Rodinal 1:100

I have heard that as well but mine turned out a bit towards the overexposure limit and I've done two consecutive rolls one day apart. Both times I measured with a Gossen Digisix incident lightmeter, set to ISO200. I have one more roll that I'll probably shoot at 250-320, although I have no idea when... I don't think it's developing related as I got quite fond of this method and I've been doing all my films this way ever since I found this thread (7-8 films so far). Another thing is the fact that both films were shot under artificial lighting (improvised softbox), and the one frame that I've shot outside was in complete shade, with sunlit background (stupid me). I'm still considering an outdoor / available light shoot, and I'll probably shoot it half at 200 and half at 320.

The only editing was dust removal and a slight levels touch at the midpoint, from 1 to 0.95. Scanner - Canoscan 8800f
 
How about C41 film and stand development?

I have a few rolls of C41 color film and I will not pay for them to be developed in lab. They shall meet their demise in the dark and slippery heart of Rodinal.
 
silvalis said:
This might be a bit of a dumb question, but does rodinal 1:100 stand developing work in small single 135 reel tanks (300mL)? I've had 4 cracks at it following P Lynn Miller's method and only one showed visible (but unusable) developing. I sort of cheated on the 4th - tipped in 30mL of ID11 as an afterthought and got usable (but weird) results. It looks fogged...
Click to expand...

I have never tried small single reel tanks, but I have heard that Rodinal requires at least 5ml to work. When doing 2 rolls of film, I have 600ml of water and 6ml of rodinal. I use the exact same amount of rodinal and what for 1 roll of film as well, just to be on the safe side. I have not tested one roll in 300ml of water and 3ml of rodinal, but I think that may it is not enough Rodinal.

I think there is a way to do 1:50 stand developing. Maybe you could try that - and then you would have the minimum 5ml of rodinal needed to develop.

(BTW - I am no expert. I am just offering an opinion based on things I have read on the web, so take the source for what it is):eek:
 
Based on the above and some other readings, I'm beginning to think that 5ml of Rodinal in ANY amount of water over 500ml will work with a 1-2 hour stand period. my theory being that I figure that much Rodinal is exhausted after 1 or 2 hours. I also base this on using 8ml Rodinal and 800ml water for 1 roll of 120 PanF+. I felt that the film was overdeveloped after 1 hour. The next roll will get 5ml Rodinal in 800ml water.
 
living in a country where b/w films are almost impossible to find, i try to keep experiments as rare as possible, meaning that i don't use to just randomly shoot a roll just to try some new developing technique and therefore, everything i shoot may (and should) contain important stuff. so far, i've never messed up a roll, even though some came out better then others. for instance, although i've been reading that fomapan 200 is actually a little slower, from my two rolls so far i could see it's in fact faster (250 or even faster). i have one more roll that i'll shoot with available light and probably expose at 250. i'll return with the conclusions whenever i have time and subjects for it :)
 
Alin, I think that is a good idea even if you don't live in a country where B&W film is rare. There are really too many film to really get to know each. I try to use one and get it the way I want. I do experiment but for me, anyway, it is too hard to really get to know a film. So those experiments are usually dead ends. Not because the film is bad, I just don't have the will to put the time in to get it where I like it.

And if you start bouncing around with developers and dilutions and variations, the permeations start to approach infinity.
 
Last edited:
so true... but the question is> which film(s)? :p
so far, the foma200 120 in rodinal blew me away (although i still have to try it with available light). 10 rolls of neopan 400 120 are on the way and i have the rodinal ready for them :)
ilford fp4+ and fuji acros 100 both looked interesting but with only one roll of each shot so far i don't really know what to think.

in 35mm, agfa apx 100 is my favourite by far, but as it is no longer available, i'm considering rollei retro 100 / foma 100 / or even foma 200
for asa400, i'll probably stick with hp5.

i intend to keep rodinal as my main developer so i should go with old-school emulsions... i begin to realise i have no darkroom knowledge whatsoever :(
 
I have 2 rolls of TRI-X rated at 400 that I was going to do together and one rated at 1600 that I was going to do separate.

Of course, despite the fact that I carry a marker with me I did not mark the 1600 roll before or after I shot it. One 400 roll was in my bag so I know it's 400, I just have the one in my pocket that may have been mixed with the 1600.

Any suggestions?
 
dreilly said:
Thanks for this thread. I've just started experimenting with Rodinal and Neopan 400 and Pan F, and thus far, I really like it. See the sample below. I'll have to try this stand developing some time. Jan, could you email me your sheet, too?

2651182021_1963bda242.jpg
Click to expand...

Now, THAT, is is a great rangefinder family moment, if I've ever seen one.
 
capitalK said:
I have 2 rolls of TRI-X rated at 400 that I was going to do together and one rated at 1600 that I was going to do separate.

Of course, despite the fact that I carry a marker with me I did not mark the 1600 roll before or after I shot it. One 400 roll was in my bag so I know it's 400, I just have the one in my pocket that may have been mixed with the 1600.

Any suggestions?
Click to expand...

Hoping someone can help me out here...

I have 3 rolls of TRI-X. One I know is shot at 400. The other two are
1 roll rated at 400 and one roll at 1600. I neglected to mark them.

So... I can

A) Develop the known 400 with one of the other rolls at 400 and I have
a 50/50 shot of getting it right. Then I will know if the 3rd is 400
or 1600 when I am done by process of elimination. This way I get 2/3 done right with a 50/50 chance of getting them all right.

B) Develop the known 400 by itself and develop the unknowns at a time
between 400 and 1600 and hope for the best.

Any other suggestions?
 
Sometimes I even amaze myself.....

Sometimes I even amaze myself.....

After my previous post, I went to APUG. The first thing I read was this.............

Quoted from APUG:

RMD said:
Trying out stand development for the first time,I exposed 9 frames of Fuji Neopan 1600 - 3 frames at 400 iso,3 frames at 800 iso,and 3 frames at 1600 iso. I then developed using Rodinal diluted 100:1 for 1 hour using the stand method - 30secs initial agitation,then leave alone for 1 hour.

To MY surprise,all frames were very similar(standard test subjects),as if I had exposed them all at the same iso.

Is this to be expected - use any iso you like with stand development ?

Apologies if this has already been answered,but I couldn't find anything through my searches.
Click to expand...


So, I wasn't crazy afterall. Putting all 3 rolls in Rodinal 1:100 for an hour won't be any worse than guessing wrong about the 1 roll shot @ 1600 and probably a lot better.
 
Yeah I actually read that thread too about the same time as you did. Maybe I'll give that a shot. Thank you.
 
Here are a couple of images where I used the Tri-X in Rodinal stand-development scheme. The formula I followed was provided by ItsReallyDarren on another thread's page (LINK) --post #45. The film was shot with my F100 just to make sure the exposure was correct. (I wasn't sure my "new" m4-p, and my hand metering.) The film's iso was set at 1600, and I used the Rodinal to water ratio of 1:125. tournament. The negatives were scanned on my Epson 2450 flatbed, and run through Photoshop.

--michael
 

Attachments

  • leaf_1.jpg
    leaf_1.jpg
    106.5 KB · Views: 0
  • screen_window.jpg
    screen_window.jpg
    92.3 KB · Views: 0
Just discovered this thread last week and really piqued my interest.
So I just finished my first attempt at Rodinal stand development. With everyone speaking of thin negatives, I was surprised to see how dense mine looked considering the higher dilution I was using (1+150). The total amount of developer in the tank was 3ml/roll, so maybe that ratio is more important.(???)

2 rolls of Acros 100 @100
6ml Rodinal + 900ml water at 68~70deg
negs placed in middle 2 reels of a 4 reel tank
3 min water presoak
1 min gentle twist inversions
59 minutes stand
3 min water stop/rinse
5 min fix
2 min water rinse
2 min clearing
5 min water rinse

Anyway, I like the results and especially the freedom to do something else for an hour and not be so manic about temperature control. Scanned with Vuescan on my Epson 2450 flatbed, snapped white and black points, then unsharp masking in PS.

Here's a few of the results
3596689313_514c908fa5.jpg

3596684523_5637e4c728.jpg

3597490896_9976ce0af2.jpg


3597491584_3bfc0dde00.jpg
 
Last edited:
Having seen these shots ( i love 'em all!) I will be stocking up more Rodinal, a quarter mile of film and a backup film scanner to last me the rest of my life for sure!

I'm impressed with the fact that you can shoot the Tri-X at 1600 with 1:125 or use Arcos at 100 with a 1:150 dilution and still have good negs.

Amazing stuff, this Rodinal :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom