Rodinal Stand Developing Tutorial

[FrankS]

@Frank - Are you using HC110 stand or normal development? I used HC110 dilution h with normal development and got larger grain than Rodinal stand development 1:100 when using Arista Premium 400 (Tri-X).

Here are some results. HP5+, HC110 1:60 (H), 10min total, 10 sec agitation every minute. Good grain for 400 speed film IMO. Taken with a Nikon L35AF - Nikon's first AF P+S from the 80's.

I may have to try Rodinol stand development with HP5+to compare grain.

 

[Brian Legge]

Stand (even stand with agitation at the half way mark) always seemed to result in streaking or uneven development for me. I've found two solutions which work for me:

1) Agitate every 10 minutes. Same idea others have talked about here, higher contrast no doubt, but it the results have been pretty good.
2) Use 500ml of developer. Put an empty 35mm reel on the bottom. Put in the reel with film second. I was able to further reduce the amount of agitation with this approach as the concentrated, settling developer seems to have less effect on the upper reel.

 

[mathomas]

Where can one order Rodinal in the USA? I see that Freestyle has "Foma Fomadon R09 Film Developer - 250ml (Similar to Agfa Rodinal)". Is this the best choice for ordering in the USA?

There's also Adonal, which I use and am happy with. I purchased it from Freestyle, as well.

 

[ChipMcD]

I tried 2 rolls of Ilford FP4+ with HC110 1:100 for about 35 minutes. The tonal range on the negs was really great; however, the scans, when looked at in Photoshop at the "acutal pixels" level showed golf ball sized grain. I thought I still had some Rodinal when I tried this, only to discover that I did not. I ordered some of the Compard R09 cloned Rodinal and will try again. If the grain stays this sized, I think I'll just get the thermometer out and go back to the old way.

 

[ChrisN]

Interesting article by Ed Buffaloe; well worth reading the whole article.

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html

"Because Rodinal works at high dilutions, it can have a pronounced compensating effect. Compensation occurs when bromide is released in areas of heavy exposure, where development is rapid and continuous. Bromide slows the development of the high values (zone VII and above), preventing them from becoming too dense to print. High dilutions also enhance adjacency effects, which are produced when areas of high density adjoin areas of low density. Unused developer from low density areas diffuses over to the edge of high density areas and increases density even more, while bromide released by intense development in high density areas difuses over and helps prevent development on the edge of low density areas. Adjacency effects markedly enhance perceived sharpness.

Bob Schwalberg, who once wrote for Popular Photography, maintained that too much agitation would interfere with adjacency effects, and recommended no more than ten seconds per minute of gentle agitation with Rodinal. This has been my practice for years. However, Dr. Richard Henry, in Controls in Black and White Photography, states that his tests show adjacency effects are caused by “lateral diffusion in the emulsion layer” and are not dependent on agitation. In any case, Rodinal’s adjacency effects are well-documented and contribute to its reputation for sharpness.


"Typically the compensating effect is seen at dilutions from 1:50 to 1:100, and can be adjusted to fit any contrast range. I have even heard of dilutions as high as 1:200 for certain applications. Agfa recommends using at least 10 milliliters of concentrate per roll of film, no matter what dilution you use. My practice has always been to use 5 milliliters in 500 milliliters of water for the 1:100 dilution, which may account for the lengthy developing times with some films, but it works just fine. Higher dilutions may cause speed loss, so be prepared to rate your film at about half its normal speed. But speed loss is more than made up for by the superior sharpness and gradation Rodinal produces with most contemporary films."​

And a link to AGFA's recommended developing times and agitation: http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Developers/Times_Rodinal/Rodinal.pdf

 

[charjohncarter]

Edit; this is referencing above from ChrisN.

Bromide Drag????? No question Rodinal has an edge effect that enhances the perception of sharpness. This is at the expense of grain increase. I enjoy Rodinal with MF and LF but even Tmax400-2 (35mm) with Rodinal produces more grain than I like. So, you take your choices and live with them. And Bromide drag with Rodinal semi-stand and grain increase with 35mm, I just can not live with. I have tried it off (35mm) and on for 5 years and for me it just doesn't work.

Bromide drag (and this is my definition) is streaking from long sessions with no agitation.

 

[ChrisN]

Edit; this is referencing above from ChrisN.

Bromide Drag????? No question Rodinal has an edge effect that enhances the perception of sharpness. This is at the expense of grain increase. I enjoy Rodinal with MF and LF but even Tmax400-2 (35mm) with Rodinal produces more grain than I like. So, you take your choices and live with them. And Bromide drag with Rodinal semi-stand and grain increase with 35mm, I just can not live with. I have tried it off (35mm) and on for 5 years and for me it just doesn't work.

Bromide drag (and this is my definition) is streaking from long sessions with no agitation.

I'll admit I'm becoming more confused about this question of "bromide drag", rather than less confused, the more I read! I'm happy to go with your definition, and whether there is actually bromide involved or not it seems to be a widely-accepted name given to the problem of the streaks adjacent to the sprocket holes, and as you say caused by insufficient agitation. I think another cause can be too-regular agitation (as in continuous consistent agitation) with uneven development caused by developer flow. I have read in earlier threads on this forum that there is no "bromide" as such in the Rodinal chemistry, but whether this is true or not makes no difference to the resulting uneven development.

I was interested in the following statement in the Ed Buffaloe article:

"Bob Schwalberg, who once wrote for Popular Photography, maintained that too much agitation would interfere with adjacency effects, and recommended no more than ten seconds per minute of gentle agitation with Rodinal."​

I have seen many people write about the compensating effect of various developers (ie the characteristic of not over-developing the highlights while allowing full development in the shadows), and understand that this usually required reduced agitation. But I was was surprised to see in the statement quoted above that as much as 10 seconds of gentle agitation per minute would not prevent the compensating effect.

So - how much is too much?

 

[mooge]

smashing write up, Mr. Hildebrand... but who sells Rodinal in Ottawa?

cheers.

 

[charjohncarter]

I'll admit I'm becoming more confused about this question of "bromide drag", rather than less confused, the more I read! I'm happy to go with your definition, and whether there is actually bromide involved or not it seems to be a widely-accepted name given to the problem of the streaks adjacent to the sprocket holes, and as you say caused by insufficient agitation. I think another cause can be too-regular agitation (as in continuous consistent agitation) with uneven development caused by developer flow. I have read in earlier threads on this forum that there is no "bromide" as such in the Rodinal chemistry, but whether this is true or not makes no difference to the resulting uneven development.

I was interested in the following statement in the Ed Buffaloe article:

"Bob Schwalberg, who once wrote for Popular Photography, maintained that too much agitation would interfere with adjacency effects, and recommended no more than ten seconds per minute of gentle agitation with Rodinal."​

I have seen many people write about the compensating effect of various developers (ie the characteristic of not over-developing the highlights while allowing full development in the shadows), and understand that this usually required reduced agitation. But I was was surprised to see in the statement quoted above that as much as 10 seconds of gentle agitation per minute would not prevent the compensating effect.

So - how much is too much?

I probably shouldn't have jokingly defined 'Bromide Drag' as I know nothing about it. Years ago I read the article you quoted and also articles about Bromide Drag, and maybe there is no such thing. But uneven development with Rodinal is a fact (along with surge over development, and streaking, not to mention grain increase) in my hands. I have used similar agitation schemes with Rodinal and HC-110, and I don't have the problems with HC-110. I'm not recommending HC-110 it just works for me. And I'm sure that Rodinal works too, it just makes me nervous (when I use it). I do use Rodinal with MF/LF and am happy, but I use the Agfa method that comes with their product to the letter.

ChrisN (or anybody else), I have that Popular Photography on Rodinal that you mentioned, at least I think it is the article. It is long and detailed and my copy is a mess but you can read it. If you would like it, I will scan and send to you. Don't worry about the scanning work, the only thing on TV tonight is Yentl.

 

[ChrisN]

I probably shouldn't have jokingly defined 'Bromide Drag' as I know nothing about it. Years ago I read the article you quoted and also articles about Bromide Drag, and maybe there is no such thing. But uneven development with Rodinal is a fact (along with surge over development, and streaking, not to mention grain increase) in my hands. I have used similar agitation schemes with Rodinal and HC-110, and I don't have the problems with HC-110. I'm not recommending HC-110 it just works for me. And I'm sure that Rodinal works too, it just makes me nervous (when I use it). I do use Rodinal with MF/LF and am happy, but I use the Agfa method that comes with their product to the letter.

ChrisN (or anybody else), I have that Popular Photography on Rodinal that you mentioned, at least I think it is the article. It is long and detailed and my copy is a mess but you can read it. If you would like it, I will scan and send to you. Don't worry about the scanning work, the only thing on TV tonight is Yentl.

Yes please! I'd love to get a copy - I'll PM you with my email address.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Well, here's my two bob's worth.
I've never been tempted to try stand development. Arguments about 'economy' and 'time utilisation' don't weigh heavily in my mind as I am a firm believer that the film manufacturers know their product better than I do and they recommend a particular process for good reason.
So I always use the Ilford method and timing. I have, over the years, tried different developers but the procedure has always remained the same.

For what it's worth I currently have on hand (genuine Agfa) Rodinal, Ilford DD-X and Prescyol EF.
My experience has been that for films rated at ISO100-125, Rodinal 1+50 does a great job. It does not do so well on films rated at ISO400 where an increase in grain is observed which to me is unacceptable. So for those films I use DD-X 1+4 or ID-11 (D76 if using Kodak chemicals) if I have a quantity to do and prefer the economy of a powder developer.
The Prescyol EF is great for all films, allows different films to be developed in the same tank but to be used properly needs a different stop bath and fixer to be mixed up.

 

[charjohncarter]

Well, here's my two bob's worth.
I've never been tempted to try stand development. Arguments about 'economy' and 'time utilisation' don't weigh heavily in my mind as I am a firm believer that the film manufacturers know their product better than I do and they recommend a particular process for good reason.
So I always use the Ilford method and timing. I have, over the years, tried different developers but the procedure has always remained the same.

For what it's worth I currently have on hand (genuine Agfa) Rodinal, Ilford DD-X and Prescyol EF.
My experience has been that for films rated at ISO100-125, Rodinal 1+50 does a great job. It does not do so well on films rated at ISO400 where an increase in grain is observed which to me is unacceptable. So for those films I use DD-X 1+4 or ID-11 (D76 if using Kodak chemicals) if I have a quantity to do and prefer the economy of a powder developer.
The Prescyol EF is great for all films, allows different films to be developed in the same tank but to be used properly needs a different stop bath and fixer to be mixed up.

That's right.

 

[Disaster_Area]

I am a firm believer that the film manufacturers know their product better than I do and they recommend a particular process for good reason.

That's true, to an extent. For one, the recommended manufacturers time doesn't take into account hardness/softness/quality of water in your area... I'm guessing those times/temps are calculated using pure distilled water. There are a lot of factors that may affect your personal developing times and I think every photog should be encouraged to experiment a bit with the recommended times to get a personal formula.

Also, most manufacturer times I've seen haven't changed in decades, unless the film or dev formula changes, and those temp/times are definately calculated with wet printing in mind. I've definitely changed my souping routines to coincide with a scanning workflow. A nice dense negative that wet prints beautifully might not look near as good scanned. Stand development keeps the highlights from getting too dense and gives really nice detail when scanned.

 

[SciAggie]

These are from my last roll. These are arista premium 400 shot at box speed. I developed using 3.5ml of rodinal in 450ml of water to fill my tank - this was for one roll of film. Developed for one hour at 20 degrees C. I agitated 10 timesat the start then 3 agitations at 30 minutes.

Post processing was curves and sharpening only.

 

[ChrisN]

Looks pretty good! In shots with more sky, any sign of uneven development or streaks from the sprocket holes? I can see some faint streaking in the first shot. (I'm getting a lot of that in some of my experiments.)

 

[SciAggie]

Looks pretty good! In shots with more sky, any sign of uneven development or streaks from the sprocket holes? I can see some faint streaking in the first shot. (I'm getting a lot of that in some of my experiments.)

It varies. The streaking occurs in frames that have very dark areas adjacent to very light areas. If the tones are closer together it's fine. I also believe that underexposure contributes to the problem. That is why I agitated at the 30 minute mark; I wanted to see if that would help. I believe it did. I think I may try an agitation at 20 and 40 minutes next round and see how it goes.

With regards to some earlier comments, I like the way these negatives are scanning and I like the way they are lending themselves to post processing - I am not doing any wet printing.

 

[Disaster_Area]

I find I can avoid streaking with one gentle inversion at the halfway point, and by putting an empty film spool on the bottom of the tank (if there's room). But maybe I just don't take many pictures with a lot of open sky, because I rarely find it's a problem. Wonder if it has anything to do with the hardness/softness of your water?

 

[ChrisN]

For those people successfully using the stand and semi-stand development process, can you see any sign that this is reducing blown highlights on your negs? I mean in comparison with negs developed with the normal agitation routine. It would be interesting to do a true comparison: two cameras with the same focal length, same film and same exposures. Develop them both in Rodinal 1+100, the first with stand or semi-stand, and the second with the normal agitation as recommended by AGFA.

 

[charjohncarter]

I have not done it with Rodinal, but I have done it with HC-110. It is hard to compare because light can change quickly. But my impression is that there is zero difference between Ansel Adams method which is high dilution and semi-semi- stand development and normal dilution using minimal agitation (3 inversions every 4-5 minutes). Also, this is another variable, I have seen great discussion on whether new emulsions both traditionals and T-grains are affected greatly (compensation) by either minimal or the various permutations of stand.

 

[LeicaM3]

Had a quick glance at your Rodinal SD beginner's tutorial. Well done.

I have not read other contributions to this thread, so my comments may be redundant. I have used Rodinal 1:100 with various methods for 30 years and likely over 1000 films.

I disagree with the notion that times are 60 min for TriX at 200/400/800/1600 - I have found that adding 30 minutes for one stop push works better.

Developer amount varies with type of film somewhat.
E.g. 120 Acros 4.5 ml. 35 Acros 3.5 ml. 35 Agfa25 4 ml. 35 TriX 3.5 ml.

If you want to use one single volume for anything you do (120/35/any film) 4ml works best.

C41 film can be developed the same way in Rodinal.

I had more comments, but I got called away - and now I need to get some films out of the tank.