Rodinal 1:100

Tried a roll of GP3 film in the roll-film back on the 4x5 Speed Graphic. Rodinal 1+200, 1 min continuous inversions, 1 hour stand development with a gentle swirling for 15 seconds at the half-way mark. The negs came out as I wanted; low contrast with even development. Nice.

3033199631_ac8d2e3a30_o.jpg
 
One more sample

One more sample

Good show Chris!

I'm including this one because the exposure was was normal. Very little adjustment needed in Lightroom. No blown highlights! Hurray! :cool:

Gruene+Texas+_8+of+8_.jpg


Thanks for looking!
 
Last edited:
I've done this but only a couple of times. Once I agitated very gently every 15 minutes for an hour, the other time I just left it stand for an hour. I didn't get any drag but I don't understand why not and this keeps me from doing it much. Some people have examples of drag with this method. What's the deal? I'd really like to know because I'd do it more if I knew it was reliable.

Oh, I did it with fomapan 400, lucky shd 400, and apx 400 the time I agitated.
 
Excuse me for asking a dumb questions but isn't a 1:200 or even 1:50 ratio difficult to measure accurately? How do you know you are not getting 1:240 or 1:170?
 
It probably matters less... Besides, theoretically there's a bit of a difference between 1+25 and 1:25 although I don't think you'll notice it in practice. I think :p
 
it's not that hard to measure because you need roughly 4-6mls minimum for each roll of film. So I use 5mls Rodinal and 500mls water to develop one roll. In order to measure out the 5mls of rodinal I use a 10ml syringe I bought at the drugstore. The sell them to measure out childrens medication. The nice thing about long development times is that the longer the dev time, the less effect small variations have on the final result. so even if you did end up using 1:170 or 1:230 by accident you shouldnt see much difference in your negs, same thing if you end up developing for 110 or 130 minutes.
 
I use a 12ml syringe (graded in 0.5 increments) and a 2ml one (graded in 0.1 increments) if I want to really go by the book (rarely tough). For the water I have a graded glass bottle for measuring liquids for infants (250ml total, 10ml increments), though I haven't checked the increments with the syringes. For measuring temperature, I have an aquarium alcohol thermometer that has the glass dome over the alcohol reservoir broken (by mistake - but measures a lot faster now) - so +-0.5° is probably very common with little to no effect over the results (there's most certainly a bigger difference in temperature building up over the developing time). As others have stated before, there are other aspects a lot more critical in the developing process, especially stand developing that I'm about to try this week (once the mighty chemistry arrives)
 
i have a pipette that has gradations of 0.2 ml and a max of 2 ml. Not that hard to do it with it.
But i agree, it might bve not so important after all.
 
From a roll of APX100 that I had accidentally exposed at 400 -- wanted to try Rodinal 1+100 stand development. I did 10 slow inversions at the beginning and then let it sit for an hour. Water rinse, fix, etc...

Here's the result.... Yeah, I know, I missed the focus a bit, but I'm pleasantly surprised with the result.

3041766514_e9cdca4b6b.jpg
 
Last edited:
any ideas whether 'R09 NEW' does the same job at stand developing as the original rodinal?

LE: in fact it's the R09 from rollei, so it's the old rodinal formula, I guess...
 
Last edited:
fuji acros 100 @200
rodinal 1+125 1 hour stand (the P. Lynn Miller method :p)

any thoughts? looks ok but not brilliant to me (scanned on canoscan 8800f)
 

Attachments

  • Scan-081125-0005_res.jpg
    Scan-081125-0005_res.jpg
    31.8 KB · Views: 0
alin: That looks good to me. The lighting is pretty soft and it's a fairly low contrast scene, so the dilution and stand development certainly weren't going to result in any more "pop".
 
venchka said:
Good show Chris!

I'm including this one because the exposure was was normal. Very little adjustment needed in Lightroom. No blown highlights! Hurray! :cool:

Gruene+Texas+_8+of+8_.jpg


Thanks for looking!
Click to expand...

Wayne, that is LUSCIOUS! I love it .... Talk about open shadows!
 
alinCiortea said:
fuji acros 100 @200
rodinal 1+125 1 hour stand (the P. Lynn Miller method :p)

any thoughts? looks ok but not brilliant to me (scanned on canoscan 8800f)
Click to expand...

i thought about that too, but it will be a while until i have the chance to try this on more challenging lighting situations :)
 
Dilution ratios are different for R09
Rodinal is more concentrated, so that
Rodinal R09
1+25 1+20
1+50 1+40
1+100 1+80
1+200 1+150

Other than that it should be the same


alinCiortea said:
any ideas whether 'R09 NEW' does the same job at stand developing as the original rodinal?

LE: in fact it's the R09 from rollei, so it's the old rodinal formula, I guess...
Click to expand...
 
times are quite different for corresponding dilutions, too, so there's probably some difference between them. i've developed films in r09 using rodinal dilutions and times and they all worked ok.
the reason i was asking about it is that i've tried a semi-stand 1+100 r09 development some time ago and the neg turned out very weird (fogged maybe?) with even the markings along the sides of the film doubled (as if they had a very distinct thin and strong shadow). it's true, the bottle was left in direct summer sun for a whole day, but using normal dilutions it worked ok. i lack a lot of chemistry knowledge and perhaps there's a very simple explanation to this :)
 
Last edited:
Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trius said:
Wayne, that is LUSCIOUS! I love it .... Talk about open shadows!
Click to expand...

Thank you Earl. Something of a fortunate accident. I metered as usual
and bracketed + & - 1 stop. I only scanned the negative I thought looked best. I plan to scan the other two as well to see if there is any improvement or difference.

The full size scan at 2,400 DPI from the Epson 4990 is really amazing.

I hope I can reproduce this result in the future using Rodinal 1:100 and letting it stand for 1 hour.
 
The fun with Rodinal stand development never ends...

So I am trying find the absolute limit of Tri-X when stand developing with Rodinal 1:100. So I loaded a roll of Tri-X 120 in the Norita 66 the other day, set my light meter to ASA 6400 and under-exposed another 2 stops, so I effectively rated this roll of Tri-X at 25,600. I had just bought this 3kg hunk of glass and brass called a Meyer Optik Orestegor 300mm f4.0 for the Norita 66 and figured some low-light, wide-open, hand-held shooting would be a bit of fun. Well, at least I got a sore arm!

Well the results are in...

Reading | Sydney, Australia 2008
2008_11_006_005_700e.jpg

Norita 66 | Meyer Optik Orestegor 300mm f4.0 | Tri-X EI 25,600 | Rodinal 1:100 Stand

The Daily Telegraph | Sydney, Australia 2008
2008_11_006_011_700e.jpg

Norita 66 | Meyer Optik Orestegor 300mm f4.0 | Tri-X EI 25,600 | Rodinal 1:100 Stand

Exposure would have been around 1/250 at f4.0.

I used 500ml of Rodinal 1:100 for 150 minutes. Started with one minute of slow inversions and then a 15 second swirl at 45 minutes, 90 minutes and 120 minutes. As you can see I ended up with uneven vertical development and the negatives were under-developed. I reckon that I could have given the film another 30 minutes in the tank.This is the first time I have had uneven development when using stand developing. Also the negatives were under-developed, so I need more time and touch more agitation next time.

This combination has potential and I think the negatives would have printed better than they scanned. I am already formulating a new and improved method to get Tri-X to 25,600 with a decent result.

Wonder how far I can push this...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom