Tri-x in Rodinal Special

[starless]

Does anyone have experience developing Tri-x (exposed @ 200) in Rodinal Special?

I have always used D76 1:1 and I like the results.

However I was wondering what difference I can expect if I replace D76 with Rodinal Special.

 

[Bluedog2212]

Tri X in Rodinal Special

Tri X in Rodinal Special

Rodinal at 1:25 gives very punchy photos with Tri X. At 1:50 less so with less grain. Try the apug forum on film and developing. There are a ton of posts from folks who know a lot about it (not me)

That said, take a roll, cut it in half and develop each half different dulution or times and see what you get.
Rodinal will usually have more grain than D76

 

[john_s]

Rodinal Special is different to classic Rodinal. It is a phenidone+hydroquinone formula, giving full film speed. From an Agfa pdf of a few years back, the recommendation for Tri-X was for 1+15 dilution, 3.5minutes in an inversion tank to give a contrast of 0.65 which is a bit on the high side. (All Agfa's development times were on the long side unless a lower contrast was stated, such as 0.55)

If you've exposed generously (EI=200) the dev time, given that it's for high contrast might be a bit long. And 3.5min is getting quite short to ensure even development.

Maybe you should search for info about weaker dilutions.

 

[mdarnton]

I just got back into the darkroom, and thought Rodinal would be an easy developer. I'm using the traditional version, and I don't know how different the results would be. . .

I previously used D76, 1:1, like you. After doing a few rolls in Rodinal, I'm very unhappy with the look. Go look at Rodinal pix on Flickr, and you'll see that virtually every one has dirty, empty shadows. I would think that it's just user error, but everyone seems to be getting that look, so I'm thinking that's what the stuff does.

So now I have chems in the mail to mix up D76. In the interim I'm using D23, and the clean, wide-open shadows I'm accustomed to are back.

 

[Brian Legge]

I'd love to see some example photos with the look you're going for mdamton

I've found Rodinal + Tri X to be an interesting mix. I haven't tried Special.

I like details in my shadows. I've found I can almost get there with Rodinal 1:50 for 12 minutes or so with relatively traditional agitation if I shoot the film around 320. I'm usually short on light so I've compromised here rather than dropping all the way down to 200. Even a little bit of under exposure and the shadows go black.

I tried playing around with semi-stand development (agitation every 5-10 minutes) but didn't see enough of a win myself to really justify it. Full stand I usually had streaking issues.

This is an example of what I'm getting with conservative 320 metering (may be closer to 250). This was 12 minutes. Shots on the same roll taken closer to 400 lost shadow detail (6x6 negative)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/6234252153

And this is at 10 minutes (metered at 360, 35mm negative for grain comparison, though my scanner may not be good enough to really resolve the grain well):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/6173951939/

I think its fairly easy to under expose this pair and perhaps easier to over develop. I do like the tones I get out of it though - I'd suggest experimenting with different development time and exposures.

 

[MichaelW]

Rodinal Special was a confusing name to give a developer. It was originally called Studional before they changed it. It's a completely different developer to Rodinal.

 

[mdarnton]

Brian, this whole set (a new project I just started on, digitalizing a bunch of old work) is my version of Tri-X + D76, 1:1: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton/sets/72157628767257187/

 

[meven]

TriX @ ISO400 in Rodinal Special (Studional) at 1+30 for 6min at 20 degrees


A few more shots here: http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=7259870@N06&q=studional+trix&m=text

 

[starless]

Hmm, that is quite interesting.
The only reason why I was thinking of switching to Rodinal is the unavailability of D76 in my area.

But having read all the replies, I am not convinced that would be a good idea. My biggiest worry is that the results will not be consistent with my older photos.

I think I will run a test roll to see how it comes out.

 

[Moriturii]

You might enjoy this article about Tri-X and Rodinal

 

[starless]

Very nice. Thank you!

 

[Moriturii]

If you hover over a picture, on the upper right hand side you will see a circle with an arrow pointing down in it, and a magnifying glass next to it. If you press the one with the arrow you can download the picture and zoom in until your hearts content =)

 

[Brian Legge]

Hah, thanks! I was sure I was missing something. I was clicking on the image first and then trying to figure out how to enlarge it which doesn't work. Deleted my redundant post.

 

[mdarnton]

Starless, I just went and looked at your work. I think you might really like what D23 does--creamy endless detail at both ends. The recipe is extremely simple, also: two chemicals, and I mix it measuring with kitchen cooking spoons: 1 teaspoon metol/elon, 4 tablespoons sodium sulfite, 1 liter of water. That's all there is to it.