Pan F & Rodinol...no thanks

[noeyedear]

My goodness the net is full of how great Rodinol is, I just shot 2 rolls of Pan F 35mm and developed at 1.50, the first roll I under cooked as I cut back on agitation but didn't let it stew long enough. All the images are there, second roll as per massive dev and fine.
What both rolls have is grain so large it defeats the point of using Pan F, FP4 in Ilfosol is way better, smaller grain and better gradation.
I'm glad I only bought a small bottle.
Scanned on Coolscan 8000 and i know the differenve between scanner noise and film grain.

I can't for the life of me see why Rodinol gets so much good press if it makes Pan F look more like HP5!

 

[znapper]

I think it's called RodinAl.

And it's usually not very good for Pan F, giving excessive contrast and lost shadow detail.

Google around before you decide is my advice.
Some information I dug up from google regarding this combination

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/ilford-pan-f-and-rodinal.72241/

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/trials-and-tribulations-of-pan-f-plus-and-rodinal.23605/

https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/ilford-panf-plus-developed-in-rodinal.207703/

RodinAl is known for enhancing grain and may not work well with all films.
Other films comes out very beautiful with it (Foma 100, Acros etc).
But use google and find examples and discussions before you potentially ruin important images 🙂

 

[noeyedear]

I did a bit of googling (they can't touch you for it) and I kept getting Rodders at 1.50, 1.100 and more as a dev to control Pan F highlights, so I thought I would give it a chance. I've got lack lustre negs with huge grain.Not for me this, FP4 in Ilfosol does better for me.
Next roll of Pan F I'll have a go with DD-X. Once I've found something that works I tend to stick with it.
Anyone know the shelf life of a bottle of DD X once opened, then topped up with marbles etc. I had hoped to find something that doesnt go off like Ilfosol, i'm always dumping half used bottles.

My go to is medium format FP4 in Ilfosol 3, I thought lets give 35mm a try faster lenses and increase in depth of field 50iso should be usable, I just need a quality dev/film combination.

 

[Timmyjoe]

I tried Rodinal with Pan F years ago, and although I love Rodinal for certain films, it was awful with Pan F. I'll never do that again.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Larry Cloetta]

I tried Rodinal with Pan F years ago, and although I love Rodinal for certain films, it was awful with Pan F. I'll never do that again.

Best,
-Tim

Ditto. "Awful" sums it up in one word. Seems like it would work was my thought process before I tried it.

Pan F is very nice in Perceptol, however. IMO. Pretty much the polar opposite of the results you'd get with Rodinal, which is obviously good for some things, but not this.

 

[x-ray]

You're not going to learn much about any film with two rolls. I get gorgeous results with fine grain and a full scale of tones including nice shadow detail and I'm using Rodinal.

Recommended ISO and development times and dilutions are only starting points. You need to buy 10 rolls and start testing for your own ISO and your correct development time. Everyone's technique for processing is different and people have different expectations of what they want plus how critical you are is most likely different than how critical I am.

Are you scanning or wet printing? Films are designed to wet print not scan and the results will be different. I wet print using an Ilford multigrade diffusion head. My system will give different results than a condenser enlarger and most certainly than a scanner.

If you're scanning what kind? My Imacon 848 will give different looking scans than a plustek or Epson. Using canned profiles or custom or scanning linear?

Get the idea? To get good results it's an individual thing where you need to start with recommendations and refine the exposture and process for you. My technique won't necessarily guarantee good results for you.

Two rolls won't tell you much other than you didn't do things right.

For my taste, I'm not a huge fan of FP4 although Ive tuned it in and get good results but like other films better.

 

[x-ray]

Rodinal and PanF may not work for you but that doesn't mean it's not a really good combination if you take the time to learn how to expose and process it. It's the same as FP4 and HC110B for me but I took the time to learn both. No one film or developer or combination of the two are perfect.

 

[BLKRCAT]

If you're scanning on an 8000 you should know by now that the scanner is noisy as hell. I scanned some apx25 and had a similar experience. However when wet printing noticed no issues with grain. Your issue isn't with the film Dev combo but it's the scanner.

I found the best film for smoothness on the Nikon were t grained films. Classic grained stuff always looked overly noisy or grainy.

I particularly liked tmax 400 in xtol with my Nikon.

 

[noeyedear]

I thought I addressed that issue regarding scanner noise. Plus as I'm comparing it with other scans on the same scanner I can see the difference. I don't think the scanner was saving the noise just for Pan F.
Also in regards to the scanner, I had for sometime a Screen drum scanner the size of a an upright piano. It would produce wonderful scans, but wet mounting was a nightmare and slow to get right, the scanner was also slow. All in all I decided the Nikon scans were good enough for most things and certainly on quality for effort and time needed was better suited to a photographers needs. Im not looking at scanner noise, its film grain. I'm happy that many get what they want out of this combination, but its not for me, so far off the mark from what I want I don't see the point in spending the time finre tuning. I'l give Ilfords dev a try, I will do one roll as recommended then another over exposing undeveloping if roll one looks promising. The Rodinol killed the reason for using Pan F in the first place for me.
Cheers
Kev.

 

[BLKRCAT]

I've been told that the nikon even at 4000 dpi can't resolve grain. So I've never expected my 8000 to do it.

If Chris Crawford pops by this thread he's a wonderful source of knowledge on the Coolscan 8000.

Comparing scans from my V700 that I had before it there was a noticeable increase in noise when going from the V700 to the 8000.

 

[Dogman]

I haven't shot film in almost 10 years but when I did I loved PanF. I also used Rodinal at the time so the comments kinda bewildered me.

I went back and looked at my notes from that time and found my procedure was to shoot the film at an exposure index (ISO) of 32 and process in Rodinal diluted 1:75 with a sodium sulfite mixture for 11.5 minutes at 70 degrees F (NOT 68 degrees as is usually recommended). The negatives were slightly thin but printed beautifully on a #3 contrast grade paper using a condenser enlarger.

The sodium sulfite mixture does not need to be precise I made it by diluting 2/3 Tablespoon of sulfite in 8 oz. of water for each roll to be processed.

Given that film and chemistry changes over time, you might use this as a starting point.

I also had good results using D76 1:1, 7.5 minutes at 70 degrees using ISO 50.

PanF was not a grainless film but it had gorgeous gray tones.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Scanned on Coolscan 8000 and i know the differenve between scanner noise and film grain.

Have you cleaned the mirror on your Coolscan 8000 scanner? Yours has to be at lease ten years old by now. Unless it has been kept in a sealed container all these years, you probably have pretty much fine dust on that mirror. I noticed a difference when I cleaned the mirror on my Coolscan 9000. Just something to take into account.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Ko.Fe.]

The Rodinol ...

Rodinol? I'm not familiar with this developer.

I'm using Rodinal.
Rodinal and Pan F are two components which require trials and learning. Each and separate.
Rodinal is old developer with its limitations and Pan F is very tricky film.

I'm using Rodinal mostly for quick and cheap in cost developing of technical tests or if I wan't it gritty.

It took me almost entire bulk roll of Pan F to get it right and with HC-110, which is superior to Rodinal. IMO.

But I'm not sure about Rodinol. 🙂

 

[stompyq]

Ahh the joys of crappinol. Don't waste time with that junk. The only reason to use it is if you want golf ball sized grain

 

[css9450]

I had considered using Pan F 50, but between this thread and the earlier one about how quickly the exposed (but undeveloped) image disappears on this film, I am pretty much scared off from using it.

 

[BLKRCAT]

Ahh the joys of crappinol. Don't waste time with that junk. The only reason to use it is if you want golf ball sized grain

Scanning or printing? IMO scanning sure, wet printing not so much.

 

[charjohncarter]

I've used Rodinal and it does bigger grain than I like, BUT there also many characteristics in which it excels. I've never used it with Pan F, but recently I used it with Technical Pan (Kodak). I thought about grain but because I only have a few rolls I didn't feel like buying a new developer. I was surprised how little grain showed. Maybe it was the emulsion. The point is some films work with Rodinal and some don't: taste is a big factor.

 

[dickgillberg]

Come on, be a little kind to all of us that has not been in the darkroom for a long time. It's been 20 years for me. Instead tell us witch films Rodinal is good for so we can educate from you a bit. Ok, I can google, but share your knowledge it's more fun to read.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I had considered using Pan F 50, but between this thread and the earlier one about how quickly the exposed (but undeveloped) image disappears on this film, I am pretty much scared off from using it.

I recommend Kentmere 100 @50 ISO or at speed box with contrast filter.

 

[BLKRCAT]

Come on, be a little kind to all of us that has not been in the darkroom for a long time. It's been 20 years for me. Instead tell us witch films Rodinal is good for so we can educate from you a bit. Ok, I can google, but share your knowledge it's more fun to read.

FP4+ In Rodinal is my favorite for scanning. As mentioned earlier, wet printing tmax 400 in rodinal is my favorite. Though I'm trying some HP5 now to see if I can get away with bulk rolling.

I never liked HP5 very much but now that I'm printing everything I might like it again so I'm retrying it.