Rodinal 1+25

[tmfabian]

So i just souped up some tri-x in rodinal 1+25 for 7 mins and it looks a little dense, does rodinal add a little base density? Any suggestions?

 

[charjohncarter]

I just looked at some TriX negatives that were done in HC-110 and in Rodinal 1+50 and the base looks the same. I thought maybe you developed too long but my sheet says 7 minutes. What was your agitation?

 

[rich815]

Why 1+25? Were you after something 1+50 will not give you? Rodinal is sort of unusual in the 1+25 is actually semmingly more grainy while also, IMO, more mushy, than 1+50.

 

[drewbarb]

Are the negatives too dense all over, or just in the highlights? How does the base look- clear, or is it foggy? Tri-X often picks up base fog when it gets older. Unless this is pretty fresh film you could be seeing that. It could also be your agitation- Rodinal seems to like less agitation rather than more. If your film really just looks over-developed, you could try reducing your time. Don't go below 5 minutes or you could get into trouble with un-even development.

Personally, I prefer Rodinal's results at dilutions higher than 1:25. AS you dilute it, the grain gets a bit smaller, edge effects become more noticeable, and Rodinal's legendary long tonal range seems to come out more with the longer times associated with the higher dilutions. Try 1:50 for 13 or 14 minutes for Tri-X at 400. It does take longer, but I think it looks even better. Good luck.

 

[tmfabian]

i think it's just plain overdeveloped. It looks pretty well cooked. I only did 1+25 because i didn't have an accurate enough graduate to do 1+50, but silly me, i could just cut it in half with water. I used to use d-76, but I wanted to give the rodinal a shot. Next time i'll just hit it with 1+50 for 13 minutes...sounds about right.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I've used a lot of Rodinal 1:50 but only tried 1:25 a few times. I have found Rodinal to be somewhat forgiving.

I do know the Agfa published times seem to have been all over the place for the various iterations of their data sheets.

I have personally found the Agfa times to be too long. I find iso 400 film has a decidedly slower e.i. in Rodinal. I think their published times are really a push to try to get film to act like it's box speed. I do best using an e.i. of 250 and 8 minutes (not 12 or 13). Of course everyone has their own technique.

 

[tmfabian]

ok, so it seems tri-x, when it dries tends to clear up quite a bit, i'm still used to souping neopan 1600 in d-76 i guess...still a little over-developed, but nothing a little tweaking won't fix. Thanks for all ya'alls help.

 

[Keith]

It's interesting that Rodinal's recommendation for Neopan 400 which I use a lot is eight and a half minutes @ 1+50 which is what I use ... and with very little agitation and I'm getting the results I want. It gives a slightly thin neg which scans really well!

 

[Bob Michaels]

Keith: our times for Neopan 400 are essentially the same.

What is interesting is that my old Agfa data sheet recommends 11 minutes for Neopan 400 1:50. But that same data sheet simply says that HP5 is "not recommended" for Rodinal 1:50. Like I previously said, their data sheets are all over the place.

 

[gertf]

It's interesting that Rodinal's recommendation for Neopan 400 which I use a lot is eight and a half minutes @ 1+50 which is what I use ... and with very little agitation and I'm getting the results I want. It gives a slightly thin neg which scans really well!

I agree that 8.5 mins is better than the 11 minutes suggested by the massive development chart. For scanning at least. Could it be that developing for 11 minutes is better for darkroom printing?

 

[Bob Michaels]

I agree that 8.5 mins is better than the 11 minutes suggested by the massive development chart. For scanning at least. Could it be that developing for 11 minutes is better for darkroom printing?

Keith: I think it just proves that exposure / development is a personal set of variables and that the listed e.i. and development times are simply starting points.

 

[Chuck Albertson]

Have you tried printing them?