW as suggested but the files seemed identical. I also am already scanning as positive (for reference).

Then I opened the files up in Darktable (as 16 Bit Tiff) and did my editing in that. Then I exported the finished image as jpeg and did a last bit of cloning to remove the really bad scratches in Gimp (which is current - well I'm at 2.8.14 in Ubuntu). So no editing at 8 bits, as such. Then I upload to Flickr.

I don't know about better, but it did help make the images slightly different. See three samples (albeit still with scratches and dust). I think the images are less gritty but not any more punchy:


Test 2 -a by BigDragon, on Flickr


Test 2-b by BigDragon, on Flickr


Test 3-c by BigDragon, on Flickr

From the advice received it seems to me that I need to reconsider two or three things:

One, how I rate the film speedwise. I'll try shooting at 50 asa tomorrow morning and develop in Rodinal as I have been. It seems that I'm not getting optimal exposure to start with and therefore when I fiddle with the curves / levels the boost in contrast reveals problems with exposure.

Two, therefore if I continue to use Rodinal, I also need to examine different times, agitation (I thought I was gentle, but perhaps swish would be better than upturn?) and ratio's - although I was under the impression that stand development 1+100 would even out the exposure in terms of bringing maximum detail into shadows without blowing the highlights? Perhaps this is correct, I didn't realise that it also causes uneven development (as has been observed, thanks!).

Three, As suggested I need to look at a different developer. I have a bag of D76 Powder in the cupboard. I can make up a mix of that and see how I go with that 1+1 after I've experimented some more with one and two. I haven't used D76 in nearly 30 years though (and I'm not old!)

Four, I need to learn about localised sharpening as opposed to a blunt tool like unsharp mask - cause yeah, I don't want sharp clouds thanks very much!

So I'll try re-rating my film first at say 50 ASA and then develop 1+100 but develop for less time, as suggested. I'll keep the temp the same and compare at 18 degrees at some other point (I have previously developed at 18, but not with this batch). Then I'll do another roll at 50 ASA but do that in what ratio - 1+25? 1+50? But for how long ? And then I'll experiment with D76.

 

[Pherdinand]

why don't you allow highlights to go bright? Except your 2 kid shots, the rest are suppressed strongly.

 

[tyrone.s]

And one last picture that at least matches with above. All in Darktable, uploaded straight to jpeg


Test 4-d by BigDragon, on Flickr

 

[tyrone.s]

why don't you allow highlights to go bright? Except your 2 kid shots, the rest are suppressed strongly.

I find if I go bright with my highlights I loose all detail. Admittedly yesterday was pretty overcast, but yes, it should be brighter. So initial exposure (and development) perhaps is the problem?

 

[tyrone.s]

I find if I go bright with my highlights I loose all detail. Admittedly yesterday was pretty overcast, but yes, it should be brighter. So initial exposure (and development) perhaps is the problem?

Actually, now that I quickly try dropping the highlight level down into the histrogram (i.e. towards the left, see screenshot and yellow circle), I see a brighter image with no detail in the sky. Therefore an exposure problem that I didn't allow for.



Test 5-e levels setting by BigDragon, on Flickr

But it's a much brighter image, and closer to what I want to achieve, I think 🙂 All the other images have the same problem...


Test 5-e by BigDragon, on Flickr

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I use Linux for this (I run the scanner in a virtual machine on XP) and Gimp is 8 Bit for Tiffs.
This is where I have most problems.

I reorganized your phrases to give you answer in your own words.

GIMP is garbage.
Old Lightroom version which supports 16-bit TIFF will give you normal results.

 

[Dwig]

...
Then I opened the files up in Darktable (as 16 Bit Tiff) and did my editing in that. Then I exported the finished image as jpeg and did a last bit of cloning to remove the really bad scratches in Gimp ...

Very bad workflow. NEVER EVER use JPEG for an intermediary format. You should have exported an 8-bit TIFF for further editing in GIMP if you can't do the final edits on a 16-bit TIFF.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I edited two of them for you. You have two problems.

1: As others have pointed out, do not sharpen the scans, it just increases grain. Do your sharpening after you resize the image to print or to put online (reducing the image size for small prints or web display makes them look softer, sharpening then restores the sharpness).

2: You're being timid in your postprocessing; they just need more contrast. Don't use levels, that darkens the darks and lightens the lights but leaves the midtones looking flat. Use curves.

Here are my renderings. I have the fullsize files with my adjustment layers intact if you want to see them. PM me if you do.

 

[tyrone.s]

I edited two of them for you. You have two problems.

1: As others have pointed out, do not sharpen the scans, it just increases grain. Do your sharpening after you resize the image to print or to put online (reducing the image size for small prints or web display makes them look softer, sharpening then restores the sharpness).

2: You're being timid in your postprocessing; they just need more contrast. Don't use levels, that darkens the darks and lightens the lights but leaves the midtones looking flat. Use curves.

Here are my renderings. I have the fullsize files with my adjustment layers intact if you want to see them. PM me if you do.

Thanks Chris, PM sent.

 

[tyrone.s]

Thanks Chris, PM sent.

Many thanks to Chris for his help and for sending me copies of the tiff files with his edits.

For the sake of anyone else that comes after me and reads this thread I've included some comments of Chris' from his PM to me:

(Chriscrawfordphoto) - All film scanners give scans with flat midtones. That's just how they are, and it doesn't matter how you expose or develop, that'll still be a problem. Now, that doesn't mean that exposure and developing are not important; it is MUCH easier to postprocess a scan from a good neg than one that is badly exposed or that is developed badly.

One thing with your pics too that makes it hard is they were shot on sunny days with harsh bright sun. That's hard light to work with, because of the extreme contrast between shadowed areas and the sunlit areas, and scanning these and postprocessing them is harder than doing so with photos shot on cloudy, or overcast conditions. If you live somewhere that always has harsh sun, then you just have to live with it. I'm lucky that it rains a lot in Indiana and we have a lot of cloudy and soft-light days.

And my reply:

(tyrone.s) I'm realising that using versus controlling scanners / post production software are very different things!

With that in mind, with all the sky that I have in these photos I clearly need to think about zones and how I'm going to expose for them - to get all that lovely cloud shadow detail.

Yes, lots of sun here in my part of South Australia. I used to work in the Desert Centre and man, that light was harsh, at 8 am in the morning. However with my photos from the other day I think at a base level I had lots of sky, and was taking too much light meter reading from that and over exposing. But I need to deal with that because a landscape without a detailed sky isn't a landscape at all.

I guess that's why Ansell Adams said - "Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships". But you can't dodge and burn what isn't there. Which is why I initially was going for 1+100 stand developing (to get shadow detail and not blow out highlights).

I'll wander off and take some more pictures and have a think.

Once again, Thankyou!

After this I sat down and went to load a new roll of film from the bulk loader and rolled off about 2 frames - only to discover that the loader was empty! I believe Legacy Pro 100 isn't available anymore either.

Anyway in the freezer I only had a single bulk roll of MACO TS EAGLE AQS 400 (surveillance film). Probably not the ideal film for rural landscapes - but I'll give that a try after I've defrosted it. Looking on Flickr and so on seem to indicate that this film will be okay. The massive rev chart suggests as follows:

Maco Eagle AQS Rodinal 1+25 200ASA 12 min @ 20C
Maco Eagle AQS Rodinal 1+25 400ASA 12-15 min @ 20C

So a pretty standard development time. One conversation on Flickr suggested that rating it at 250 or 320 worked well. Similarly it seems viable to push over 1000 as well.

I might just start with a roll at box speed for 15 minutes @ 20C to see what it's like before I start getting jiggy with it.

So it looks like I'll also be getting some fresh film. Hmm, what to get?

At any rate thanks to all that have contributed as it's really helped me to understand what I'm trying to achieve and just how many elements there are to getting there. There's such a wealth of knowledge (and willingness to share) on this forum.

Cheers
Tyrone

 

[mfogiel]

For landscape, depending on the type of flavour you want, you could either go with a high grain/good acutance/great tonality/lower resolution films like Tri X or HP5 OR with a high resolution/low grain/low acutance film like Fuji Acros. An interesting alternatives are TMX400-2 and Delta 100. TMX400 is fine grained and has good acutance AND great tonality, but is relatively more difficult to expose/process well than the classic ISO400 films. Delta 100 is probably the sharpest film around, and will give you nice detail and acceptable tonality in Rodinal, but it appears very "clean" and modern looking. There are also a few nice traditional films in the ISO 100 range, like FP4, RPX100/Kentmere 100/Foma 100/Silvermax. Given that you are using an old 35mm camera with a lens that has low micro contrast, my personal preference would be to use a great tonality film and care more about the overall mood of the picture rather than about high sharpness/low grain appearance - for this you would be better off with a 6x9 format. Go on line to see photos by Michael Kenna (- he has used Tri X in D76 1+1 all his life), and Sebastiao Salgado - (he has used Tri X in Rodinal most of his life, before switching to digital in the last years).

 

[tyrone.s]

Trying to change one thing at a time ...

Trying to change one thing at a time ...

So, as I said, I ran out of the Legacy Pro that I was using. All that I've got to hand is the Maco Eagle AQS B&W Surveillance Film 400ASA. It's been frozen since 2011 ... Not ideal, but I've got what I've got.

I took some shots yesterday and developed as I normally have been - Rodinal 1+100, 20 gentle agitations in the first minute. One agitation at 30 minutes, dump after 60, rinse, fix rinse, then rinse with a drop of photoflo and then hang to dry. So all I changed was the film.

As you can see from the photos I've got lots of grain, much more than I'd like and I think I've underexposed in heavy overcast? There's stuff all shadow detail.

I rated the film at 400 (box speed) and metered with the same meter (Gossen Sixtino) I used for the last lot that I've previously sought help with above. I don't have to use this meter because i also have a VC Meter, but 1 change at a time only/. Most of the shots were indicated 1000ASA/F8. I shot at 1250 on the Contax II.

Last night I watched Chris Crawfords' how to mix D76 from powder and I'll go 'into town' this arvo and get some containers to hold a gallon of D76.

I live in a small regional town so no film shops for me. Looking online I can see here in Australia that I can buy:

Fomapan 200 Creative, 35mm Bulk 17 meters

Fomapan 100 Classic, 17 meter Bulk 35mm

In developers I can also get:
Fomadon Excel (apparently similar to XTOL - a powder mix)
FOMADON LQN “Normal” liquid film developer, 250 mls

Australian suppliers are my best bet to get something this week. Since money's tight I'd rather get some rolls of currently available film and have plenty to practice with and dial in my technique.

So, given that I'm looking for much less grainy negatives than I've got, can anyone:

A: recommend varying my Rodinal regime to get something better from the Maco Eagle? Should I use 1+25? Or should I just use D76? Should I rate the film at 320, 250?

B: Any recommendations for either of the Foma Films and either of the Foma Developers or either of the Foma films in Rodinal or D76?


2015-07-04-0025 by BigDragon, on Flickr


2015-07-04-0021 by BigDragon, on Flickr


2015-07-04-0020 by BigDragon, on Flickr


2015-07-04-0004 by BigDragon, on Flickr

Sorry for so many photo's but I guess people can't help if they can't see what I'm seeing. For what it's worth, none of these photo's were adjusted for levels, just curves and I used Darktable a 16 Bit photo program to do the adjustments. I tried GIMP as well and got basically indistinguishable results.

One really nice thing about the Maco is that I lays out flat.

 

[nhchen]

Hi Tyrone,
I've also been using this maco eagle aqs film and it does seem a lot more contrasty than others. I read somewhere before that it was apparently just rebadged rollei retro 400s film, so I've been doing my developing based of that - 1:50 rodinal/22min. I quite like it since the film base is clear. The only problem I found is when I'm bulk loading it, if there's any moisture the film sticks together and the antihalation layer gets onto other parts of the film, which causes blotches on the image after I develop them.
Regards Nathan

 

[tyrone.s]

Thanks for the heads up Nathan. I'm still plugging away with the Maco Eagle AQS. I've made some adjustments to my shooting. I looked at the Massive Dev Chart and rated the AQS at 200asa and developed 1:100 for 15 minutes with 30 seconds gentle agitation to start and gentle agitation for 10 seconds every minute. I had better negatives, I think. I'll try less agitation next time.

Still gray and overcast here in my part of South Australia.

As scanned and post processed - all adjustments made in Darktable which now works much better now that I've reinstalled Ubuntu as 64 bit and the same for Darktable (runs out of ram as a 32 bit application).

Interestingly enough Darktable has a Zone System module which allows you to expand or contract each of the present zones in your image. If my images were better exposed to begin with would have been quite a powerful way of editing the images.

All still taken with Contax ll, but I switched over to the Helios 103 that I bought years ago as new, unused. The aperture leaves are very bright and shiny and need the "sharpie treatment" All are f8/500 except for the sign which was f4/ 125.

However I still feel that I'm not quite reaching the optimum black or white points that the images need to stop being as subdued as they are. Will keep working on it.


treepree by BigDragon, on Flickr


treepost by BigDragon, on Flickr


signpre by BigDragon, on Flickr


signpost by BigDragon, on Flickr


ploughpre by BigDragon, on Flickr


ploughpost by BigDragon, on Flickr

 

[ABrosig]

I personally abandoned Rodinal/Adonal (except for special circumstances) because I found the negatives to be too contrasty for my tastes with Ilford FP4 and/or Delta 100/400. I'm currently having better luck with Kodak HC110, Dil H, which is 1:63, 10min@68F with Delta 400 exposed at 200. I'm scanning to a Pacific Image PF120 medium format scanner using Vuescan and getting good results. Check out some of the latest on my Flickr page via the link below.