sparrow6224
Well-known
Tom -- I saw a day or two ago a post by you in the 50m Planar thread (I think) from sometime in 2011, that you were in the midst of investigating results using Rodinal in stand development.
I have about 60-70 rolls to do (Tri-X and Arista Premium 400) mostly shot at 800; and amidst them perhaps a dozen Neopan 1600 at 800. I'm far behind because I can't manage to fit in any developing time while I'm teaching. So I was pretty sure I would only be able to tackle it all doing the Rodinal/stand thing. (With a dash of 20 Mule Team to help with grain, a suggestion I've heard 'round about.)
Meanwhile I'd love to know what you found in your studies of Rodinal.
(I would add that I have had some great results with it but I would not say it provides much subtlety of tone. there is a stark quality...)
I have about 60-70 rolls to do (Tri-X and Arista Premium 400) mostly shot at 800; and amidst them perhaps a dozen Neopan 1600 at 800. I'm far behind because I can't manage to fit in any developing time while I'm teaching. So I was pretty sure I would only be able to tackle it all doing the Rodinal/stand thing. (With a dash of 20 Mule Team to help with grain, a suggestion I've heard 'round about.)
Meanwhile I'd love to know what you found in your studies of Rodinal.
(I would add that I have had some great results with it but I would not say it provides much subtlety of tone. there is a stark quality...)
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Vince, it works well with the 1:100 for 60 minutes, but I would add a "twist and a flip" at 30 minutes to avoid edge flare. For push processing it works - but not as well. though adding some Sodium Sulphite to it could help (either 50 gram or 100 grams per 1000 ml of Rodinal 1:100 mix). The neopan 1600 I would do as "regular" - 1:100 for 20 minutes with agitation every 60 seconds - tends to look a bit flat, but scans and prints well.
I haven't tried Borax as a "softener" but I suspect that it would work but with less effect than the Sodium Sulphite.
Tom
I haven't tried Borax as a "softener" but I suspect that it would work but with less effect than the Sodium Sulphite.
Tom
Clint Troy
Well-known
I've had too many bromide streaked negatives with this stand method. But when there's no streak, the negs are very fine.
This is why I'd follow Tom'S recommendation but I'd do th etwist and flip every 15 minutes. Especially the twist, to avoid bromide streaks leaking from the perforations.
This is why I'd follow Tom'S recommendation but I'd do th etwist and flip every 15 minutes. Especially the twist, to avoid bromide streaks leaking from the perforations.
sparrow6224
Well-known
Do you agitate heavily at the outset? Some give it a full 30 secs or minute of agitation to start it off. Not I. I give it four or five turns and twists. You?
Clint Troy
Well-known
If you're asking me, I think it really doesn't matter. In the end, after 60 minutes it all evens out. Especially if you use the same method for all your negatives...
If I was you, I'd use HC110 DIlution A (works vert well!) for short developing times to go through so many negatives. Much more effective then stand development that, in the end, takes up 2 hours of your time (1 hour development + all the shakes and 1 hours stopping, fixing and washing).
Go HC110 Dilution A and Basta!
charjohncarter
Veteran
Pros: it will always work, almost no worries about temperature, even dilution as long as it is 1+100 to 1+200, and you don't agitate too much.
Cons: uneven development, grain (from Rodinal) with TriX, long wait, and I get improper contrast results, but with PS you can fix that.
There are better developers for stand if you haven't purchased it yet.
Cons: uneven development, grain (from Rodinal) with TriX, long wait, and I get improper contrast results, but with PS you can fix that.
There are better developers for stand if you haven't purchased it yet.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I use Rodinal 100:1 at 60 minutes for all my stuff now (mainly FP4). In my experience, if you use distilled water to make up the working solution, none of the problems mentioned above occur. I live in a hard water area and I think that, at 100:1, impurities make up a substantial part of the mixture. Using distilled water means that you only get what the manufacturer intended.
I bought a simple evaporation kettle distiller via eBay for £80 (about $150) which does the job well and I'll break even on it after about 40 films, given local prices for distilled water in bottles. I would advise against deionised water, because it may still contain impurities in sufficient quantities to be a problem for high dilution work.
I invert the tank six times (slowly) at the start of the hour and then leave it completely alone until done. I'm happy with the results.
I bought a simple evaporation kettle distiller via eBay for £80 (about $150) which does the job well and I'll break even on it after about 40 films, given local prices for distilled water in bottles. I would advise against deionised water, because it may still contain impurities in sufficient quantities to be a problem for high dilution work.
I invert the tank six times (slowly) at the start of the hour and then leave it completely alone until done. I'm happy with the results.
ferider
Veteran
Posted earlier to show an example, but showed the wrong film ...
In any case, here is Arista Premium 400 @ EI400 (in an OM2), Rodinal 1:100, 1h stand, twist and turn after half hour:
With R25 filter and EI50:
Scanning amplifies grain, of course.
With my next rolls I'll try adding Sodium Ascorbate, never done that before.
Roland.
In any case, here is Arista Premium 400 @ EI400 (in an OM2), Rodinal 1:100, 1h stand, twist and turn after half hour:
With R25 filter and EI50:
Scanning amplifies grain, of course.
With my next rolls I'll try adding Sodium Ascorbate, never done that before.
Roland.
sparrow6224
Well-known
Roland, the suggestion from Tom was Sodium Sulphite. Of course I'm a literary man and have no idea what these things mean.....
If you look at the last picture above you can see the results I have mostly gotten with rodinal stand developing: a certain "loss" (I'm not sure that's the right word) of detail in the middle tones. Or loss of the tones themselves. Which is not true of the first two, which are medium contrast and have lots of middle tones (to my eye) and could even use their blacks popped slightly (very slightly).
In any case I'm going that route because it's the only way I can face as much film as sits before me. I have in the house also microphen, though not nearly enough; Xtol; and D-76. I've read / heard some good things about stand development with Xtol + Rodinal. I'll likely research that at some point.
JohnCarter what are the other developers you recommend for stand?
If you look at the last picture above you can see the results I have mostly gotten with rodinal stand developing: a certain "loss" (I'm not sure that's the right word) of detail in the middle tones. Or loss of the tones themselves. Which is not true of the first two, which are medium contrast and have lots of middle tones (to my eye) and could even use their blacks popped slightly (very slightly).
In any case I'm going that route because it's the only way I can face as much film as sits before me. I have in the house also microphen, though not nearly enough; Xtol; and D-76. I've read / heard some good things about stand development with Xtol + Rodinal. I'll likely research that at some point.
JohnCarter what are the other developers you recommend for stand?
ferider
Veteran
Hi Vince,
to be honest, the above jpegs are desired output of PS, I would have to look again at the raw scans to see how the midtones looked before post.
Regarding Sulfite vs. Ascorbate, you might want to read Patrick Gainer's article here: http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/VitC/vitc.html
I've never done either but Patrick's frequently quoted work convinced me to start with Ascorbate. We'll see of course
Roland.
to be honest, the above jpegs are desired output of PS, I would have to look again at the raw scans to see how the midtones looked before post.
Regarding Sulfite vs. Ascorbate, you might want to read Patrick Gainer's article here: http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/VitC/vitc.html
I've never done either but Patrick's frequently quoted work convinced me to start with Ascorbate. We'll see of course
Roland.
notraces
Bob Smith
Bromide drag doesn't happen when using Rodinal - there is no bromide in Rodinal.
Clint Troy
Well-known
Ok, no bromide drag. But terrible, terrible streaking. A definite drag of some sort. Totally and exactly the same as bromide drag in HC110. All because of this "lazy man's" developing technique.
And I'm not sure the Low contrast in ferider's files are a desired feature when it comes to optimal development either.
And I'm not sure the Low contrast in ferider's files are a desired feature when it comes to optimal development either.
ferider
Veteran
Here goes to show how useless web image posts are when it comes to discussion of development recipes. I seem to be the only one who does Photoshop level adjustment.
Carry on.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Not Rodinal but PCK (Phenodin, Ascorbic acid, Kodalk) - this is one of Patrick gainers concoction and it is a combination that I use a lot. One advantage is that you can mix it at room temperature. I usually run TriX for 8 min in it. Looks like a smoother version of D76. Of course, all of this stand developing talk has me thinking about stand development in PCK!
Nikon SP, C-Skopar 50f2.5, TriX.
I haven't tried to add ascorbic acid to Rodinal - but I am willing to try. Anyone done it yet and can give some basic dilution/volume etc?
sparrow6224
Well-known
Now there are some damn values. (I admire a man with values. I admire a b/w photo with values even more.) The reflecting surfaces of the window and hood plus the side panel of the car go from Zone II (at least) to Zone IX. Amazing and great. Perfect, detectable detail in the black on the side panel.
sparrow6224
Well-known
PS Is that the sun being picked up in the two wheel covers??? Maybe even the photographer too. Plus the parked car. Just a great photograph.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Vince. it is the sun on the fenders. The PCK handles wide contrast very well - better than Rodinal I think. The PCK is cheap and easy to make. One of Patrick Gainer's best soups in my estimation. need to mix some up and when done I will try some experiments with it - including a Rodinal 1:100/PCK test.
sparrow6224
Well-known
Too bad about the porta-johnnies. Kinda bring down the tone of the neighborhood. Still a great picture. I'm going to look into the PCK.... but not for this round.
charjohncarter
Veteran
HC-110 (1:150 from US syrup), above suggested PCK, I even done it with D-76: you can't get it anymore but H&W Developer. None of these gave me the uneven development or streaking which some (and maybe they are right) call Bromide streak. But they all gave the compensating effect which didn't stop at the highlights unless the time was calibrated, and if you are going to do that why bother with stand. So midtones were also compensated, although not as much as the highlights and produced a flat looking negative and print. You can now correct those with PS. This is one I did 40 years ago in H&W Control using stand, I never could get a print I liked, but was a little more successful with PS.
Mark C
Well-known
I've played with stand development off and on with only moderate success. Even with a semi-stand process with 5' agitation intervals I tend to get see some increased edge density. I print full frame, so probably notice it more than people who crop more, but I do see it in a lot, though not nearly all, of the photos I see posted online using stand development.
Since almost nobody shows the full frame to the edges, I don't know if everybody gets this and just crops a bit. If some people don't get edge density it is hard to imagine what the difference is.
I've had considerably better luck with Panatomic-X than with Tri-X.
Since almost nobody shows the full frame to the edges, I don't know if everybody gets this and just crops a bit. If some people don't get edge density it is hard to imagine what the difference is.
I've had considerably better luck with Panatomic-X than with Tri-X.