Tri-X 400 & Rodinal/Stand Dev. = Grain?

B

bwcolor

Veteran
Local time
1:55 PM
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,347
Location
S.F. Bay Area
View My Gallery
Is there a way to reduce grain while doing stand development of Tri-X using Rodinal? I've been using an ISO 400 rating, pre-soak, short agitation and tap and sit for one hour. Using 2.5ml/35mm roll. Will I reduce grain at ISO 250, greater or lesser time/concentration, another pre-soak (ie sodium sulfite).... Any advice would be welcome. Perhaps TMY is the only answer???
 
I agree it gets grainy. And if you don't like that it will drive you crazy. I have just given up on Rodinal with TriX (both 35mm and 120), I did have a better success Rodinal 1+50 using regular time and only agitate three inversions every four minutes. This method gives me a compensation that is, as far as I can see, the same as stand. I also tried Rodinal 1+50 for 3 minutes short of my normal time (agitate each minute; 3 inversions) then dump and replace with 5.5cc Borax in 500ml of water. Let that stand for 3 minutes. I worked well but I still didn't like it as well as other developers (for TriX). Grain was reduced with both methods and I still got good tone results. But I found the increased grain was hard to digitalize and I like my results better with other develops. Strangely, I have an article written in the 70s that says the author doesn't recommend Trix with Rodinal (of course I had to try for myself). He didn't elaborate but I, at least in my hands, think he is right.
 
Sodium sulfite is a silver solvent so it will reduce the appearance of grain at the expense of accutance. In reality you have created the "perfect storm" for grain... inherently grainy film, a developer without any silver solvent and very long "wet" time. If it is fine grain you are after you will need to change at least one of the above. A pre-soak in SS is something I have never personally tried, but I liked the look of FG7 with SS for non-stand development with Tri-X and HP5.
 
I think you have to like the look of the Tri-x and Rodinal grain and if you don't you should use D76 with Tri-x. This is a smoother combination. I do presoak my films but cautiously: very weak wetting agent and no agitation and then empty it out after about 45 seconds. Presoak has a large influence on the activity of film developers.
 
One hour stand for TX/Rodinal 1:100 is probably useless unless the original scene was extremely long scale, such as sunlight streaming through deep forest.

I stick TX @ 400 in Rodinal 1:100, agitate 30 seconds, then let it sit for 19 minutes total. Works fine. Wet time is the enemy of grain; why let it sit for an entire hour?

If you truly want better grain with TX, try the XTol/Rodinal. Or just use Tmax 400 and Rodinal.
 
Last edited:
Try HC110 the same way you would the Rodinal. I use Rodinal for BW < 200 ISO and HC110 for BW >200 ISO. This seems to resolve the grain issue. However I like grain in some of my work and do use Rodinal to achieve grain by shooting >200 ISO like Tri X
 
charjohncarter said:
Strangely, I have an article written in the 70s that says the author doesn't recommend Trix with Rodinal (of course I had to try for myself). He didn't elaborate but I, at least in my hands, think he is right.
Click to expand...

The person who wrote that article is obviously oblivious to the last 40 years of great documentary/journalist photographers from agencies like Magnum who settled on the TRI-X combination with Rodinal because it gave a certain character to the finished images. Have a look at Gilles Peress work in Iran 'Telex Iran' or Abbas work in the middle east. Richard Kavlar is another one who comes to mind.

Nothing personal, but this is the problem with all of these so called experts who emerge from magazines. Living in their shelters while the rest of the world is taking photographs, they throw around data and graphs sometimes forgetting that the desired look or character of a film/developer combination is what is most important. Hence, the gritty large grain. Its called film and the grain is often an inherent feature. Some photographers are often deliberately after that rough look that TRI-X and Rodinal produces.

At the end of the day out of the lab, life isn't always smooth sailing especially where some of these great photographers have documented stories in 3rd world countries, hence the gritty look as opposed to a smooth look that these lab guys mistakenly encourage.

Also, try telling that to a fine art photographer like Ralph Gibson - after attending one of his lectures, I'm sure that he would find some mild amusement with a lab article like this. He has been using that combination for the last 40 years at a ratio of 1:25 for 11:30 and the awards and respect he has won in the international community would wither such a report. The look that he produces with his unique images and pronounced grain has what is elusively called, 'soul'.

Yep, grain, discreetly hidden nothing gained.
 
Jaans said:
The person who wrote that article is obviously oblivious to the last 40 years of great documentary/journalist photographers from agencies like Magnum who settled on the TRI-X combination with Rodinal because it gave a certain character to the finished images. Have a look at Gilles Peress work in Iran 'Telex Iran' or Abbas work in the middle east. Richard Kavlar is another one who comes to mind.

Nothing personal, but this is the problem with all of these so called experts who emerge from magazines. Living in their shelters while the rest of the world is taking photographs, they throw around data and graphs sometimes forgetting that the desired look or character of a film/developer combination is what is most important. Hence, the gritty large grain. Its called film and the grain is often an inherent feature. Some photographers are often deliberately after that rough look that TRI-X and Rodinal produces.

At the end of the day out of the lab, life isn't always smooth sailing especially where some of these great photographers have documented stories in 3rd world countries, hence the gritty look as opposed to a smooth look that these lab guys mistakenly encourage.

Also, try telling that to a fine art photographer like Ralph Gibson - after attending one of his lectures, I'm sure that he would find some mild amusement with a lab article like this. He has been using that combination for the last 40 years at a ratio of 1:25 for 11:30 and the awards and respect he has won in the international community would wither such a report. The look that he produces with his unique images and pronounced grain has what is elusively called, 'soul'.

Yep, grain, discreetly hidden nothing gained.
Click to expand...

I went back and found the article; it was written by a Bob Schwalberg and appeared in Popular Photography and by the ads it looks like 1975. His specific recommendation was that he and his team didn't like TriX or HP5 in Rodinal 1+100. He was writing a paragraph about tonal range so I assume this is what he didn't like. I should have stated, what I didn't like was also my results with both grain and tones when using Rodinal 1+100 and TriX.
 
Last edited:
Rodinal below 68 deg. Fahrenheit/20 deg. Celsius

Rodinal below 68 deg. Fahrenheit/20 deg. Celsius

Hi all,
one important variable with Rodinal which has not not been mentioned in this thread so far is temperature. It appears (I have not tested this myself yet, but I will. I usually use HP5+ with HC-110, but use Rodinal 1:50 with FP4, so far at 20 deg. Celsius. I will try 18 deg. next chance I get.) that 68 deg. Fahrenheit may not be the optimum temperature with Rodinal with regards to grain. Various users, mainly those with european/geman background, report improved (grainwise) results with temperatures of 18 deg., with some even recommending 16 deg.
This http://home.arcor.de/piu58/fotoweb/aufsaetze/Rodinal.pdf is an interesting writeup, in German however.
If true (as I said, I have yet to gather personal experience with this) it would underline the versatility of Rodinal: use it deliberately (as for ex. Ralph Gibson, already mentioned above) for a decidedly grainy, gritty look, or use lower temperatures and higher dilutions. Speed gain with lower temperatures (relative to speed with Rodinal at 20 deg.) is also reported.
Have fun experimenting with Rodinal!
Greetings, Hannes
 
Babel fish?? did it, here it is:

Cold development in Rodinal v.1.1 Why Rodinal? I exclusively this oldest still use present on the market Developer. Its advantages are ° controllability of the negative characteristics by three variables: - Concentration (dilution) - Temperature - Agitation (tilting rhythm) ° reproductibility through constantly blows chemicals ° no problems with keeping at a moderate temperature Rodinal has also disadvantages: ° sensitive to over development and to high temperature (gives rough grain and out-shot lights) ° no purifying grain developer ° no Push developer Rodinal requires careful working. Cold development I have good experiences with the low temperature development in Rodinal made. Starting point were " Gerüchte" in the Internet. 18° opposite 20° are already clearly perceptible, and 16° strongly visibly. The depths become much better through-drawn, which also to an effective profit on Sensitivity leads, approx. a half screen. Thus then usually those becomes Nominal sensitivity reaches. A stronger dilution (thus 1:100 instead of 1:50) works similarly, but that Negatively becomes altogether duller. In addition the danger exists that itself those few millilitre developer exhaust. at low temperature this steps Effect up, the lights are not well covered. If one has already established times for another temperature, then can one convert these: Per degree of temperature degradation increases those Development time around a factor of 1,13. With 2 degrees the factor is 1,3 and with 4 degrees of 1,6. A disadvantage remains the long development time of 20 Minutes. I do not seize measures, the developer during the whole To hold time 16°; by the ambient temperatures and also the warmth my hands warms up it somewhat. For a normal ambient temperature is from around the 22° this is already considered in the extension factor. With these procedures receives one well balanced, fine-grained and sharp Negative one, good balance evenly. It goes surely some more fine-grained, then evenly less sharply. Some developer likes from a film also still ne half screen more sensitivity take out. For higher negative contrasts it can be better, the concentrate quantity too increase instead of the time. Thus instead of 23 minutes to develop rather 13 ml To take concentrate instead of 10. Since Rodinal exhausts, one leads Extension of the development time not for an adequate increase of the Contrast. One develops more briefly however for N minus can. To the theory: Reduced temperature reduces the activity of the Developer. By the necessary longer development time those become deep film layers better achieves and better through-drawn. More diluted Developer works similarly, why more coldly ' besser' is, which I cannot answer. Purifying grain developers e.g. A49 or Ultrafin+ are on their part on it put on to achieve also the deep layers. Approaching the upper Layers one prevents by silver back release. Cold Rodinal works in certain way like a purifying grain developer, but the grain is more pleasant: Backsolving developers give " matschige" Granulation. Some thoughts on the effect of the agitation Stronger convection (rotation or continuoustilt) causes a increased Material transfer to the film surface, because the diffusion layer becomes thinner. Thus this works in approximately as a concentration increase weaker movement. One receives comparable results rather through Concentration sinking with retention of the times as through Time decrease. Thus as suggested. Altogether the effect is much stronger with diluted developers than concentrated. Strong concentrates contain in the filmnear boundary layer already so many reducing substances that a subsequent delivery almost becomes unnecessary. Large example: Two-bath development. Very strongly diluted Developers à la Rodinal 1+200 do not contain practically nothing in the boundary layer, everything must be delivered subsequently and be come by diffusion to the surface. Here the thickness of the diffusion layer comes fully to carrying.

Just a little confusing but you can get something out of it.
 
Last edited:
The salient parts of the German writeup on Rodinal

The salient parts of the German writeup on Rodinal

Hi,

I'll try and render the salient parts of the writeup.
http://home.arcor.de/piu58/fotoweb/aufsaetze/Rodinal.pdf
I am skipping the Intro, where general well known and undisputed qualities of Rodinal are mentioned.

- At the beginning of the writer's experiments with Rodinal and temperatures below 20 deg. Celsius were rumors on the Internet.

- Already at 18 dec. Celsius clearly visible differences (compared to dev. @ 20 deg.) emerge, and even stronger @ 16 deg. Celsius. The development of the deeper layers of the emulsion are enhanced, resulting in an effective speed enhancement of about half a stop. This way box speed may be attained.

- A stronger dilution (1:100) may lead to similar results, but the negative will turn out less contrasty (duller) overall. Also, one may run into problems with exhaustion of the developer.

- For every degree Celsius below 20 deg. increase development time by a factor of 1.13. The factor for a reduction of 2 deg. is thus 1.3, and 1.6 for a reduction of 4 degrees. Of course this means that long(er) development times may be inconvenient. The author does not take any measure to prevent the tank from heating up during development.

According to the author this development procedure results in a nice balance of sharpness and graininess. While less graininess is possible with other methods or developers, these will also reduce sharpness. Also, other developers may certainly yield yet another half stop of speed.

- For contrast control with Rodinal the author recommends increasing the strength of the dilution instead of prolonging development time, since this may not lead to the desired effect of increasing contrast, due to exhaustion of the developer.

- Attempt at a theoretical framework: the lower temperatures reduce activity of the developer. The resulting longer developer times increase the chance of developing/reaching the lower/deeper layers of the emulsion. While a higher dilution of the developer may in principle do the same thing, the author has no explanation why the "cold method" gives "better" results.
Fine-grain-developers like A49 or Ultrafin+ are tuned to development of the above mentioned deeper levels of the emulsion from the get go. "Cold" Rodinal achieves the same thing, however without producing mushy grain, as opposed to these fine-grain-developers.

---------------------------------------------
Hope this helps. My take on it is that there may very well be something to this. If you use the search function on photo.net there is some info on cold development, too. I can not comment on the whole "deeper layers of the emulsion" aspect, and whether the change in film design over the last decades may or may not come into play here.

Greetings, Hannes
 
Carter and bwcolor, you're welcome. I'm grateful for this thread, it helps me rethink my film strategy. My hopes for the "cold" method are as follows: for a slow film (plenty of daylight) I so far have used Fp4 exposed for ISO 80 in Rodinal 1:50 @ 20 deg. Celsius / 68 deg. F. Every time I look at pictures I developed that way, I still like the results. But then I think: fair enough, but why not standardize on 400 speed film only (I do a fair share of lowlight picturetaking), and break out a yellow filter when it's sunny. Now that I use a rangefinder, I really want to delve into using filters (I only shoot BW). I'll try using FP4 @ ISO 100 from now, and develop at 18 degrees or lower. Hopefully, this will make the pictorial endresult even more different from what I am getting from my bread and butter 400 speed film. So, let's break out the icecubes and experiment 🙂
Greetings, Hannes
 
I'm thinking that it is time to try the new T-Max in 35mm. I like Tri-X in 6x7.

I've been trying to get one film and one developer to do everything for me and I think that I need to diverge a bit.

Here is a three part series on the new T-Max 400 and Rodinal/Xtol stand development.

http://figitalrevolution.com/2009/07/31/standing-development-part-1/

http://figitalrevolution.com/2009/08/04/stand-development-part-2/

http://figitalrevolution.com/2009/08/10/stand-development-part-3/

Problem is... the new 35mm T-Max isn't widely available. Don't know why. ????
 
Last edited:
Yes, Freestyle is where I will purchase, but I buy most of my equipment/supplies with B&H, or sometimes Adorama and neither has the new T-Max 400 in 35mm. I thought that it was introduced some time ago.
 
bwcolor said:
Yes, Freestyle is where I will purchase, but I buy most of my equipment/supplies with B&H, or sometimes Adorama and neither has the new T-Max 400 in 35mm. I thought that it was introduced some time ago.
Click to expand...

Ok, I watched those videos; lots of information. But at the end I still couldn't figure out if it was only grain reduction that was gained (and speed increase, I don't care about that). He did mention shadow detail increase but we all know that is the first part of development to be completed so I doubt if it is just that. I like Rodinal. I use it all the time. It give great midtones, losses speed (which I don't really care about) and has lots of grain, but also something I think called acutance that makes it look sharp. I think it is easy to blow highlights with it so I use my own compensation process and 120 films. I'm happy, is there a reason why I should mix Xtol with Rodinal and stand it?

I quoted wrong post, it is two up.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom