Rodinal stand development

I don't need to get my calculator out to tell me that you have WAY TOO many lenses Tom ! How about an Xpan panorama shot ha ha.
 
Thanks Tom! I look forward to playing around w PanF+ and Rodinal. You wouldn't happen to have any HP5+ @400 and @800 thoughts re Rodinal?
 
3893713801_747c403322_z.jpg


Looked in my Flickr file - only a couple of shots with HP5+ and Rodinal (1:50, 13 min.). This was a long expired roll of 120 also. Worked fine with the Bessa III and using the cameras AE system (which is pretty well fool proof!).
 
8204679312_b081e1d6d0_c.jpg


This Double X @ 250, but underexposed (on purpose) by 2 stops. Developed in Rodinal 1:200 for 120 min. Flip and twist at 60 min. Works fine with TriX too - or just about any black/white film.
Subject is flattened film cassettes. Leica M2 and Viso III with 65 mm f3.5 Elmar, stopped down to f16.
 
Hey, stand development is on topic again? Great! I have used Rodinal 1+100 1h quite extensively. Oddly, in the beginning it worked quite well but later on I got heavy uneven development, especially in the highlight areas. I tried a lot of different things to get rid of it.

1. Adding KBr to the solution
2. Presoaking the film
3. Adding a mix of Vitamin C and baking powder (don't ask why!)
4. Swirling at 30 min.
5. Controlling the temperature.
6. Voodoo dance

In the end I found myself pushing Tri-X to ISO 6400 with terrible results!

However, when it worked, at ISO 400 the negatives were very fine! Nice grain, sharpness, tonal distribution and edge effects!

And what still works for me is to underexpose Tri-X by about 2 stops and to leave it in the soup for 2h.

Then I switched to HC-110 for stand development. No uneven development. At the moment I am experimenting with 480ml water and 10 ml HC-110 for 1h to push Tri-X to around 1600. Quite contrasty negatives and a bit muddy. No idea how they print. Still looking for a sweet spot by reducing the concentration and adjusting the exposure.

By the way, with Rodinal I had the impression that streaking occurred especially if the film was a bit overexposed. I guess that exposing Tri-X@200 and leaving it in the soup for 30 minutes would give better results, but I have only tried that once or twice.

I guess we need a chemist who can explain to us, what is going on or some systematic experimentation.

This one is Tri-X@gut feeling, 10ml HC-110, 480ml water, 1h.
U27794I1356308898.SEQ.0.jpg
 
George, pre-soaking for 1 min. works well. Seem to allow the developer to even out across the surface of film. It is true that stand development is a bit of "hit and miss". Streaking and "edge burn" sem to happen more with "thick" reels (Paterson, Jobo etc) than with Nikkor, Kinderman stainless reels.
I like the idea of HC 110 as a stand developing "soup" - might try that this week end. I have couple of rolls to finish off (Trix) so timing is good!
 
Tom A said:
I like the idea of HC 110 as a stand developing "soup" - might try that this week end. I have couple of rolls to finish off (Trix) so timing is good!
Click to expand...

I have around 20 rolls of undeveloped Tri-X here all shot@400 with no clue what's on there. Can't be too important so I am in for some experimentation.

As for HC-110, I tried 5ml + 480ml water with Tri-X@400 also. It worked quite ok, but I guess the concentration could be reduced even further.

Overall it is looking a bit more contrasty than Rodinal, but the grain is not as pronounced and sharp. Thanks for the tip with the reels!

This one is Rodinal 1+100, 2h stand by the way:
U27794I1356220771.SEQ.0.jpg
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
[...]Those are extreme examples, but I find a lot of things do not have an "Even" tone distribution.
Click to expand...

Good explanation! I guess the art is to let the brightness values of the scene fall into the right zones to get a visually appealing image. That does not necessarily mean to have a normally distributed or even histogram centred at zone V, it really depends on the scene and how one wants to render it. Tom's car shot is actually looking quite good to my eye. Very nicely defined darker surfaces, sparkling highlights and good sharpness.
 
8208602437_cd344a1077_c.jpg


I knew there were some samples of TriX with 1:200 Rodinal for 120 min (flip/twist at 60 min).
Nikon SP, Jupiter 35mm f2.8 at around f4.
Some "burn" at the bottom of the shot. This was a full 5 reel tank and this was the bottom reel. I have found that if you do multiple reels - leave an empty one at the bottom and at the top and this reduces the "burn".
 
zsas said:
Tom - many times PanF in say bright day can be a bear to tame, any thoughts on PanF? I've my first bottle of Rodinal coming and wonder if you or anyone have some PanF+ thoughts?
Click to expand...

I used Pan-F a lot when I lived in New Mexico. I haven't used it much since coming back to Indiana because our light here is softer, and i find faster films more useful now. In Santa Fe's bright light, I could easily handhold a 35mm camera shooting Pan-F and it had great tonality.

I used Rodinal 1+50. I exposed at EI-50 and developed normally for overcast light (11 minutes at 68 degrees), and exposed at EI-25 and developed a shorter time (N-1 in Zone System terminology. 7.5 minutes at 68 degrees) for bright sun and other high contrast light.

Here are some examples:

dont-vote.jpg

EI-25, N-1 developing.


owls-liquors2.jpg

EI-25, N-1 developing. The light was especially harsh this day.


rainbow-snow1.jpg

Overcast winter light. Normal developing, EI-50

These are not stand developing. I never use that technique. I agitate constantly for the first 30 seconds, then 2 inversions every 30 seconds.
 
gho said:
Good explanation! I guess the art is to let the brightness values of the scene fall into the right zones to get a visually appealing image. That does not necessarily mean to have a normally distributed or even histogram centred at zone V, it really depends on the scene and how one wants to render it. Tom's car shot is actually looking quite good to my eye. Very nicely defined darker surfaces, sparkling highlights and good sharpness.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's the secret! Its why built in light meters in cameras that average the scene often give bad exposure, they try to average everything to the center, to zone V. Works fine for 'average' scenes, but fails if the scene is mostly light or mostly dark stuff.

I use a spot meter to read the darkest thing that I want to retain detail (its ok for very dark things to go pure black) and I set exposure for it to fall on Zone III (underexpose 2 stops from the meter's reading). For negative films, the dark tones are what is critical. Light tones can take a lot of over or underexposure and still have detail, but dark tones have to be right....or at least not underexposed at all.

I then check any white stuff I want to have texture or detail and be sure that it doesn't fall above zone VII for full detail or zone VIII for texture when I use the exposure I determined to keep the dark tone at zone III.

If the light tones are too bright, I reduce developing time to bring down contrast. I have never seen a situation where I needed to increase contrast by increasing developing time. In the real world, too much contrast is usually the problem, not too little contrast. Note that when you reduce developing time, most films lose speed, requiring you to increase exposure 1 stop over what you determined with your zone III reading. Basically, put the dark tone on Zone VI....the reduced developing time will bring it down to zone III where it belongs and will bring the light tone down even more.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Yep, that's the secret! Its why built in light meters in cameras that average the scene often give bad exposure, they try to average everything to the center, to zone V. Works fine for 'average' scenes, but fails if the scene is mostly light or mostly dark stuff.

I use a spot meter to read the darkest thing that I want to retain detail (its ok for very dark things to go pure black) and I set exposure for it to fall on Zone III (underexpose 2 stops from the meter's reading). For negative films, the dark tones are what is critical. Light tones can take a lot of over or underexposure and still have detail, but dark tones have to be right....or at least not underexposed at all.

I then check any white stuff I want to have texture or detail and be sure that it doesn't fall above zone VII for full detail or zone VIII for texture when I use the exposure I determined to keep the dark tone at zone III.

If the light tones are too bright, I reduce developing time to bring down contrast. I have never seen a situation where I needed to increase contrast by increasing developing time. In the real world, too much contrast is usually the problem, not too little contrast. Note that when you reduce developing time, most films lose speed, requiring you to increase exposure 1 stop over what you determined with your zone III reading. Basically, put the dark tone on Zone VI....the reduced developing time will bring it down to zone III where it belongs and will bring the light tone down even more.
Click to expand...
Once or twice, I have. The most obvious example was shooting torn, faded Victorian wallpaper on plaster of very nearly the same colour and reflectivity. Another example can be shooting in mist. But I'd agree that it's very, very seldom needed unless you're a devotee of Mortensen.

In my experience, the film speed loss is seldom all that great with modest reduction in dev. times (up to 15%, say), but a stop of extra exposure often improves tonality anyway. Of course a lot depends on toe shape in the characteristic curve.

A great advantage of the old Kodak fractional-gradient speed point criterion was that speed was almost independent of dev time or contrast, but it was a bar steward to determine.

Cheers,

R.
 
Real nice Chris, thanks. I will be doing the whole gamut of testing and it is wonderful to see your success.
 
Tom - Stand dev logistical question - so I've read you need a min of 5 ml of Rodinal per dev session, so if you do 1+100 for a roll a 35mm, then it must be in a tank that takes 505ml or more? I have a Nikor single (holds 250ml'ish), double (holds 450ish ML) and a 4 roll tank (1kml I think), think if I want to do stand, I should use the 4 roll tank to be safe n all? I have a Patterson tank too fwiw. Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Very nice! Printing and hanging that in my DR for sure! That "Don't Vote" print above is incredible in a multitude of ways!
 
zsas said:
Very nice! Printing and hanging that in my DR for sure! That "Don't Vote" print above is incredible in a multitude of ways!
Click to expand...

Yeah, the guy in that photo was an interesting guy. I photographed him at the weekly anti-war protest that took place every Friday at Noon in Santa Fe during the time I lived out there. The guy with the sign had a bunch of costumes he wore to the protests, including Elvis Presley, Gandhi, Kim Jong Il, a fatcat businessman, and Uncle Sam. He did the Don't Vote/Uncle Sam routine the weekend before an election.

revolt.jpg

Fatcat


thom-gandhi1.jpg

Gandhi


elvis1.jpg

Elvis
 
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"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom