gsgary
Well-known
Rodinal 1+50 HP5 is one of my favourite combinations cant show any examples at the moment smugmug is playing up
Rodinal basics
- Thread starter ChrisN
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 45
- Views 5K
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Actually sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfite cause different reactions in developers. Rodinal does not contain a silver softener, or enough of it to have any effect on its "graininess". The amount of sodium hydroxide in Rodinal has no net effect.
gsgary
Well-known
Working now 1+50 12 mins iso800
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Same here. But sometimes, certain Rodinal users are like certain Leica users: they will not listen to anyone who says that their choice is not perfect for everyone. Or, of course, they'll accuse you of incompetence, laziness, lack of moral fibre...
The pics here show that it works very well for some. Your experience and mine demonstrate that 'some' is not the same as 'all'.
Cheers,
R.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
When I was in college, my roommate and I both shot Tri-X at the same ASA, used Rodinal at the same dilution and developing times, same amount of agitation, and came up with two different results.
Go figure.
Go figure.
gsgary
Well-known
This was my first try at 1 hour stand with HP5 and rodinal 1+100
35mm, i don't think they look too bad
120, iso1600
35mm, i don't think they look too bad
120, iso1600
ZeissFan
Veteran
Rodinal is a very durable developer with shelf life lasting into the decades. I need to try it again with HP5. My previous attempts were not pleasing.
KenR
Well-known
I have not been happy with Rodinal and the 400 speed films - nice with 100 speed films. I agree with Keith that Xtol is kind of bland - prompting my switch to HC110 as my "universal" developer. I find HX110 us in between the Xtol-Rodinal extremes, with reasonable sharpness and nice but not obtrusive grain. Like Rodinal it lasts forever, so the Sunday night developing session doesn't turn into a cursing disaster.
haffy
Member
He says that it is possible to shoot different ISO at one roll of film, like ISO 200 and ISO 1600 at the same roll. Is this true ? If so, how's the result ?
Bill Clark
Veteran
Haven't tried it yet.
Would put a feature of digital with film if a person can shoot different ISO on 1 roll of film.
Would put a feature of digital with film if a person can shoot different ISO on 1 roll of film.
gho
Well-known
I like Rodinal very much for its high acutance effect.
Above is Adox Silvermax shot in a leaky but sweet point and shoot. Rodinal 1+50, 13 min.
This is Tri-X developed in the same tank. Overall, I find myself reaching for Rodinal or now Adonal, if I shoot at box speed. I helped the contrast a bit along during scanning, straight prints on normal paper should look less contrasty.
Above is Adox Silvermax shot in a leaky but sweet point and shoot. Rodinal 1+50, 13 min.
This is Tri-X developed in the same tank. Overall, I find myself reaching for Rodinal or now Adonal, if I shoot at box speed. I helped the contrast a bit along during scanning, straight prints on normal paper should look less contrasty.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Just ran some HP5+ at 800 in Rodinal today, 1:50, 10 minutes @70°. I may get a chance to print tomorrow morning, if so I'll post scans once they dry.
I also quite like Silvermax in Rodinal.
I also quite like Silvermax in Rodinal.
gho
Well-known
I have only shot two rolls or so yet, but it seems to be a good match. Rodinal with low speed films can be very nice and it works for me with Tri-X also.
matt_mcg2
Established
Not had particularly great results with Rodinal with faster films, but for slow and medium speed films [Pan F, FP+, Acros], esp. in medium format, I really like the tonality and acutance effects. Grain hasn't been a problem for me using regular gentle agitation [3 slow revolutions, once a minute], or semi-stand. True stand development has been hit and miss. Great when it works, but prone to the occasional streak or bromide drag effect. I prefer semi-stand. 30 seconds or so of good agitation at the start, a couple of gentle agitations half way through.
charjohncarter
Veteran
My experience too, but not the half way through part. So why not find a time and an agitation rate that really works every time.
Personally, I will not go over 4 minutes between agitation cycles with Rodinal. So find a time that works for you (if you want compensation) and then minimally agitate (plus use a higher dilution). If not a high contrast scene roll then find another time, temp, agitation scheme that give perfect results.
Kenj8246
Well-known
Two shots from today, Acros 100 rated at 100 in Rodinal 1+50, 13.5 minutes @ 20C, standard agitation.
A boy and his dog by kenj8246, on Flickr
A boy and his dog by kenj8246, on Flickr
Kenny
A boy and his dog by kenj8246, on Flickr
A boy and his dog by kenj8246, on Flickr
Kenny
grapejohnson
Well-known
I've also found that Rodinal looks better on slower film, but never really put it together conclusively. I just try different things now and then when the roll isn't totally important to see if I like the results better or not. I have Rodinal and D76, but use the D76 for my Tri-X and HP5s, and the Rodinal for my Fomapans and FP4s. Delta doesn't really look good in either of those unless it's high contrast flash, so I dev it in Rodinal if I want a really grainy look with less detail.
gsgary
Well-known
I have done that with XP2 and developed in Rodinal 1+25 for 25 minutes
iso200
iso1600 Potter shot through window
ChrisN
Striving
Thanks Roger. It is interesting that we can get so excited about our pet techniques (I am as guilty as any). When I first discovered stand development I tried times out to 2 hours, convinced I was really on to something. Then the uneven development started to become apparent. I tried a number of variations - spacing the spool up from the bottom, different dilutions and minimum cc's of rodinal per roll, size of tank, types of spool, etc, all to no avail. Not for me.
This is partly why I was so interested to find times of 15 and 20 minutes for 1:100 dilutions in the AGFA chart, albeit with their regular agitation routine (30 seconds initial then 5 seconds every 30 seconds). This worked OK for me. After reading more widely I found recommendations for reduced agitation as a means of compensating the highlights, and tried agitation every 5 minutes over a 20 minute dev time (still with 1:100). Then I learned of John Carter's preferred agitation routine. A further mote of data came from Michael Johnston in a note that rodinal 1:100 became fully exhausted after something like 18 minutes (and therefore any time beyond that was simply wasted).
Roger - have you done any formal testing along these lines - to determine the time it takes for one roll of 135 x 36 to exhaust 2.5ml of rodinal in solution?
I'm going to revisit the Schwalberg article and run some tests using his recommended time/dilution/agitation. What has struck me with many of the samples shown here and in other rodinal discussions (and in many of my own negatives, especially in 135 format) is the muddy mid-tones and lack of tonal separation. In his article Schwalberg uses the terms "brilliance", "gradation" and "sharpness" to describe the desirable characteristics. I haven't seen any use the term "brilliance" lately, but I suspect it means the opposite of muddiness. I want to get some of that brilliance into my negatives. I think part of the answer is in giving sufficient exposure to the negative to lift the lower and mid-tones well away from the toe of the exposure curve (as explained by Bruce Barnbaum in his YouTube clip).
Bob Michaels
nobody special
That is no more than 1 stop overexposure or 2 under, well within the exposure latitude of almost all b&w film / developer combinations. We tend to forget that 50-60 years ago most photos were made with box cameras which had no exposure adjustment but relied entirely on exposure latitude.
