ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Thanks Roland.
I'm hypothesizing that two aspects of my process contributed to the much increased contrast: a) 4ml vs 3ml Rodinal, and b) the agitation at 10 minutes, vs pure stand development after initial agitation.
You say 4ml vs 3 is contributing about one stop. Very interesting.
Rodinal is hard to measure in such small amounts. If it's that sensitive, I'll have to find a more accurate way to measure and deliver the Rodinal.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
You didn't use distilled or deionized through dehumidifier? Ha! You fool!
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Well, at first, because I had lots of XP2 I'd got for cheap, the only place to get film developed locally is terrible and I had lots of Rodinal lying around, and was merely curious. Now it's just because I really like the way it looks.
I can't even remember when I last had a roll developed in C41, to be honest.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi Roland,
I know we've talked about this before...
Stand is based on exhaustion, yes, but not on total exhaustion of all the developer in the tank: it's based on exhaustion of the developer that's precisely touching the silver: a very small amount of the developer in the tank...
Dilution matters.
If you do a stand development mixing 1:100, results are different to those of a stand development mixing 1:25, because the amount of developer in contact with the silver is different.
And, when you use 3ml (Rodinal) there's no exhaustion: if we agitate, we give new developer to the silver.
Telling the dilution (1:100) while talking about stand, does define it. We do not exhaust those 3 or 4 ml during the stand development, but a very small part of them... You can check it by doing a stand development you do (exhausting "all" the developer in the mix) and then do the same but with 10 every next minute agitation after your normal stand, and you'll see your developer was not exhausted...
Cheers,
Juan
charjohncarter
Veteran
Exhaustion is correct; but it is local exhaustion. You are diluting only to get your development time up so the highlights do not overdevelop (the developer is exhausted in these areas only). That is why it is used in high contrast scenes and not really recommended for normal scenes. But as the term 'stand development' has evolved to a general development scheme which I find unnecessary. So I just get a time for 1+100 usually around 18 minutes and lower your agitation after 30 second initial to 3 inversion every 4 minutes (with Rodinal) and you will be hard pressed to see any difference.
This stand with Tmax, Rodinal 1+100:
and so is this:
both high contrast, now I would use a different developer, but the results would be the same.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
What developer do you use for high-contrast scenes?
That's what I was looking for when I did this experiment, but I got N+, not N-1 or N-2.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Good enough reason for me! Nice stuff.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I have good results with Fomapan 100 in 4x5 processed in Mod54/Paterson tank, Rodinal 1:100, 15 mins inversion initially and then one gentle inversion at 30min total stand for one hour. Water must be cooler than 20c.
ferider
Veteran
CSM: I add Rodinal to water with a small, 10ml syringe - this is quite accurate.
Earl: either that, or read up on Rodinal's diffusion coefficient.
Nice John - and I know where you took the second one at least
The way I understand stand is a bit different from you, it goes: "You are diluting only to get your development time up so the highlights do not overdevelop (the developer is exhausted in these areas first)". If there would be no diffusion (and therefore highlights get more developer than other areas), Rodinal wouldn't solve in water in the first place. Put a cube of sugar in a glass of water for an hour, no agitation. What will happen ?
In any case, I recommend to the OP to do his own experiments: keep the amount of water and agitation constant, and change Rodinal quantity.
Also, look at web-posts of negative scans with caution, one never knows (1) how exposure was set and (2) what leveling was applied in Photoshop.
Roland.
PMCC
Late adopter.
Try a 10ml disposable syringe (w/o the sharp): accurate enough for injectables, accurate enough for developer. Reusable for a long time, so long as it remains dedicated to Rodinal.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi Trius,
If it's stand (no agitation, or just once in the middle) and if the used dilution is the same, silver will have exactly the same amount of developer to interact with, so results will be the same. Film doesn't care if the tank has half a liter of mix or 1 gallon of mix, or if the total amount of Rodinal in the mix is 3 ml or 5 ml or 20 ml, as long as the same dilution is kept.
Cheers,
Juan
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Where do you buy that Rodinal in sugar cubes?
Just kidding!
Well, I really think the comparison doesn't apply... Unexhausted, still developer in the dilution, far from film and its silver, won't travel "in search of film"... It keeps still... Only agitation changes that.
Yes, sugar cubes do get dissolved because of water... But honestly I see no relation.
Cheers,
Juan
ferider
Veteran
ok juan,
take 2 glasses of water, in the first put a spoon of vinegar, in the second a spoon of oil. what happens after an hour ?
is rodinal more like vinegar or more like oil ?
roland.
take 2 glasses of water, in the first put a spoon of vinegar, in the second a spoon of oil. what happens after an hour ?
is rodinal more like vinegar or more like oil ?
roland.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I use Ansel Adams formula (with HC-110) for high contrast development; it is in his last edition of "the negative" you should also read this. I've tried both many times but not with TmaX developer but with HC-110:
http://johnsexton.com/images/Compensating_Development.pdf
If you want my time for TriX (at 250), Tmax400-2 (at 250), or Tmax100 (at 50) send me a PM for a starting point time and agitation (agitation is very important as you found out with Rodinal).
charjohncarter
Veteran
CSM: I add Rodinal to water with a small, 10ml syringe - this is quite accurate.
Earl: either that, or read up on Rodinal's diffusion coefficient.
Nice John - and I know where you took the second one at least
The way I understand stand is a bit different from you, it goes: "You are diluting only to get your development time up so the highlights do not overdevelop (the developer is exhausted in these areas first)". If there would be no diffusion (and therefore highlights get more developer than other areas), Rodinal wouldn't solve in water in the first place. Put a cube of sugar in a glass of water for an hour, no agitation. What will happen ?
In any case, I recommend to the OP to do his own experiments: keep the amount of water and agitation constant, and change Rodinal quantity.
Also, look at web-posts of negative scans with caution, one never knows (1) how exposure was set and (2) what leveling was applied in Photoshop.
Roland.
You are probably right but the shadow areas are fully developed and the highlights are held back, which is the purpose of stand for high contrast scenes (to increase the tonal range, e.i. don't blow the highlights). Doing stand with normal scenes leads to muddy negatives (opposite of the Col's case) which is not a problem if you don't intend to wet print. Now people will accept a muddy negative and juice them with curves. So maybe the whole argument is moot. Still I like a nice looking negative (whether wet printed or digitally processed, I don't feel like messing with them too much).
timor
Well-known
Hi. Water is not equal everywhere. (Sure, Brita can remove a lot of stuff from it, but still something will stay.) It is not only the active reducer in the developer, but also the environment. In our case the pH. If different from optimal even a pound of reducer will not develop anything. The question is how fast buffer contained in 4 ml of Rodinal will dissipate in Boston tap water. Did you ever checked pH of your water ? Even so called distilled water is not equal everywhere. Mine in Toronto has pH of 5.5 and I have a custom of buffering it with borax to pH 7 before use. With D76 it seems to be no matter, but with highly diluted stuff like Rodinal from 1:50, HC110 1+49 or Beutler I can see a difference.
The same with shooting given film at different then box speed. I do not know if the fellow shooting TMY at 250 is doing the same as me shooting it at 400, or is he deliberately overexposing 2/3 of a stop.
I can only say you should just keep trying (with different times of development, or with over/under exposure to your current settings) until you will have what do you like. Film photography is very much hands-on craft.
Last edited:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
The important thing is consistency. A lot of developers (if not all) are buffered.
I use water from my dehumidifier, then filtered for particulates through a Melitta filter, then through Brita. Not because I know exactly what this protocol does, but because I do it for all the water I use.
I use water from my dehumidifier, then filtered for particulates through a Melitta filter, then through Brita. Not because I know exactly what this protocol does, but because I do it for all the water I use.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Arista Premium 400 @ 400. Rodinal semi stand development 25 min with a "flip" at 5 min and 15 min.
Zeiss ZM, Jupiter 8 50mm f2.0
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Neopan SS @ 100 iso. Rodinal 1:100 semi stand development, "flip" of tank at 5 min and 15 min.
Nikon SP and 50mm f1.4 Nikkor from early 60's.
A bit flatter contrast than I would like, but the SS is lower contrast in general compared to Acros/ORWO 54.
je2a3
je
So far I've only done stand development using APX100 and Era 100. Would like to try TX400 next.
Thanks for all the ideas and will keep following this thread!
Thanks for all the ideas and will keep following this thread!