Here's some Rodinal times and dilutions

[ChrisN]

Those times seem rather long to me. I'm usually about 1/4 less than those numbers. Variation is normal but this makes me think I may be under developing a bit.

As Larry said your results (Flickr) look fine, perhaps a little under-exposed. It depends on whether you're developing for scanning or wet-printing and what sort of enlarger. I like a fairly dense negative for wet printing with a diffusion enlarger, and these still scan OK. Thinner negatives can also scan very well.

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

I guess the same times apply to Adox Adonal, which is supposed to be the same as Afga Rodinal (but has become somehow easier to find here in Northern Europe).

The times in the table are a bit longer than the ones I've been using (11 mintues for Tri-X 400 at 1:50 and 20 deg). But I've actually needed to pump up the contrast when scanning, so probably using the times suggested in this table can give thicker and more contrasty negatives to begin with. Thanks for sharing.

 

[clayne]

Notes on Adonal vs Rodinal vs APH09 from Mirkko (ADOX)

 

[Brian Legge]

As Larry said your results (Flickr) look fine, perhaps a little under-exposed. It depends on whether you're developing for scanning or wet-printing and what sort of enlarger. I like a fairly dense negative for wet printing with a diffusion enlarger, and these still scan OK. Thinner negatives can also scan very well.

Scanning now, planning to start wet printing again some time. A recent roll or two was definitely thin. I usually expose Tri X around ei 250 and develop closer to 9-11 minutes at 1:50 20c. That hits the exposure side but I'm guessing my negatives are probably slightly thin. The lower development time helps reduce contrast which has been an issue for me while scanning in the past.

I'm guessing my process gets me negatives better optimized for scanning than printing. I'll have to run some tests with increased development times to see if I can negatives that still scan but are more general purpose.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Another small point is the APX emulsions changed in about 2003, the times listed were adjusted to be slightly longer.
Here is a link some might find interesting:
http://www.silverprint.co.uk/pdf/agfa_bw_manual.pdf

 

[clayne]

I can't remember - did it change for both 100 and 400 at that time or just 400? I know 400 is an outlier because it was redesigned or changed in some kind of way (this is all pre Lupus) and people hated it afterward but 100 seems to have been consistent all the way through.

 

[Photo_Smith]

clane if you look at the documentation posted by Tim Gray (post no 9 second link) it states APX 100 1:25 8 mins and 1:50 17min that's dated 1999 the one I've posted above is later and gives ApX 100 7 mins and 14 mins respectively.

I use 13min for 1:50 for APX 100 for my personal work which I use a lower contrast.

 

[agricola]

Thanks Chris. Have a daughter in Melbourne (another in Canberra!) and will be down there before too long.

 

[charjohncarter]

I noticed that the charts posted by the PO bumped up the EI (ISO) when shooting lower contrast scenes. Of course, he changes the dilution and time too. I have used this on roll film without changing dilution or time, so I can get a little more contrast with my dull shots. For example, I shoot TriX at 200 in bright sun which is mostly what is laying around in California. If it is overcast or raining I use 400.

 

[ferider]

Roland - I love both those photos - very nicely done and well presented too.

Thanks a lot, Chris.

Those times seem rather long to me. I'm usually about 1/4 less than those numbers. Variation is normal but this makes me think I may be under developing a bit.

Brian, it's hard to tell from your flickr pictures if you under develop or not. Only you know since you scanned and saw the histograms. Really depends on your target: I develop for scanning and try to have histograms as broad as possible. If you want to wet print that's a different story. If you have to shift the levels after scanning, grain is typically increased, but again - if it's only a stop or so - that's only visible when looking at the leveled scan in higher resolution.

Roland.

 

[oftheherd]

I thought it interesting about the 1:100 times. Usually stand development goes for 1:100, no big worry about temperature, 60 minutes and no agitation after the first bit.

 

[Ranchu]

Where did you get those charts.

Hey charjohncarter, I don't know if you saw this, it came from Current 35mm Practice William L. Broecker; Editor Published by Morgan & Morgan, Inc., Dobbs Ferry, New York, 1975. You can probably drag and drop the charts onto your desktop, or right click and save as (?). I keep an eye out for rodinal stuff because if I get back into b=w that's where I'll start!

🙂

 

[Kenj8246]

I gave these times a try and I need some opinions as to whether I did it correctly. Film is Acros 100 rated at 160. I used the first chart and Approximate ASA Rating of film 100-125, subject contrast Normal and time 16 min at 20C. Normal agitation. Shots were taken late in the day in TX using an incident reading of f8 and 60 sec if I remember correctly. 🙂 These are just some grab shots of my car in the driveway, nothing special.

Aside from the fact that I used a rating of a third stop outside the ASA rating I chose to develop with, one of my questions is about contrast: is this a normal, low or high contrast situation? I chose normal but think I should have chosen low since the shadows were so long. Or, am i completely in the dark about contrast? I'm not completely unhappy with how these turned out but am asking what y'all think and/or how would you have approached this?


F100-Acros100 6 by kenj8246, on Flickr


F100-Acros100 14 by kenj8246, on Flickr


F100-Acros100 16 by kenj8246, on Flickr

Kenny

 

[Ranchu]

Hi, for what it's worth I would call this a high contrast situation, you have a very reflective object in the (late afternoon?) sun and in shade. Maybe it's a little underexposed? Looks good and crunchy though, a lot of slam.

 

[charjohncarter]

Hey charjohncarter, I don't know if you saw this, it came from Current 35mm Practice William L. Broecker; Editor Published by Morgan & Morgan, Inc., Dobbs Ferry, New York, 1975. You can probably drag and drop the charts onto your desktop, or right click and save as (?). I keep an eye out for rodinal stuff because if I get back into b=w that's where I'll start!

🙂

Thanks, I'm still thinking about just raising the EI (ISO) for non F16 scenes. I don't feel like doing doing testing right now to see if the same thing could be done with a simple film speed change.

Maybe, if my grandson visits we will do the Algebra and check.