FrozenInTime
Well-known
Total development:
Allow the film to stand for something between 30 minutes and two hours.
With the developer not being locally refreshed , through agitation, it exhausts locally.
With conventional agitation - the density would just increase and the negative become unprintable.
There were some claims of Tri-X being pushable to > ISO 6400 , I never got anything like that and the shadows really don't gain any speed.
Dim interior 1/30s F/4.5 with Tri-X at one hour looks like this:
Maybe ISO 1600 ?
The radiator on the lower right is really at negative minimum density.
I guess the SWC lens is loosing a couple of stops in the corners.
I had to photoshop back the rebate to black.
Donald.
gho
Well-known
I used to push 135 film by exposing around 1600-3200, filled the tank with Rodinal 1:100 (500ml+5ml) and let it sit for 120-150 minutes. One gentle swirl in the middle of the development time.
It looks like this:
But I have not perfected the method yet. If you do expose too much, the negatives can become very contrasty. It works best in very low light.
I have one roll of Tri-X I exposed@1600 yesterday. I wanted to develop it in Diafine, but maybe I will give Rodinal another try and report back later.
Last edited:
gho
Well-known
By the way, this is Tri-X@1600 around 120 minutes stand developed in Rodinal. It also displays uneven development, apart from bad composition and so on.
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
I have posted a huge amount on this subject, especially in this discussion, start reading the thread Rodinal 1:100 around the middle of page 2. Have a cup of coffee and a spare 20 minutes on hand to read the next few pages.
meer berlin
Newbie
hi lynn,
i read the full thread and as i wrote it works nearly perfectly with 35mm for me so far and i can only thank you for that inspiration.
with 120 i did some experiments today with something i call "rule of five development" for now: 5min presoak, 5 minutes with 5 agitations (like shown in the figitalrevolution link in the post above) at the beginning of each minute and from then on every 5 minutes 5 agitations (once more as shown in the video from the link above) and if this would have to happen the 5th time, dump the developer instead and move on with the rest. all that with one 120 film in a 1520 jobo tank with 4+600ml rodinal and water. all done at room temperature and films exposed at box speed. my first tests look quite good so far: much more even development and mostly still the look of low diluted rodinal. but i need some more testing for this (another film is drying right now). tried it on rollei retro 80s and ilford fp4+ so far.
i tried it also on another film (fuji acros) in 35mm with 3+300ml in a jobo 1510 tank and dumped the developer two 5 minute iterations earlier due to the higher rodinal concentration as a result of the smaller tank and the negs look good as well (also drying at the moment)
so just in case someone else wants to play with this ...
best wishes from berlin - thomas
i read the full thread and as i wrote it works nearly perfectly with 35mm for me so far and i can only thank you for that inspiration.
with 120 i did some experiments today with something i call "rule of five development" for now: 5min presoak, 5 minutes with 5 agitations (like shown in the figitalrevolution link in the post above) at the beginning of each minute and from then on every 5 minutes 5 agitations (once more as shown in the video from the link above) and if this would have to happen the 5th time, dump the developer instead and move on with the rest. all that with one 120 film in a 1520 jobo tank with 4+600ml rodinal and water. all done at room temperature and films exposed at box speed. my first tests look quite good so far: much more even development and mostly still the look of low diluted rodinal. but i need some more testing for this (another film is drying right now). tried it on rollei retro 80s and ilford fp4+ so far.
i tried it also on another film (fuji acros) in 35mm with 3+300ml in a jobo 1510 tank and dumped the developer two 5 minute iterations earlier due to the higher rodinal concentration as a result of the smaller tank and the negs look good as well (also drying at the moment)
so just in case someone else wants to play with this ...
best wishes from berlin - thomas
jan normandale
Film is the other way
what Chris wrote. My experience has been failure to agitate can lead to bromide drag. I always agitate at least once during a stand. Never do I leave it for a full hour without at least one mild agitation. This is what works best for me.
Chris' comment of 15 - 20 min is a good range and will work well with 1:100 used in "normal" developing with regular periodic agitation. Rodinal stand or semi - stand works best on films with ISO's <200. The problem you describe is common with films like Tri X 320 or 400 etc.
Good luck!
ed1k
Well-known
It does not matter which developer you use. Emulsion consist of salt which is bromide and silver; when you develop you get image formed by silver and bromide ions floating away. That is when bromide salt is decomposed you get bromides that affect further development. It may be not specifically bromide in emulsion but another halogens, like iodine, which affect (slow down) development even more effectively.
I am glad you finally established even development. I use rodinal with constant agitation: for 400tx I use 2ml plus 200ml of water, put my 500cc stainless steel hermetic tank on side and rotate it by coloroll for 30-35 min. Perfectly even negatives.
Cheers,
Ed
Freakscene
Obscure member
Even though there is no bromide in Rodinal, the silver salts used in films are still silver halides and as such bromide, chloride and iodide are released from the film emulsion during development. This is where 'bromide drag' comes from.
These halides that are released are development inhibitors. This release process, combined with the ability of p-aminophenol to develop silver at very low concentrations, accounts for the compensating characteristics of development in dilute Rodinal.
Marty
250swb
Well-known
How does the fluid move about? It doesn't have a top or bottom, so turning over a completely full tank would just mean the fluid stays where it is relative to the tank. The only thing you could hope for is to generate a flow of current caused by the interia of the fluid. Maybe I'm reading it wrong?
Steve
Pico
-
That's all that is necessary, however I recommend leaving a modest bubble in the tank so that it agitates the developer.
IMHO most of the problems with stand development come from using thicker, faster films and tight reels. I use Agfa APX 100 which is a very fine film and requires modest agitation in stand development where enough chemistry is exchanged through Brownian motion.
Brian Legge
Veteran
After a few failed stand experiments, I've been doing semi-stand with a tank twice as large as required. That way I can be really sure inversion/rotations redistribute the developer.
I'm sure I'm doing something 'wrong' by doing that but the results have been fine.
I'm sure I'm doing something 'wrong' by doing that but the results have been fine.
gho
Well-known
Here are some results from the last roll. Tri-X@1600, 135min semi stand.
The first two shots show typical problems I have when using Rodinal in that way. Uneven development in the first picture and have a look at the wall in the lower part of the scan in the second picture.
However, if the light it very low, these problems do not occur. One probably has to adapt ones development to the light conditions.
The first two shots show typical problems I have when using Rodinal in that way. Uneven development in the first picture and have a look at the wall in the lower part of the scan in the second picture.
However, if the light it very low, these problems do not occur. One probably has to adapt ones development to the light conditions.
Last edited:
charjohncarter
Veteran
I had nothing but trouble with Rodinal Stand. Maybe I was doing something wrong or I was using the wrong equipment, but on the rare occasions when I have a high contrast roll, I sometimes do Stand with HC-110. Every couple of months we have one of these threads about Rodinal (which I use, but not stand) Stand. And every time there are people like me that have problems. Why submit yourself to that pain. Just use some other developer.
gho
Well-known
For me the reason is, that I have the impression that it is not a one trick pony and getting to know its limitations is a very good thing. Other developers I (seldomly) use are XTOL and Diafine. Both very good.
For low light work I would continue using the Rodinal stand development method.
In good light I have also tried pulling Tri-X one stop in Rodinal 30 min semi-stand. Looked fine to me.
And there are also the normal development methods (Tri-X@400, 12min) and fine grain films, and sodium ascorbat.
Last edited:
gho
Well-known
Ok, I did some test and I guess I have solved the problem with uneven development and surge marks. HUGE credits have to go to Reinhold. I got the idea from his Caffenol Blog. A very good read, with stunning results, be sure to check it out.
So, today I did the following with Rodinal stand.
Exposed a standard scene (kitchen sink ) on Tri-X(135)@ 400, 800, 1600, 3200 6400.
Developer (20 C/68 F):
1g Potassium Bromide
10ml Rodinal
500ml Water
The potassium bromide should act as a restrainer. Reinhold explains it in more detail.
Five slow initial inversions (30 sec).
Let it sit for 2 hours. No swirl, nothing.
Judging from the now drying negatives I can say the following:
No surge marks, no stain, no fog, just plain, well balanced, sharp negatives!
The speed seems to be around 800 to 1600.
However, before becoming overly enthusiastic, more testing in real situations with 120 film is needed and I have to inspect the scans. Try on your own risk!
So, today I did the following with Rodinal stand.
Exposed a standard scene (kitchen sink
) on Tri-X(135)@ 400, 800, 1600, 3200 6400.Developer (20 C/68 F):
1g Potassium Bromide
10ml Rodinal
500ml Water
The potassium bromide should act as a restrainer. Reinhold explains it in more detail.
Five slow initial inversions (30 sec).
Let it sit for 2 hours. No swirl, nothing.
Judging from the now drying negatives I can say the following:
No surge marks, no stain, no fog, just plain, well balanced, sharp negatives!
The speed seems to be around 800 to 1600.
However, before becoming overly enthusiastic, more testing in real situations with 120 film is needed and I have to inspect the scans. Try on your own risk!
Last edited:
gho
Well-known
Here are the results with Rodinal + KBr 2h full stand.
Last edited:
gho
Well-known
To get back on topic, I tested the above recipe with Tri-X in 120 format by exposing two street scenes from EI 100 to 1600 with a 50 year old TLR on a tripod. Instead for EI 1600 I went for EI 400 and let it stand for approximately 1h (accidentally stopped the timer inbetween), no swirls, nothing, just full stand with 5 slow initial inversions.
What can I say? Amazing! The negatives are drying right now. There is no uneven exposure and no fog, no streaks, nothing. Just clean negatives. The odd thing is, as judging from the negatives, all frames seem to be perfectly usable! I will post some scans later.
The Potassium Bromide seems to eliminate the problem with uneven development completely.
What can I say? Amazing! The negatives are drying right now. There is no uneven exposure and no fog, no streaks, nothing. Just clean negatives. The odd thing is, as judging from the negatives, all frames seem to be perfectly usable! I will post some scans later.
The Potassium Bromide seems to eliminate the problem with uneven development completely.
Last edited:
gho
Well-known
Ok, here is the result. The old lady is still going strong, but focussing was a bit sloppy on my side. And there seem to be still some minor problems (see frame 11 and 12) but it could also be my finger in front of the lens.
However, the uneven development seems to be more or less gone, but there is also no trace of the famous 'edge effect'. Maybe gradually reducing the amount of Potassium Bromide helps.
However, the uneven development seems to be more or less gone, but there is also no trace of the famous 'edge effect'. Maybe gradually reducing the amount of Potassium Bromide helps.
Last edited:
