Tri-x and Rodinal = Underdeveloped Negatives

[Jerevan]

Do your own speed tests at various iso points and see where that gets you, with your technique and your equipment.

 

[sevo]

Rodinal is a nice and very easy to handle developer for slow (by modern standards) film - that is, film at or below ISO 50.

People have successfully used it for dramatic grain on faster film, or (contrast reduction through depletion) pushing stand development - but in either case, you are stretching its limits and many things may go wrong with these special applications.

 

[nightfly]

I would hardly call Tri-X in Rodinal a "special application".

Would venture it is among the most common film/developer combos ever (though I have no way of proving).

Sounds like the OP got a bad batch, underexposed the film or had some unforseen chemical reaction. Simple as that.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I would hardly call Tri-X in Rodinal a "special application".

Would venture it is among the most common film/developer combos ever (though I have no way of proving).

Sounds like the OP got a bad batch, underexposed the film or had some unforseen chemical reaction. Simple as that.

Only among those who prize wonderful tonality and are prepared to put up with grievous speed losses (around a stop in true ISO terms) and huge grain. I've met very few.

Add in stand development and other fads and (as Sevo says) a lot can go wrong.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roma]

I pull Tri-X to 320 in Rodinal (R09) and have been doing it for years without issues (unless I way underexpose the negative). I develop it in 1:35 (which is about 8cc per roll and in a Paterson tank) for 10 minutes, agitation for the first 30sec and a gentle tilt every 30sec after that. Processing results have been good for printing with about #3 filter in a condenser and #3.5 in a cold head.
Rodinal is gentle on the highlights, so don't worry about blowing them out too much. Just make sure you expose relatively well for the shadows.

 

[Anthony Harvey]

I've been following Don Cardwell's advice on the apug forum, of five-minute agitation intervals using Rodinal (Adonal) at 1+50 and Tri-X at 400, and it works perfectly for me. Even the agitation every five minutes is minimal - just two very gentle and slow inversions. 25 minutes at 20C (yes, 25!) The following is an example. It’s a scan of a print, and it’s not the best scan I'm afraid - the print is sharper - but it gives a good idea of the tonal qualities produced by the method.

Anthony

 

[grouchos_tash]

I've been following Don Cardwell's advice on the apug forum, of five-minute agitation intervals using Rodinal (Adonal) at 1+50 and Tri-X at 400, and it works perfectly for me. Even the agitation every five minutes is minimal - just two very gentle and slow inversions. 25 minutes at 20C (yes, 25!) The following is an example. It’s a scan of a print, and it’s not the best scan I'm afraid - the print is sharper - but it gives a good idea of the tonal qualities produced by the method.

Anthony

There's so much variation here how people use Rodinal, it's interesting stuff!

Thanks,

Gary

 

[sevo]

Would venture it is among the most common film/developer combos ever (though I have no way of proving).

It has grown fashionable in recent (post-digital) years, when people started to get interested in more (rather than less) grain. Up to the nineties, it was considered a developer best suited for low speed film. Even renowned Rodinal advocates like Günter Spitzing explicitly advised against developing 400 film in Rodinal.

 

[grouchos_tash]

Just to bring this to a close, I shot a roll of Fomapan 400 yesterday and rated it at 250 and the negs came out MUCH better! Thanks for the advice about over (correct) exposure everyone, I guess the Adox rep wasn't allowed to admit it haha!


Here's a shot from the Fomapan testing out my new (to me) Nokton 50mm f1.5 on the M6

Untitled by Gary Harding, on Flickr

 

[nightfly]

In my copy of Darkroom published in 1977, two of the thirteen photographers profiled used the Rodinal/Tri-X combo and in the pre-digital age when I started developing my own film, it was widely recommended to me at least as a very common and viable combo which it has turned out to be.

You can go for high contrast/grain using it at high concentrations with lots of agitation and relatively short times or the long times, low concentration stand development type of approach for people looking for a long tonal range.

Doesn't really matter but the wisdom I received was that it was one of the classic combos, but then I have no idea who Gunter Spritzing is.

It has grown fashionable in recent (post-digital) years, when people started to get interested in more (rather than less) grain. Up to the nineties, it was considered a developer best suited for low speed film. Even renowned Rodinal advocates like Günter Spitzing explicitly advised against developing 400 film in Rodinal.