Rodinal 1:100

So I just did my first two rolls of Tri-X with stand and, honestly, these are some of the worst looking negatives I've gotten...and I'm not very good at this in the first place. They have extraordinary contrast (too much really) and grain, and a strange amount of detail, but they almost look like something from the 19th century. Ghostly? Sometimes that's good, mostly it's bad.

I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong exactly. Maybe I'm agitating too harshly? It seems like my negatives are generally grainier than what I see here and elsewhere, and I was really expecting different results from this process and with Rodinal. I feel like I need to step back and reevaluate the whole process.
 
Well, I may have spoken too soon. Though not really sharp, the highlights are extraordinarily retrievable. You can manipulate these negatives to a degree I've never encountered before. I will keep trying with this.
 
Semuta said:
Well, I may have spoken too soon. Though not really sharp, the highlights are extraordinarily retrievable. You can manipulate these negatives to a degree I've never encountered before. I will keep trying with this.
Click to expand...

Honestly, the stand method is the poorest! It's just a lazyman's technique to help one save 5 minutes and a few shakes here and there while ending up needing double the work in the darkroom to get a decent print with decent contrast.
 
What other developing technique would be poorer, then?

As for me, I'm back from an important trip and shot 20 rolls. I'm counting on those 20 rolls to produce at least 30 20x24 Highest Quality FB prints.
The development and printing part are the most important ones. This is where a solid technique is needed. There is no room for frivolous or creative testings when I develop my films. Creativity was when I shot the images. There's no way I will risk these 20 important rolls of film with stand development.
 
I need to mess with this some more, and I need to work on my scanning skills (and clean my negatives), but I got some usable shots from this roll.

I think that, when done a certain way, stand developing can lend a dreamy quality to the photo that I really like. Certain people capture that quality more than others, whereas some seem to get results indistinguishable from traditional methods, which probably has to do with the subtleties of the developing process. I don't know exactly what that dream quality is but I like it.

Kodak Tri-X in Rodinal 1:100 for 60 minutes:


Blurred Buoy by The_Semuta, on Flickr
 
Semuta,
There is no "Traditional" vs. "non-traditional" way to develop films. There is a good way (strongly recommended) vs. non-recommended.

The whole point of inversing the film is to NOT let exhausted developer drag on the film and preventing fresh developer from working. This can cause uneven development.
No, sorry: This causes uneven development with low contrast and only gives you a ballpark/average tonal quality.

About the dream quality you are refering to; it is a function of the lens, film, scene, developer. The developing technique is secondary to all the rest.

It is maybe my pet-peeve, but atributing magical qualities to Stand development is wrong. That's not where the magic is. For instance, a good composition will always be more magical then a badly composed image which has been stand-developed.
 
For reference: some photos showing Rodinal 1+100 stand development failures.

The first - over-development of one side of the neg.

attachment.php


The second - streaks associated with drag from the sprocket holes.

attachment.php


Occasionally I got good results, but too often I got this. If it works for you keep doing what you're doing!
 

Attachments

  • BW155_09.jpg
    BW155_09.jpg
    169.1 KB · Views: 0
  • BW204_018.jpg
    BW204_018.jpg
    157.2 KB · Views: 0
Clint, you are certainly entitled to your opinions. I concede your point about lens, film, etc., though I do believe that developing does play an important role. There are so many variables and so many ways to uniquely impact them. There are, however, a number of people who use stand regularly and seem to get fairly consistent results from it.

As for me, I'm just experimenting with it for now. I tried it based upon results I had seen others achieve, and I like certain aspects of it so far. I can afford to make mistakes.
 
Clint, you are certainly entitled to your opinions. I concede your point about lens, film, etc., though I do believe that developing does play an important role. There are so many variables and so many ways to uniquely impact them.
Click to expand...
IMO, the development part should be the most standardized possible.

There are, however, a number of people who use stand regularly and seem to get fairly consistent results from it.
Click to expand...
Like 99% of people texting while driving do it fairly well without causing disastrous damages. But in theory, it is extremely dangerous.

As for me, I'm just experimenting with it for now. I tried it based upon results I had seen others achieve, and I like certain aspects of it so far. I can afford to make mistakes.
Click to expand...
If you can afford to make mistakes, that's good. But please note that you are indeed "affording to make mistakes". Would you stand develop a Roll of Film that you would have shot on top of the Himalaya, a once in a lifetime event? I'm absolutely sure that even the most die-hard stand-developers would choose a "semi-semi-semi stand" technique that would involve quite enough inversions in order to avoid the disastrous retsults that only occure with Stand development (look at ChrisN's samples).

And I really wonder what have you seen that's so special in other people's results. I looked and studied all the images in this thread and I couldn't believe the extremely wide range of results. I would have NEVER guessed they were all images from one same development method. That alone proves my point that a certain look is a function of many things and not about development, really.
You certainly read about the stand development and its magic but the words didn't really translate into images. I really can't say that the images in this thread are consistent whatsoever from post to post. Not even 2 photographs from one same poster look alike.
 
Hmmm....so confused but know exactly what I want

Hmmm....so confused but know exactly what I want

My bottle of original Agfa Rodinal arrived yesterday and I have a roll of TMX ready to drop into it. So, in pursuit of diligence, I visited this thread to solidify the technique. Gotta say after reading all 13 pages I'm not sure whether to do it or not. Chris N has scared me witless. :eek:

;)

Gotta say there are some beautiful results posted in here - and a frustrating amount of dead links and pulled photo links :bang: - but if I can achieve anything like the image below I will be truly delighted!

Semuta said:

Blurred Buoy by The_Semuta, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Magnificent! Has such a unique feel that really resonates with me.

Now could I have pulled this off following a non-stand / standard processing regime?
 
stillshunter said:
...

...
Now could I have pulled this off following a non-stand / standard processing regime?
Click to expand...

Absolutely! The big claim for stand development (with other developers too - not just Rodinal) is restraining over-development of the highlights. That scene doesn't have much in the way of highlights that need restraining. The rest is a matter of exposure, the right film, correct development, then good printing (or post-processing).
 
For folks who like the idea of stand development because they don't want to spend a lot of time in the darkroom (or kitchen) sink, here's another alternative.

Twenty year old HP5 (Ilford 617 35mm motion picture stock), exposed at EI 200 with an OM2n in auto-exposure mode, developed in Ilford Multigrade (paper) developer (15ml in 300ml) at 20c for 2 (yes two) minutes with initial 10s agitation and another 10s after one minute.

attachment.php


OK it's a bit grainy, but there's shadow detail and even good detail in the highlights! I tried this for a joke but it worked so well I wonder if it might be useful. The old film is a bit fogged (which might help restrain the highlights) but I think it could be quite usable. Pretty quick too. :)
 

Attachments

  • BW428_008.jpg
    BW428_008.jpg
    148.6 KB · Views: 0
A little late to jump on the Rodinal bandwagon. I used 1:50 time on 1:100 developer by mistake. These are some images.







Is that to be expected from a Rodinal brew? With the wrong dilution I am quite surprised that the quality is there, albeit not the best. Lucky film has a glow to it, and I used a single coated lens. Each variable plays different role. I have some Acros and APX I'd like to test as well. Thanks everyone.
 
I'm surprised by the blown highlights in the second photo (and even the sky and background in the first). Perhaps this has resulted from the scanning rather than the development of the film. The claimed advantage of stand development is that the technique will prevent over-development of the highlights. I don't think your photos support that claim. Other than that they look good with even development.
 
Hi Chris, sorry maybe I wasn't clear, this is normal development not stand. And the highlights are blown most likely in the scanning/post processing steps. Thank you for your remarks. :D
 
ChrisN said:
I'm surprised by the blown highlights in the second photo (and even the sky and background in the first). Perhaps this has resulted from the scanning rather than the development of the film. The claimed advantage of stand development is that the technique will prevent over-development of the highlights. I don't think your photos support that claim. Other than that they look good with even development.
Click to expand...

I think the highlights come with the film used. Lucky has a very lacking (if any!) anti halation layer. like polypan f, for example!

this is a friend's shot with lucky bw film, note the glow from the hand and white part of the arm.

Milk with reflection by Cheffalo, on Flickr

I think the glow can be used for some interesting effects. like this:

Treasure by Cheffalo, on Flickr
 
Not everyone gets on with 1+100 Rodinal stand or semi-stand. I also think films at a nominal 400 iso don't get on with Rodinal (for me, at any rate. YMMV). I think the condition of tap water in your local area can make a noticable difference too.

I do get good results using Rodinal with slow films in 120 format, with semi-stand 1+100. Easy does it on the agitation , and make sure the dev solution is 20 deg C or slightly less (certainly no warmer)

Works for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom