Rodinal basics

[ChrisN]

In the recent thread about HP5 several people mentioned difficulty in getting HP5 to work well with Rodinal. That's not surprising as Rodinal works best with slower speed films, and in fact AGFA specifically recommend against developing HP5 with Rodinal 1+50.

For folks just starting out with Rodinal it might be worth sticking strictly to the AGFA recommended times and agitation, at least initially so you can set a baseline of what this developer should produce.

The attachment shows the AGFA-recommended film exposure index, developing dilution and times, and agitation routine for a number of popular films. Don't forget to read the notes at the bottom carefully!

 

[maddoc]

I found in the "dev-chart" a time of 5 minutes for FOMAPAN200 (1:25, 20C). What would be your recommendations, Chris ? (I will use R09)

 

[kbg32]

I've never had any problems deveolping HP5 in Rodinal. 1:50, 12 minutes, 68 degress.

 

[ChrisN]

Hi Gabor. Nor recommendations I'm afraid! Years ago I decided to work with only a few films, and eventually with only Ilford developers (more easily available locally). I can't claim to be any sort of expert on Rodinal; I simply wanted to share some information I've gathered over the years.

And to further that aim, for those who want to learn more, here's a link to an excellent article that appeared in Popular Phototography in December 1979. The article is by Bob Schwalberg, and I first learned of it from our member charjohncarter.

http://forum.mflenses.com/1979-pop-photo-rodinal-article-t37502.html

 

[Bill Clark]

Interesting article on stand development with Rodinal:

http://jbhildebrand.com/2011/tutorials/workflow-tutorial-2-stand-development-with-rodinal/

Have developed rolls with this method and pleased with the results.

 

[maddoc]

Thanks for the links, guys !! 🙂

 

[ChrisN]

I've never had any problems deveolping HP5 in Rodinal. 1:50, 12 minutes, 68 degress.

Hi Keith - yes of course it can be done, and many are very pleased with the results. Bob Schwalberg even recommends times for a 1+75 dilution. However he does make the point that Rodinal is not a fine-grain developer.

 

[charjohncarter]

Rodinal from what I've read and experienced it is not a linear developer with respect to time. I.E., the times for 1+25, 1+50, 1+100 are not multiples of 2. I found that 1+50 with a specific time and at least recommended agitation will give the best result. In other words, I had trouble with uneven development using Rodinal stand. Maybe you will be luckier with this type of sloppy time-agitation-temperature development.

Also, my experience with Rodinal is that it gives a more contrasty negative. So, if this is what you want go for it. I use it all the time and I like it but I have to have a very specific time-temp-agitation scheme to achieve what I want.

 

[ChrisN]

Interesting article on stand development with Rodinal:

http://jbhildebrand.com/2011/tutorials/workflow-tutorial-2-stand-development-with-rodinal/

Have developed rolls with this method and pleased with the results.

Thanks Bill. Stand development of course has many adherents, and there is a long thread here on the use of Rodinal 1+100 for stand development with 1-2 hours development times. It works for some, but annoyingly, not for me. My results regularly showed uneven development.


Rodinal 1+100 threads:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61643
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127788

 

[Keith]

I guess it gets down to what you want from a higher speed film. I eventually switched from Xtol to Rodinal for 400 black and white film because I found the results with Xtol a little bland. The extra grain and bite with Rodinal pleased me as soon as I saw it.

 

[Bill Clark]

Chris,

So far with 35mm film, I mix 6cc of stock to 600cc of water. The Paterson tank I use needs only 290cc for 1 reel of 35mm.

Perhaps my results are different because I'm using more working solution with each 35mm film.

I do agitate, twist once or twice at the beginning and then at 30 min.

I can watch either Bloomberg or CNBC during the developing time! Or the Three Stooges if they're on!

Suggest, try using 600cc of working solution with 35mm and see if that makes a positive difference with your results.

Hope this tid bit helps you!

 

[kbg32]

Hi Keith - yes of course it can be done, and many are very pleased with the results. Bob Schwalberg even recommends times for a 1+75 dilution. However he does make the point that Rodinal is not a fine-grain developer.

Chris,

Whomever thought Rodinal is a fine grain developer is much misinformed!! Rodinal is a high acutance developer. It will exhaust itself developing the shadows while not blocking up the highlights. Rodinal does not contain a silver softener as well, hence the "perceived" graininess. Some people add sodium sulfite as a softener to ease up on the graininess. There was an Edwal film developer - FG7, that was a compensating film developer somewhat similar to Rodinal, but if memory serves me well, it contained sodium sulfite and gave a much "softer" look then Rodinal. Rodinal will emphasize edge sharpness between lights and darks. I find it gives a wonderfully long tonal range that is much easier to print then Tri-X.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Those AGFA times were from many years ago, and are no longer accurate for many of the films listed, because of changes in film formulations by the manufacturers. Ilford publishes Rodinal times for HP5, and in my experience, they work well.

1+50, 11 minutes, 68 degrees (20C). I agitate for the first 30 seconds, then 2 inversions every 30 seconds.

 

[nikon_sam]

For Acros 100 (Neopan 100) the charts shows 16 minutes for 1+50...I've been developing my for 14.5 minutes...hmmmm...thinking I might try to add a little more time to see what happens...I do like what I'm seeing right now but the extra time might add a bit more contrast...
The Massive Chart has it at 13.5 minutes...a 2.5 minute difference...

 

[Ronald M]

I remember it well. My copy is buried somewhere in my archives. When I got to many magazines, I cut out what I wanted and set the rest on the curb.

That is a beautiful shot of the Brooklyn Bridge for those who don`t remember or were not born yet.

You can use Rodinal with fast films. It works fine if you do not mind prominent grain. Too nasty for me.

 

[redisburning]

I found the massive dev chart time for acros to be perfectly acceptable in regards to negatives.

that is to say, density was neither too thin nor too thick for my tastes, and contrast was fine. I still prefer xtol after just one roll, by quite a large margin.

acros in rodinal 1+50:

Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

and hp5+ in rodinal 1+50, in a format where I think it makes a lot of sense and can almost trick you into forgetting you are looking at a photograph for a split second:

Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

 

[ChrisN]

Those AGFA times were from many years ago, and are no longer accurate for many of the films listed, because of changes in film formulations by the manufacturers. Ilford publishes Rodinal times for HP5, and in my experience, they work well.

1+50, 11 minutes, 68 degrees (20C). I agitate for the first 30 seconds, then 2 inversions every 30 seconds.

That developing time is also printed in the HP5+ fact sheet I have, dated July 2004. It's been around a fair while too, and as you say, it still works. There are several versions of Rodinal-like developers too, some claiming to be true to the last version sold by Agfa; some not. As I stated in the original post, the data is offered for folks just starting out. It's a matter of taste: on my monitor your photo appears to exhibit very high contrast, especially compared with, for example, many of the examples shown by charjohncarter. Nothing wrong with that of course - I like TRI-X because it gives me a little more punch than HP5 (the way I use it).

I would argue against the use of the term "accurate", as if there was only one correct or perfect way to expose and develop a negative for any particular scene. I expose and develop negatives to suit my water, enlarger, paper, developer, and the way I want my photos to look in a print at a particular size viewed from a particular distance in particular lighting. So do you. Just about all makers of film developers will recommend times as a starting point, for the user to refine with experience. For folks with little or no experience the maker's recommendation is probably a good starting point.

PS: just for fun I've just now developed a couple of short test rolls of old HP5 (motion picture stock - 20+ years old?) in Ilford multigrade paper developer; 15ml in 300ml water, 2 minutes at 20c with a couple of inversions. I dare say I'll manage a print from that too!

 

[Photo_Smith]

Chris,

Whomever thought Rodinal is a fine grain developer is much misinformed!! Rodinal is a high acutance developer. It will exhaust itself developing the shadows while not blocking up the highlights. Rodinal does not contain a silver softener as well, hence the "perceived" graininess. Some people add sodium sulfite as a softener to ease up on the graininess. There was an Edwal film developer - FG7, that was a compensating film developer somewhat similar to Rodinal, but if memory serves me well, it contained sodium sulfite and gave a much "softer" look then Rodinal. Rodinal will emphasize edge sharpness between lights and darks. I find it gives a wonderfully long tonal range that is much easier to print then Tri-X.

Actually Rodinal does contain sulphite. Rodinal has Potassium Hydroxide, which combines with the Potassium Bisulfite to form Potassium Sulphite which although less (Sulphites) than most other commercial devolopers still has some effect.

 

[oftheherd]

Thanks for that sheet. I also like Rodinal for when I get around to developing b/w film.

 

[gsgary]

I use Rodinal for everything' i picked up some Kodak Ortho at a club auction last month and had a play with it a few weeks ago

1+200, 12 minutes agitate first 30 seconds then 1 every minte
ISO12
Has anyone got any experience with this film ?

iso50