ChrisN
Striving
Got it! 5ml in 500ml of water. I'll try that tonight with a roll of expired Kodak Hawkeye surveillance film I shot today. If it comes out I'll post the results!
Rodinal 1:100
- Thread starter AshenLight
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 347
- Views 129K
Got it! 5ml in 500ml of water. I'll try that tonight with a roll of expired Kodak Hawkeye surveillance film I shot today. If it comes out I'll post the results!
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
Chris,
Looking forward to seeing your photographs, hope it works out well for you.
This is Efke KB400 at 3200... using the 120 minute method
Kent | Sydney, Australia 2008
Leica M5 | Jupiter-9 8.5cm f2.0 | Efke KB400 EI 3200 | Rodinal 1:100 Stand
Looking forward to seeing your photographs, hope it works out well for you.
This is Efke KB400 at 3200... using the 120 minute method
Kent | Sydney, Australia 2008
Leica M5 | Jupiter-9 8.5cm f2.0 | Efke KB400 EI 3200 | Rodinal 1:100 Stand
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Lynn, I agree about agitation correlating to grain. Lots of stuff here and elsewhere on that. I usually use four BW films, TriX/320, Acros/100, HP5 and Delta/3200.
I use HC110 in place of Rodinal for the +200 ISO's of HP5, Tri X, and Delta. I've used Rodinal with these films and find grain. I'll have to check to see if the film shows the results you state using your process. It appears you don't use a 'mid point' agitation. The reason for the mid point is to deal with the exhausted developer that drops to the bottom of the tank, the mid point agitation is enough to 'mix' the remaining developer to ensure a consistent development. I believe this method helps offset the bromide drag that causes streaking, something that can occur with stand development practice.
BTW; Nice portrait of Kent, he's a very good photographer
I use HC110 in place of Rodinal for the +200 ISO's of HP5, Tri X, and Delta. I've used Rodinal with these films and find grain. I'll have to check to see if the film shows the results you state using your process. It appears you don't use a 'mid point' agitation. The reason for the mid point is to deal with the exhausted developer that drops to the bottom of the tank, the mid point agitation is enough to 'mix' the remaining developer to ensure a consistent development. I believe this method helps offset the bromide drag that causes streaking, something that can occur with stand development practice.
BTW; Nice portrait of Kent, he's a very good photographer
Last edited:
tomasis
Well-known
PL Miller, such interesting technique and images.
I wonder if your Efke is same as Adox CHS 25,50,100? Or former Agfapan, HP5?
I must say Im surprised how clean iso 3200 and 6400 pictures look. Have you tried to push Retro 100,400?
I wonder how Jobo 3500 tank looks like? I only know 1500 and 2500 for 35mm, hmm.
I wonder if your Efke is same as Adox CHS 25,50,100? Or former Agfapan, HP5?
I must say Im surprised how clean iso 3200 and 6400 pictures look. Have you tried to push Retro 100,400?
I wonder how Jobo 3500 tank looks like? I only know 1500 and 2500 for 35mm, hmm.
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
Jan,
Thanks, Kent is close friend and we work together quite abit.
According to the experts over at APUG, bromide drag is not possible with Rodinal. Do not know the technicals, but it can and does occur with HC-110 and other developers. I must say that in the 50 plus rolls I have developed in the past few months, I have had no streaking.
Since bromide drag is not possible with Rodinal and the amount of agitation determines the grain, I worked out my method of stand development on these conclusions. So I do not use a mid-point agitation, except when pushing film, then I use 120 minutes and swirl every 30 minutes.
As for exhausted developer dropping in the tank, that is news to me. But I have not seen any adverse effects when developing 5 rolls of 35mm in the big Jobo. Hmmm...
As I mentioned before, the results vary from brand to brand. I just souped some Fuji Neopan SS last night and it came out very grainy. So your results will vary with your choice of film. The Efke emulsions are the best I have found followed by Plus-X and Tri-X.
tomasis,
Efke makes the Adox emulsions and are identical as far as I know. It seems that the quality control is more rigid with the Adox film and variations are less from batch to batch.
No, I have not tried to push Retro 100 & 400.
The tank I have may be a 2500, all I know is it takes the big reels and holds 2litres of solution.
Thanks,
Thanks, Kent is close friend and we work together quite abit.
According to the experts over at APUG, bromide drag is not possible with Rodinal. Do not know the technicals, but it can and does occur with HC-110 and other developers. I must say that in the 50 plus rolls I have developed in the past few months, I have had no streaking.
Since bromide drag is not possible with Rodinal and the amount of agitation determines the grain, I worked out my method of stand development on these conclusions. So I do not use a mid-point agitation, except when pushing film, then I use 120 minutes and swirl every 30 minutes.
As for exhausted developer dropping in the tank, that is news to me. But I have not seen any adverse effects when developing 5 rolls of 35mm in the big Jobo. Hmmm...
As I mentioned before, the results vary from brand to brand. I just souped some Fuji Neopan SS last night and it came out very grainy. So your results will vary with your choice of film. The Efke emulsions are the best I have found followed by Plus-X and Tri-X.
tomasis,
Efke makes the Adox emulsions and are identical as far as I know. It seems that the quality control is more rigid with the Adox film and variations are less from batch to batch.
No, I have not tried to push Retro 100 & 400.
The tank I have may be a 2500, all I know is it takes the big reels and holds 2litres of solution.
Thanks,
Last edited:
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Lynn, looks like I should check out the Efke in due course.
BTW: I read your almost identical post showing the 'chop saw' using Efke KB50 on APUG from 08 24 08
BTW: I read your almost identical post showing the 'chop saw' using Efke KB50 on APUG from 08 24 08
Last edited:
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
Is that a good thing or bad thing?! I knew had posted to the thread at APUG, but I did not know it was identical. Well, hopefully not too many people will be too bored by seeing the same thing twice.
I have to check my notes, but the 'chopsaw' was from one of my early rolls using Rodinal 1:100 Stand, so I may have still been using 2 minutes of inversions at the beginning. But I found that by cutting back to 1 minute, I did not have trouble with blown highlights.
Put it another way, with 2 minutes of inversion at the beginning, I was getting a speed increase of about 1 stop, so any over-exposure resulted in blown high-lights. With 1 minute of inversions at the beginning, the film can be exposed at rated speed with little fear of losing the highlights.
I have 2 rolls of TMax 3200 that are due be developed tonight, I am still debating whether I should fall back to the tried and true since these rolls must turn out or whether to commit them to Rodinal 1:100 stand since I yet to develop any T-grain films with this method.
Last edited:
ChrisN
Striving
Well my results were certainly not as good as P. Lynn's, but I only have myself to blame!
First, I was using some expired Kodak 2485 (Traffic Surveillance) film, which is nominally rated at 400iso. I exposed it at 200iso. Second, I got distracted while waiting for the one hour dev time to conclude, and my film actually sat in the developer for one hour 25 minutes! The negs are all very dense, with the first eight or so frames showing greater density on one edge. And I certainly have some blown highlights. But I was able to save a few usable images from the roll, with careful scanning and some massive adjustments in Lightroom. It looks like this is a very forgiving technique! I'll try it with a few more rolls, and this time pay more attention to the timing!
First, I was using some expired Kodak 2485 (Traffic Surveillance) film, which is nominally rated at 400iso. I exposed it at 200iso. Second, I got distracted while waiting for the one hour dev time to conclude, and my film actually sat in the developer for one hour 25 minutes! The negs are all very dense, with the first eight or so frames showing greater density on one edge. And I certainly have some blown highlights. But I was able to save a few usable images from the roll, with careful scanning and some massive adjustments in Lightroom. It looks like this is a very forgiving technique! I'll try it with a few more rolls, and this time pay more attention to the timing!
Attachments
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Efke 25 = Adox 25
but it is not Agfapan 25.
Retro 100 and 400 are AGFA APX100 and 400 (remnatns of new/old stock)
The 400 is no good for pushing
the 100 can be pushed slightly
Now, to PLynn, your method is very useful for basketball season!
but it is not Agfapan 25.
Retro 100 and 400 are AGFA APX100 and 400 (remnatns of new/old stock)
The 400 is no good for pushing
the 100 can be pushed slightly
Now, to PLynn, your method is very useful for basketball season!
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
Chris,
Yes, you did make life hard for yourself!
Pulling film is a no-no with stand development because in my experience stand development actually can give you a speed gain of up to 1 stop, especially if you increase the beginning inversions to 2 minutes.
In some ways, exposing for stand development is counter-intuitive, as I was taught to always error on the side of over-exposure with B&W negative film and many people actually will rate and shoot B&W film up to a stop slower than normal. So learning to error on the side of under-exposure just seems to go against convention. But for best results, I always expose for the highlights since the shadows will work themselves out in the development.
As for time, over-development and dense negatives, I have found movement of the tank has a greater effect than a reasonable time error. While I try to hold to 60 minutes, I have found that you have a leeway of about 5 minutes before you really need to worry. I once left a tank sit for 70 minutes with no discernible adverse effects, but I try to keep close the 60 minutes. I have never pulled a tank more than maybe a minute early, so do not what results would be at say 55 minutes.
I was discussing stand development with a fellow photographer, Kent(his candid portrait is posted in a previous post), the other day. He spent quite a few years in the darkroom developing film. He was telling me that they had a big drum of D76 that they used to do the same thing with in a dip and dunk style method. The films were dropped in and you came back 'after while' and got them out and they always came out perfect. No agitation or anything. Another old photographer over at APUG was telling everyone how he used to have a barrel of D19 and they dropped all the films of the day into the barrel before they left for the day and came back the next morning and pulled them. So stand development is not a new concept whatsoever.
Anyway, half the fun of film photography is experimenting. So have fun...
Yes, you did make life hard for yourself!
Pulling film is a no-no with stand development because in my experience stand development actually can give you a speed gain of up to 1 stop, especially if you increase the beginning inversions to 2 minutes.
In some ways, exposing for stand development is counter-intuitive, as I was taught to always error on the side of over-exposure with B&W negative film and many people actually will rate and shoot B&W film up to a stop slower than normal. So learning to error on the side of under-exposure just seems to go against convention. But for best results, I always expose for the highlights since the shadows will work themselves out in the development.
As for time, over-development and dense negatives, I have found movement of the tank has a greater effect than a reasonable time error. While I try to hold to 60 minutes, I have found that you have a leeway of about 5 minutes before you really need to worry. I once left a tank sit for 70 minutes with no discernible adverse effects, but I try to keep close the 60 minutes. I have never pulled a tank more than maybe a minute early, so do not what results would be at say 55 minutes.
I was discussing stand development with a fellow photographer, Kent(his candid portrait is posted in a previous post), the other day. He spent quite a few years in the darkroom developing film. He was telling me that they had a big drum of D76 that they used to do the same thing with in a dip and dunk style method. The films were dropped in and you came back 'after while' and got them out and they always came out perfect. No agitation or anything. Another old photographer over at APUG was telling everyone how he used to have a barrel of D19 and they dropped all the films of the day into the barrel before they left for the day and came back the next morning and pulled them. So stand development is not a new concept whatsoever.
Anyway, half the fun of film photography is experimenting. So have fun...
imush
Well-known
Here are some of my Efke films in Rodinal 1:100, similar method, shot on a very sunny day.
KB25:
KB50:
KB25:
KB50:
venchka
Veteran
Thank you!
Thank you!
P. Lynn Miller, a million thanks!
Where were you last week before I semi-ruined my first two rolls ever of 120 Pan F+? I concur with everything you said:
1. Don't overexpose
2. This process "makes" contrast in very flat deep shade lighting.
3. Box speed or more: Right on. See #1.
4. Bracket. Bracket. Don't forget to bracket.
5. I used 8ml of Rodinal in 800ml water in a Paterson clone tank for a single roll of film. More than enough obviously. I think 700ml will cover the reel. I'll measure carefully next time.
6. After the first roll was quite dense, I reduced the temp. from 68F to 66F. Reduced agitation to 3 inversions/5 drops from 1" to get rid of bubbles, repeat at 3 minutes and 30 minutes. Still dense. Next time I'll follow your method.
7. I agree 100%! Put it down. Walk away. Fugetaboutit until the GraLab sounds off.
8. I am curious why you deviate for 120 film? I'll follow your method. I have about 15-16 rolls of Efke R25. I think I've found the way to develop them.
EDIT: Sorry. I misread. You only change the dilution. I concur with that. And it will save me a bit of Rodinal.
9. I developed one sheet of HP5+ that I know for a fact was underexposed by 2 stops. I ran out of shutter speeds on my Speed Graphic. I used the agitate once/minute for 5 minutes & again at 30 minutes. That negative is beautiful. It was taken in a church with very soft light. Here it is...
10. Scanners can dig information out of seemingly blank negatives. RFF member wclavey has some negatives to prove it. To look at them, they appear unexposed. However, the scanner renders a perfectly good file and print. Overexposure is the opposite. When a negative reaches a certain density, the scanner gives up. Hopefully my once-in-a-lifetime overly dense negatives will print better with the enlarger.
Thanks!
Thank you!
P. Lynn Miller, a million thanks!
Where were you last week before I semi-ruined my first two rolls ever of 120 Pan F+? I concur with everything you said:
1. Don't overexpose
2. This process "makes" contrast in very flat deep shade lighting.
3. Box speed or more: Right on. See #1.
4. Bracket. Bracket. Don't forget to bracket.
5. I used 8ml of Rodinal in 800ml water in a Paterson clone tank for a single roll of film. More than enough obviously. I think 700ml will cover the reel. I'll measure carefully next time.
6. After the first roll was quite dense, I reduced the temp. from 68F to 66F. Reduced agitation to 3 inversions/5 drops from 1" to get rid of bubbles, repeat at 3 minutes and 30 minutes. Still dense. Next time I'll follow your method.
7. I agree 100%! Put it down. Walk away. Fugetaboutit until the GraLab sounds off.
8. I am curious why you deviate for 120 film? I'll follow your method. I have about 15-16 rolls of Efke R25. I think I've found the way to develop them.
EDIT: Sorry. I misread. You only change the dilution. I concur with that. And it will save me a bit of Rodinal.
9. I developed one sheet of HP5+ that I know for a fact was underexposed by 2 stops. I ran out of shutter speeds on my Speed Graphic. I used the agitate once/minute for 5 minutes & again at 30 minutes. That negative is beautiful. It was taken in a church with very soft light. Here it is...
10. Scanners can dig information out of seemingly blank negatives. RFF member wclavey has some negatives to prove it. To look at them, they appear unexposed. However, the scanner renders a perfectly good file and print. Overexposure is the opposite. When a negative reaches a certain density, the scanner gives up. Hopefully my once-in-a-lifetime overly dense negatives will print better with the enlarger.
Thanks!
Last edited:
venchka
Veteran
One more question...
One more question...
P. Lynn Miller,
When you say, "expose for the highlights" (which I fully appreciate based on my results so far), tell us how you do that. I can think of a couple different ways to do that. What method do you use?
One more question...
P. Lynn Miller,
When you say, "expose for the highlights" (which I fully appreciate based on my results so far), tell us how you do that. I can think of a couple different ways to do that. What method do you use?
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
Wayne,
Thanks for the compliments and for posting your experiences. I am not an expert and really have no idea how or why this method does or does not work. I am just posting what I do that seems to work for me in hopes it will help someone else.
As for exposing for highlights... I will explain that in a later post when I have abit more time.
Thanks,
Thanks for the compliments and for posting your experiences. I am not an expert and really have no idea how or why this method does or does not work. I am just posting what I do that seems to work for me in hopes it will help someone else.
As for exposing for highlights... I will explain that in a later post when I have abit more time.
Thanks,
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
well I after reading this thread I just souped a roll of the Arista II 400 in 1:100 for an hour, no agitation after the first minute. I was initially concerned, usually when I soup in rodinal I get a very dark purple developer coming out of the tank but when I poured the dev out after an hour it was almost clear... I was really afraid I botched it, but the negs seem to be fine. I'll have to see how they scan 🙂
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Efke/ADOX 25 can be developed in Rodinal 1+100 for 10-11 minutes using normal procedure
No need for stand development
No need for stand development
John Robertson
Well-known
Anti Halation dye, Agfa films used to do this!!! looks alarming but harmless.
ChrisN
Striving
It certainly is! And I have a couple of hundred feet of old film to experiment with!
I'll do the next roll tomorrow night - ERA 100 exposed at 100 in the same bright contrasty conditions.
venchka
Veteran
I was bored last night...
I was bored last night...
Monday Night Football was less than interesting. It had been raining all day. I had dropped my scanner budget at the Volvo dealer. Again. I had loaded some Pan F+ from a roll purchased here at RFF the night before.
What's a fellow to do? Go play in the rain! After my experience earlier in the week with 120 Pan F+, I was eager to try the method outlined by P. Lynn Miller. I set my tripod up in my driveway under cover. It was pouring whem I started and had eased up by the time I finished. I already knew what happend with overexposure. This time I went for extreme underexposure. The negatives were so thin that I couldn't find the blank space between frames to cut the negatives apart. It ain't art. I do think I advanced my craft a wee bit.
The particulars:
Leica M5 | 28mm M-Hexanon | Ilford Pan F+ | E.I. 50 | Rodinal 1:100 - 5ml Rodinal + 500ml water | 1 hour
Agitation: Fill, 15 inversions, 10 raps on the counter top, let go & walk away. Total elapsed time of agitation: 50 seconds. Total time from fill to dump: 60 minutes. Ambient temperature: 77°F.
One benefit was using tap water which has come down to about 74°F. I didn't have to muck about tempering water.
#1: Raining hard.
#2: Rain stopped.
I metered on the nearest flood light with my 10° spot meter which said f/8.0 @ 1/2 second. I bracketed in two stop increments from f/4.0 to f/16. I reckon these samples were shot at f/4.0 or f.5.6. The whole scene had values for lighted areas ranging from f/1.0 (Noctilux territory) to f/8.0.
I hope this helps advance the knowledge base.
Cheers!
Wayne
Proving yet agian that Konica lenses don't flare!
I was bored last night...
Monday Night Football was less than interesting. It had been raining all day. I had dropped my scanner budget at the Volvo dealer. Again. I had loaded some Pan F+ from a roll purchased here at RFF the night before.
What's a fellow to do? Go play in the rain! After my experience earlier in the week with 120 Pan F+, I was eager to try the method outlined by P. Lynn Miller. I set my tripod up in my driveway under cover. It was pouring whem I started and had eased up by the time I finished. I already knew what happend with overexposure. This time I went for extreme underexposure. The negatives were so thin that I couldn't find the blank space between frames to cut the negatives apart. It ain't art. I do think I advanced my craft a wee bit.
The particulars:
Leica M5 | 28mm M-Hexanon | Ilford Pan F+ | E.I. 50 | Rodinal 1:100 - 5ml Rodinal + 500ml water | 1 hour
Agitation: Fill, 15 inversions, 10 raps on the counter top, let go & walk away. Total elapsed time of agitation: 50 seconds. Total time from fill to dump: 60 minutes. Ambient temperature: 77°F.
One benefit was using tap water which has come down to about 74°F. I didn't have to muck about tempering water.
#1: Raining hard.
#2: Rain stopped.
I metered on the nearest flood light with my 10° spot meter which said f/8.0 @ 1/2 second. I bracketed in two stop increments from f/4.0 to f/16. I reckon these samples were shot at f/4.0 or f.5.6. The whole scene had values for lighted areas ranging from f/1.0 (Noctilux territory) to f/8.0.
I hope this helps advance the knowledge base.
Cheers!
Wayne
Proving yet agian that Konica lenses don't flare!
Last edited:
maddoc
... likes film again.
I have to try this !! These look great !!
#1: Raining hard.
#2: Rain stopped.
Cheers!
Wayne
Proving yet agian that Konica lenses don't flare!