Rodinal Stand Development - advice needed

[SciAggie]

I tried stand development for the first time with R09 (rodinal). Overall I am pleased with the results - generally the tonality was what I have been looking for and the grain was not objectionable.

I used Arista Premium 400 shot at box speed. I developed 1:100 for one hour. I agitated gently for the fist 15 seconds and then did not touch for the remaining time. Temp was 20C when I started and I left the tank in a sink full of water at the same temperature. Used water for the stop bath and then fixed as usual.

Most of the negatives seemed fine. There was an issue that occured in the following images - look over the windows. What caused this? If I agitate gently at about 30 minutes will that cure the issue?

 

[Ronald M]

Bromide streaking is why this does not work. Look at the exposed leader and see the streaking.

Use very dilute developer , up to 1:200, and agitate every 60 sec skipping last five, 3,2, & 1 minute marks.

Stand may work many times, but eventually it will catch up and ruin a neg you really need.

I see no reason why properly timed Rodinal at 1:50 could not handle this subject. Agitate every 60 sec.

 

[jan normandale]

There are people here who are vehement about "don't touch it". They have a following and sometimes the 'bromide event' is what happens. I always do "stand" as follows:

agitate for 15 seconds at the 1st, 2nd and 3rd minute. I then do two additional agitations of very gentle swirls for 10 seconds each at the 20 and 40 minute mark. If it's off a couple of minutes it's not going to affect things. Key is to ensure the film doesn't get caught with exhausted developer.

Ronald M suggests !:50 and I use that a lot and do a semi stand.

10 seconds agitation for minutes 1, 2, 3, then agitate for 10 seconds each 3 minutes there after until you reach 18 minutes (it could be 19 or 20, I don't think much more will happen at these low dilutions over a minute or two)

then rinse, fix, rinse, rinse, rinse, wetting agent and hang

 

[SciAggie]

So is this the bromide streaking I have been reading about?

 

[ChrisN]

I posted on the other thread:

"

... I am thinking I need to swirl the tank or give a gentle inversion at 30 minutes - there were a few frames that were a little funky. Look at the what's happening over the windows in the following picture. This was from the same roll of film. Anyone have an explanation?

Yep - I found the same when I was experimenting with stand dev - it works for some people and not for others. These days I've abandoned stand dev and changed to regular, but gentle and minimal, inversion (see here).

Here's a more extreme version of yours. The stripes align with the sprocket holes. More agitation stops this happening.

"

Others have written that this technically isn't "bromide drag" as there is no bromide as such in rodinal. I put it down to uneven development caused by the uneven convection flow associated with the proximity of the sprocket holes. In practice, more agitation solves this.

 

[DNG]

I'm using a similar workflow...Rodinal 1:100
Agitate the 1st 60s, then at the 30m mark, agitate for 30s-1m, dump at 60m mark
I have had no streaking problems..
Here are a few from today...

Also there is visible difference in Regular Rodinal 1:50 developing and Rodinal 1:100 stand, as far as the mid-tone DR... the Stand "Opens Up" the Mid-tones, and Shadows,
Samples:
1:50

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodinal Stand (highlights can suffer depending on subject)... High Contrast is not the best for stand at box speed. But at a +2/3 EV will hold the highlights with stand developing

No adj was made for scan or Digital file expect for sharpening
Here are the Negatives compared

 

[SciAggie]

What is the difference between the Starbucks pics and the building? I'm speaking in terms of film - the grain is very pronounced in the first two but quite tame in the others. Was the development the same? I have just read (I don't have any experience) that grain increases with agitation. That is why I have avoided more traditional developing - and I like the tonal ranges I am seeing with the postings by stand dev.

 

[venchka]

There is a difference in thought about the quantity of Rodinal used for stand developing. A fixed amout of Rodinal per roll of film. Check the Rodinal 1:100 discusssion. Post #222 or around that number.

I'm also skeptical about R09 being the real Rodinal. Shoot, even before Agfa ceased production, they had changed the formula. On the other hand, my bottles of Rodinal might be R09. Who really knows?

 

[SciAggie]

@ Venchka - I have been following that thread also. The consensus there was that R09 one shot was rodinal, but as you say, who knows? At the end of the day I am experimenting with both HC-110 and Rodinal for developing ap400. I picked those two developers for their mix-as-needed qualities. I have been experiencing more grain than I wanted with the HC-110 and liked what was being posted in the 1:100 thread.

I am learning that the devil is in the details.

 

[DNG]

What is the difference between the Starbucks pics and the building? I'm speaking in terms of film - the grain is very pronounced in the first two but quite tame in the others. Was the development the same? I have just read (I don't have any experience) that grain increases with agitation. That is why I have avoided more traditional developing - and I like the tonal ranges I am seeing with the postings by stand dev.

The Highlights are blown in the building with Stand Developing. also the contrast IS higher in the building photo... I was shooting in the shade with the man at Starbuck's, so the contrast was a lower, except for the window reflections.

I have found with Stand, shooting at ISO 250 saves the HL, and has a great tonal range..

Here is a ISO 320 FN 400 at 320 in Rodinal Stand with 4 passes at 4500dpi with my Plustek 7300 SE-Plus
Notice the HL's are very bright...and I don't have a lot detail in the chrome, but, it works for this subject.

---------------------------------------------------------------
at ISO 250 Stand

--------------------------------------------------------------


Yes, the grain is a bit more 1:50 at a regular 60s interval, but, I scan with 4 passes with all my film... If I use an 8/16 pass scan the gran is lessened quite a bit. (but it is time consuming), I am using a non-T grain film, so the grain is bit more noticeable. But with Fuji Neopan 400, the grain is still tight, and can still record a high amount of distant detail.

 

[SciAggie]

Thanks DNG. This is all very helpfull.

 

[DNG]

Something else I am learning. With contrasty subjects, I add +2/3 EV and this saves the HLs. On regular stuff, overcast, cloudy bright, and similar, I can shoot at the box speed, and all is well. And in indoors and 100% shaded darker areas, I can subtract up to "2" EV. So with a 400 film: ISO 250-800 on the same roll, as long as I adjust the exposure for the subject, Via the EC dial or ISO dial, or just memory.

So, on the same roll, I can shoot from +"2/3" to -"2" EV and all the negatives have a good contrast and tonal range.

The "-"EV adjustment are for indoors and 100% shaded subjects.
The '+"EV are for higher contrast where you want the HLs to still be detailed..

My next roll, I am going to try 2ml per 300ml or Rodinal ("1" ml less per roll), this too should help the high lights from getting too hot.

 

[DNG]

NO....Do not try this 2ml in 300ml is NOT ENOUGH DEVELOPER!
Negatives are way too thin... Argggg

Just use a lower ISO for high contrast subjects with the standard Rodinal 1:100 for 300ml (3ml)...

 

[ChrisN]

NO....Do not try this 2ml in 300ml is NOT ENOUGH DEVELOPER!
Negatives are way too thin... Argggg

Just use a lower ISO for high contrast subjects with the standard Rodinal 1:100 for 300ml (3ml)...

😀

4ml per roll seems to be the minimum to give me satisfactory results. In my last test batch with 4ml in 400ml, there was very little difference between 30 minutes development time and 40 minutes, so I suspect I was approaching developer exhaustion at that point.

 

[DNG]

😀

4ml per roll seems to be the minimum to give me satisfactory results. In my last test batch with 4ml in 400ml, there was very little difference between 30 minutes development time and 40 minutes, so I suspect I was approaching developer exhaustion at that point.

I get good results with 3ml per 300ml (10oz), But I will try 4ml for 400ml and see how I like it. I will try a test roll with ISO 200-1250 using Legacy Pro 400. I tried this with 3ml per 300ml. and from ISO 200-640 seemed very usable on the same roll..

 

[DNG]

OK, Tried using 2ml for 300ml water... Not enough, Exhausted too soon,
BUT, recoverable, to my amazement....

Back to 3ml per 300ml of water
BUT, I will try 4ml to 400ml water next. just to see if it is better than 3ml/300ml.

 

[kdemas]

3 per 100ml works well for me. Only issue I ever have is some strangeness around the sprockets, which only shows up when I use the Jobo single tank and plastic reel. Patterson plastic reels in 1 and 2 reel tanks works just fine.

 

[PMCC]

+1 on 3+300ml for 135mm film. But ... what about 120 roll film? It takes more like 450ml of solution to cover (steel reels and tanks). Is the idea, 4.5+450, or is it 3+450? I.e., if the idea is to develop to exhaustion, then I'm thinking that the amount of Rodinal is more a function of the area of film to be treated, not the volume of working solution to cover. That said, i don't know the comparative area of a roll of 36exp 135mm film vs. a roll of 120 film. Or is the dilution ratio the important thing? I didn't survive high school chemistry.

 

[ChrisN]

Good questions! I can answer one of them - the film area of a roll of 120 is generally assumed to be the same as a roll of 135x36.

To date I've generally developed my medium format film in 500ml ID-11 1+3 per roll, and I've stuck with the ratio rather than using an absolute amount of the developer. With Rodinal in 1+100 (or thereabouts) dilutions, and long times, I don't think it will make much difference. Why not test, and share the results with us? 🙂

 

[PMCC]

Test? As mentioned, I didn't survive high school chem lab. Made it through qualitative analysis, but quantitative was beyond me. Now I'm here on RFF, and you want more tests? Hah. 🙂