Rodinal stand development

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I'm back to processing my own b&w. I used to, years ago, and it was always ID-11, with every possible film I could get. However, other people's photographs that I liked most grain/sharpness/tonality-wise always seemed to be developed in highly diluted Rodinal, often stand- or semi-stand-developed.

I just stocked my fridge up with plenty of Tri-X (which I will guesspose at box speed up to 3200) and APX100 (which will be precisely metered and exposed). I will develop them in Rodinal. Most probably stand, as it just sounds right to me, and - based on my observation, not personal experience - Rodinal seems to not like agitation, other than very minimal to avoid halo effects etc.
Any suggestions, practical advice other than to check Dev Chart (which of course I have and I will) or "don't do Tri-X in Rodinal"?

Tri-X works great in Rodinal. It gives a very sharp and gritty look.

EI-320, developed in Rodinal 1+50 for 11 minutes at 68 degrees. Normal agitation, not stand developing. Agitate first 30 seconds then 2 inversions every 30 seconds.

 

[Marihino]

thanks Chris! They do look good. It was annoying when I asked in other places on the net for suggestions about Tri-X in Rodinal, and the only one I was getting was "don't". Even in Rodinal-dedicated forums.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

thanks Chris! They do look good. It was annoying when I asked in other places on the net for suggestions about Tri-X in Rodinal, and the only one I was getting was "don't". Even in Rodinal-dedicated forums.

A lot of people think its bad because Rodinal enhances grain. Tri-X in Rodinal is grainier than in developers like D-76, Xtol, or Tmax Developer but the grain has a nice sharp look, not mushy and ugly, so it lends a unique character to the images. If you want the finest grain, Rodinal isn't the right developer, but if you want a very sharp looking image then it is great.

Another thing is to be careful with exposures, Tri-X in Rodinal seems to me to be less tolerant of overexposure than Tri-X in D-76 and it doesn't tolerate underexposure at all. That may be another reason a lot of people do not like it. A lot of photographers here on RFF pride themselves on not using an exposure meter...guessing the exposure. Don't do that! Its dumb with any film/developer combo and suicidal with this one.

 

[Marihino]

oh, it's good to know about the exposures. I do tend to guess, not that I'm proud of it, my favourite cameras don't have meters and most of the time I don't bother to take the handheld one with me. Maybe it's time to change my habits, or load the film into a metered body.

Thanks again, that's the sort of advice I was looking for.

 

[Tom A]

Rodinal 1:200 for 120 min. Orwo ND 21 ,a negative duplicating film, nominally rated at 12 iso - here I under exposed on purpose 1 stop - as these films are prone to blow out highlights.
M6 0.85, Nokton 50mm f1.1 at f1.1.

 

[gho]

Rodinal 1:200 for 120 min. Orwo ND 21 ,a negative duplicating film, nominally rated at 12 iso - here I under exposed on purpose 1 stop - as these films are prone to blow out highlights.
M6 0.85, Nokton 50mm f1.1 at f1.1.

I love that crispiness Rodinal delivers if skillfully applied.

 

[Tom A]

Georg, some credit should go to the Nokton 50mm f1.1. It is an amazing piece of glass - particularly for a "super speed" lens. Virtually no flare and very sharp, already at f1.1.

 

[sparrow6224]

Tom -- How can that be at f1.1 and be sharp in foreground and sharp deep into the background? That would make it a 50 with the DOF of a 21mm....? Or am I nuts?

 

[Tom A]

Vince, the high contrast is fooling the eye. I know that it was pretty damned dark and with 12 iso - most everything is shot at f1.1 or 1.2.

 

[sparrow6224]

In other words, I'm seeing acutance, not focal sharpness? (I'm trying to learn all these concepts).

Second question, what is the advantage of 1:200 for 2 hours, vs 1:100 for 1 hour?

Thanks, as always, for your generosity with your time and knowledge.

 

[Tom A]

Vince, the 1:200/120 min seem to smooth out the contrast a bit better. You can also dump different films in the soup and they all tend to come out OK. I am doing some more trials and next up is HC 110 1:200/120 min. Did three this morning (XX, Orwo M8, ND 21). negs looks OK, but final judgement will have to wait until they are dry.

 

[gho]

I am doing some more trials and next up is HC 110 1:200/120 min. Did three this morning (XX, Orwo M8, ND 21). negs looks OK, but final judgement will have to wait until they are dry.

Can't wait to see the results! HC-110 is a solvent developer. In my tests (500ml, 7.5ml / 1h stand) I found the grain and overall appearance a bit muddy and the contrast very high. Compared to Rodinal, HC-110 seems to be much more active, if that is the right term.

Today I will try out 1+100 with film shot at around 1250 to see if diluting it even more improves the situation.

 

[gho]

In other words, I'm seeing acutance, not focal sharpness? (I'm trying to learn all these concepts).

The Film Developing Cookbook by Anchell & Troop could be a good starting point.

 

[charjohncarter]

Can't wait to see the results! HC-110 is a solvent developer. In my tests (500ml, 7.5ml / 1h stand) I found the grain and overall appearance a bit muddy and the contrast very high. Compared to Rodinal, HC-110 seems to be much more active, if that is the right term.

Today I will try out 1+100 with film shot at around 1250 to see if diluting it even more improves the situation.

Your first dilution would hardly be called a higher dilution for stand. Don't expect miracles, I do semi-stand with 1:125 and depending on the film between 20 and 45 minutes. I do it only with a scene that traditionally requires some form of compensation: which is a very high contrast scene (like the one you showed). That is one that has 7+ to higher zone range.

I can't speak to 1250 EI as I never do it (because like the one you showed, the shadows are lost).

 

[gho]

I can't speak to 1250 EI as I never do it (because like the one you showed, the shadows are lost).

Not only that, also the borders of the blown out highlight areas are looking quite fuzzy. What I am actually after is a solution for developing Tri-X shot at around 1600 with high acutance, acceptable tonality and not too much contrast. The idea behind trying stand development here is that I want to minimize the effect that agitation has on the contrast, as extended development times seem to increase the contrast also.
I posted the one above to show an example of what happens, if one is using the method described.

Maybe I should stop using different developers also and stick to just one.

Here is another one from the same roll.

 

[charjohncarter]

First, even though there is a lack of tonality with this picture, I really like it. But if you don't want this high contrast image on other rolls, I'm not sure why you are using such a high EI. Anyway, every person has their own style, preference, and what gives them le vie en rose, so for me I don't even shoot at even box speed unless it is a 3 or less stop scene.

This is one that I used Ansel Adam's version of Semi-Stand with 1:125 HC-110, TriX at 250, also very high contrast:

 

[gho]

First, let me say this is very fine tonality in the image above and I can clearly see why you used Tri-X@250 with Ansel's method to compensate for the high contrast in the scene and it obviously worked very well.

Let me try to explain the reason why I am using such a high EI. Sometimes I take pictures of moving subjects in very low light conditions. As I would like to avoid motion blur as much as possible, a high shutter speed is desirable. Increasing the EI means increasing the shutter speed but also increasing the contrast of the negative, resulting in a relatively steep characteristic curve. So my main aim can not be to capture the full tonal range of the scene, but to get the best result given the constraints high shutter speed and low light. Naturally quite some shadow detail will be lost. The ideal is to get high acutance in the negative while capturing as many tones as possible. Of course, exposure will be tricky, as one has to decide in which EV range of the given scene one wants to have relatively good tonal separation in the negative.

In other words, I am looking for a development technique for using a high EI and to get high acutance in the negative while minimizing the overall contrast.

However, for aesthetic reasons, high contrast may be even desirable. I thought stand developing could be a viable route, as it tends to have a compensating effect and diluting the developer is said to have a positive effect on the acutance, but if you have any alternative suggestions, I would be more than happy to hear about it.

 

[Tom A]

First try with XX and HC 110 1:200 for 120 min. stand development Nokton 40 mm f1.4 MC. Fried highlights, beyond salvage too. The Rodinal 1:200 is much more moderate. Speed is pushed up a bit - I usually rate XX at 320 iso - this looks a closer to 800 iso.
I might do another run with HC 110 (1:100) and cut the time down to 25 minutes (agitation at 5/10/15 and 20 min) and see what it looks like.

 

[Tom A]

Ok, after having seen Charjohncarters shot with the HC 110 1:125 and TriX I might try that!

 

[gho]

[...]
Fried highlights, beyond salvage too.
[...]

Yes, that is what I observed too. Given the same time and dilution, HC-110 gives a much higher contrast increase than Rodinal.