Rodinal Tri-X QUESTION..

[orenrcohen]

I've been really happy with Rodinal Tri-x results so far shot at box and also pushing to 800. I'm working on a project now where I am pushing Tri-X 400 to 3200 and would like to devlop it in Rodinal 1 + 25 which I think will give me more grain (tell me if I'm wrong) and maybe a bit more contrast.. Massive Dev Chart gives 33 minutes for Tri-X 400 shot at 3200 1 + 50. Can I just halve the time for 1 + 25, say 16.5 minutes?? Any tips or advice appreciated..

Thanks,

Oren

 

[goffer]

I'm also interested in this 🙂

 

[Mephiloco]

Wish I could help, I usually do 1:100 or 1:125 when pushing tri-x and get great results.

My first shot ever on my M5, from last week. Exposure is a little off, but still, that's at 800, 1/8th of a second at f1.5 on my Summarit

Again, at 800, f1.5 at 1/15.


They might have even been exposed at 1600, I was basically 1 stop under with the meter at 800. Regardless, I think it comes out better than neopan.

That's Rodinal, 1:125, 84 minutes, few seconds of agitation at the beginning, a few seconds of swirling at 42 minutes. I normally use the tap water at whatever temp it's at, but because it's summer I've been having to ice it down to 80 F.

 

[Mephiloco]

Anyways, I have some other pictures from that roll, which were shot at more like 200 ISO, and they're definite keepers. I basically shot everywhere betwenn 200 and 3200 and got well exposed frames on all of them, though a few weren't focused properly.

 

[orenrcohen]

Wow.. those look good 🙂 I'm definitely going for something granier and more contrasty.. I have scoured the web for the right time for Tri-X 400 pushed to 3200 in Rodinal 1 + 25 to no avail.. anyone?

 

[Mcary]

Wow.. those look good 🙂 I'm definitely going for something granier and more contrasty.. I have scoured the web for the right time for Tri-X 400 pushed to 3200 in Rodinal 1 + 25 to no avail.. anyone?

Here's a link for processing HP5 at 3200 in Rodinal 1-25 give it a try with Tri-X 400 see if it gives you what you're looking for
http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/5822

 

[shadowfox]

Wow.. those look good 🙂 I'm definitely going for something granier and more contrasty.. I have scoured the web for the right time for Tri-X 400 pushed to 3200 in Rodinal 1 + 25 to no avail.. anyone?

If you use Rodinal in 1+25 dilution, I think the time is similar to D76 or others, from 6-8 minutes.

Agitation plays a big role, do more -> more pronounced grain.

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

hi. a suggestion is perhaps you should on your first try, use the massive chart suggestion for 3200 at 1+50.

If I were to use 1+25, then I would do a 18.5m rather than 16mins as I am modifying the 1+50@1600 to 1+25@3200.

Of course, these are starting times.

I developed my 2nd roll of tri-x (arista premium) at 1600 with rodinal at 9mins at 30.5C. I found it worse than the first time, too dark. As both were used on different P&S cameras, I presumed that the exposures were correct but underdeveloped. My next roll I will increase the development to 10 - 11 mins at 30.5C.

Since rodinal is susceptible to agitiation, I would experiment with the agitation cycle as well (on my next roll).

In the attached picture, ei of 1600 developed at 9mins at 30.5C. The picture is just barely okay.

 

[kiemchacsu]

Hi all,

Curently I tried the "new" developer for me, the Rodinal. I would say that I am quite familiar with Tmax dev, HC-110 but since I have a very old Rodinal bottle in my box, I decided to give it a try. However, the result is a bit lower than my expectation or at least my standard with HC-110 or Tmax.

The Tri-X was rated at ISO1600, I used 1+50 dilution (dropped 6ml syrup into 300ml water). 20mins at 19C (digitaltruth reccomends 18.5mins at 20C), continuous agitating 1 first minute. Afer that swirl few seconds every 3 minutes. I have some issues as below:

1/ The result came out too much contrast in some frames but in some frames they are okay, why different contrast in one roll and almost the same light condition? (photos #2 and #3)

2/ Any formular of Tri-X and Rodinal (speed of film, dilution rate) for optimum result? I prefer a little bit grain (but not so obtrusive) with smooth tone range.

3/ Why there are some "strips" in my photo? (please look at the 1st photos)

4/ The negative looks quite yellow tint, is it the reason of fixer? I used Amoloco fixer. According to my experience, Normally the Tri-X negatives came out a bit blue tint or sometimes magenta tint.

Thank you for all advices.

#1

#2

#3

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

kiemchacsu,

rodinal is like photoshop's unsharp mask,
it provides edge sharpness at the expense
of increased grain. it is an acutance developer.

this is one of the oldest developers around,
back when film was low iso, and the increased
grain was acceptable when film was very fine grain itself.

however, it isn't for generally used for pushing.

for pushing tri-x to 1600, a speed increasing
developer should be used to better tonality, ie.
XTOL or Microphen.

here is an example with Plus-x rated at 100
(though some would argue that rodinal developed
film should be rate at half the box speed).

raytoei

 

[alexnotalex]

I've been experimenting with the same combination - at 3200 and 6400. Most were misses, but here are a couple of hits:

ISO6400
Rodinal 1:50, 68F, 41mins, 5sx5m

ISO3200
Rodinal 1:50, 68F, 32mins, swirl 5sec each 5m

I'm happiest with the 3200 results - especially the high actuance (no more "edge sharpen: in PP) - but only 6 usable frames in the roll, I'm putting it down to my underexposure.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

When you say the Rodinal is very old, just how old? I know it lasts a long time but if the bottle has been only half full and it's been a matter of years there's a good chance the stuff has lost some potency. I just don't see the point of messing with out-of-date chemicals (or film for that matter) if your shots are important to you or you're trying to determine a good process.

A couple of other comments.
The light streak you see in the first frame may be a light leak from the camera back but might also be flare. Does it appear in other photos?
You have underexposed the film by two stops. It looks to me as though you need to reduce either time or agitation a little as the high contrast you complain of looks like overdevelopment to me.

 

[kiemchacsu]

Hi all,

Curently I tried the "new" developer for me, the Rodinal. I would say that I am quite familiar with Tmax dev, HC-110 but since I have a very old Rodinal bottle in my box, I decided to give it a try. However, the result is a bit lower than my expectation or at least my standard with HC-110 or Tmax.

The Tri-X was rated at ISO1600, I used 1+50 dilution (dropped 6ml syrup into 300ml water). 20mins at 19C (digitaltruth reccomends 18.5mins at 20C), continuous agitating 1 first minute. Afer that swirl few seconds every 3 minutes. I have some issues as below:

1/ The result came out too much contrast in some frames but in some frames they are okay, why different contrast in one roll and almost the same light condition? (photos #2 and #3)

2/ Any formular of Tri-X and Rodinal (speed of film, dilution rate) for optimum result? I prefer a little bit grain (but not so obtrusive) with smooth tone range.

3/ Why there are some "strips" in my photo? (please look at the 1st photos)

4/ The negative looks quite yellow tint, is it the reason of fixer? I used Amoloco fixer. According to my experience, Normally the Tri-X negatives came out a bit blue tint or sometimes magenta tint.

Thank you for all advices.

#1

Thank you for responses.

After re-checking my negatives, I think that the over-contrast images are caused by scanning process. I re-scan using Vuescan with "none" option (everything is default" and the photo below is the result. Could you evaluate thi negative is over-developed?

 

[n5jrn]

Trung: Those lighter "strips" look like surge marks caused by developer coming through the sprocket holes and causing excessive development on the negative. It's a classic symptom of excessive agitation during processing.

 

[crispy12]

Those vertical lines can be caused by developed exhaustion. I think that's the correct name. It's when there's not enough developer or insufficient agitation (for eg, during stand development times of 1hr).

Not personal experience, just something I've read off some forums.

 

[Ronald M]

That term surge marks needs to be banned. There is no such thing. Marks are from localized under replenishment during agitation which needs to be both vigorous and random so this does not happen.

The vertical stripes are bromide drag from lack of agitation. Bromide is a byproduct of development and it retards further development. Proper development agitation is how you stop it.

The neg above is thin or under developed. If printed to a proper black, the lady walking the child, the rest of the would be too dark.

Rodinal is for low speed film and is not a push developer or one to be used on fast film or you get junk. Pushing is simply underexposing and developing longer so the neg has a decent amount of contrast for printing. It does not put more detail in the shadows so they become featureless black, clear on neg. The only way to get more detail in the black is expose more. You can not substitute more development.

The classic rule is expose for shadows, develop for highlights. This never changes.
Unfortunately if you scan and never learn to print, you have no understanding of what is happening and how to correct it. Half of what is written on the internet is plain wrong
and you get lead down the happy path by people who were lead the same way.

Go back, follow instructions and get some decent negs so you know what they are supposed to look like. Tri x at 400, D76 1:1 for 9 to 9.5 minutes will get you a good neg, 5 inversions in 5 sec every 30 sec. EI 200 cut time by 20% and you will get even better negs with proper detail. Do not cut back agitation to control contrast, cut time only or add time.

 

[Fotohuis]

I can only agree with Ronald. Rodinal is in the first place suitable for slow- and medium speed films. Say iso 25-200.
Especially in 35mm format. Almost all films are loosing speed in any Para-Amino Phenol type developer like Rodinal.

If you're printing on photo paper then you know how a suitable negative should be.

About the lifespan of Rodinal. It changes very slowly. Here an example of fresh Rodinal and 4 y.o. Rodinal on the same film: APX 100/Rollei Retro 100. Cutted in two pieces and developed in the same program processing machine (TAS processor).

1) new Rodinal
2) 4 y.o. Rodinal

You can measure out very small differences with the densitometer.

 

[charjohncarter]

I can only agree with Ronald. Rodinal is in the first place suitable for slow- and medium speed films. Say iso 25-200.
Especially in 35mm format. Almost all films are loosing speed in any Para-Amino Phenol type developer like Rodinal.

If you're printing on photo paper then you know how a suitable negative should be.

About the lifespan of Rodinal. It changes very slowly. Here an example of fresh Rodinal and 4 y.o. Rodinal on the same film: APX 100/Rollei Retro 100. Cutted in two pieces and developed in the same program processing machine (TAS processor).

1) new Rodinal
2) 4 y.o. Rodinal

You can measure out very small differences with the densitometer.

Nice photos Robert, I admire your knowledge (and the above photos) on developers and more broadly the whole darkroom process. I believe many others that are on these websites do too. So, thank you for all your help in the past.

I was wondering what you thought about Rodinal 1+100 stand as a general developer (which seems to be a fade now). I find that my prints of normal or low contrast scenes are muddy while if I use my normal times and agitation for the same dilution I get acceptable negatives. It is so easy to correct digitally these problems with software that it could be a moot point. My feeling is by holding back on the highlights the tone range is compressed. So, you have to fish around for a different paper grade on the same roll more than I normally would.

 

[john_s]

Like a lot of products, Rodinal's reputation was gained a long time ago. However, like a lot of products, the formula was changed during Agfa's last 10 or so years by reducing the developing agent (which is quite cheap) and increasing the hydroxide (which is even cheaper). It won't necessarily last as long as in the old days, even though it was just as active when new.

I don't know about the current versions made by various manufacturers.

 

[kiemchacsu]

Thank you Ronald

Thank you Ronald

Thank you Ronald for the very knowledgeable advice. It's true that for the guys like me who only do the hybrid darkroom process (develop then scan), it's quite difficult to understand the basis of the whole steps. I will post the results soon when I finish the next roll following your guidance.