Trix and Rodinal developing times ISO 200 vs 400

F

Filson Back

Established
Local time
1:00 PM
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
70
I've checked the massive dev chart for developing times for Rodinal and Tri-x at 1:25 -- curiously, 7 minutes is listed as the time for both ISO 200 and 400. If someone has insight into this or has a better recommendation I'm all ears. I developed a roll last night and it came out a bit muddy -- could be user error.
 
Filson Back said:
I've checked the massive dev chart for developing times for Rodinal and Tri-x at 1:25 -- curiously, 7 minutes is listed as the time for both ISO 200 and 400. If someone has insight into this or has a better recommendation I'm all ears. I developed a roll last night and it came out a bit muddy -- could be user error.
Click to expand...

Muddy = low contrast? Develop longer, agitate fully once per minute. Developer needs to be fresh and not oxidized. If film base is not clear, refix.

20% is commonly accepted for 1 stop pull. 200 will get better shadow detail and the -20% is for not blocking highlights.

Massive development NEVER has worked for me. Just a bunch of people who do not know how to tune a developer. enlarger, water, thermometer, agitation, etc. It always recommends times too long. Rodinals times on the carton are too long. Some kind of European taste for punchy negs.

The times on Ilford and Kodak literature work perfectly. So guess which one is screwed up. And I use the very same repeatable studio test with a grey scale and some colored objects. I actually print the test with the aim of duplicating the grey scale with a straight print on condenser enlarger & #2 paper. Scanning produces similar results.
 
My experience is similar to Ronald's, the times suggested on Massive Dev were always off, anything Ilford publishes (I no longer use Kodak) is always spot on
 
Problem is Kodak does not publish times for its films in non-Kodak developers, like Rodinal. Here's my time for Tri-X in Rodinal 1+50. 11 minutes, 68 degrees. Shoot the film at EI-320.

I don't know why you want to use Rodinal 1+25; 1+50 gives better tonality with most films. I have shot hundreds of rolls of Tri-X developed in Rodinal 1+50 for the time listed above and it is a great combination.

motel-chairs-flag.jpg


dolls19.jpg
 
1:25 is European taste. I dislike it also.

Chris has hundreds of photos posted and all are excellent. I would suggest following his lead after finding out the kind of enlarger he used and asking about his agitation and checking your thermometer.

I do not use Rodinal with fast film.
 
I guess it's all a matter of taste, right? Ralph Gibson did it with Rodinal 1:25 with Tri-X shot at 200 i believe and he got the results he wanted/needed. He even underexposed and overdeveloped. At least that's what I get from reading about his technique. Granted Tri-X may have changed a bit since then but you get the idea. I don't think there is a "right" way to do it. There are some good guidelines that as a newbie I followed but at the end of the day, experiment and find your own "voice".
 
Guy Pinhas said:
I guess it's all a matter of taste, right? I don't think there is a "right" way to do it. There are some good guidelines that as a newbie I followed but at the end of the day, experiment and find your own "voice".
Click to expand...

That is right. Guy talked about Ralph Gibson in this quote, and Ralph is looking for the exact opposite that I am. And yet I shoot at 200 (I also read that he used 100) and I use HC-110h, but develop more normally so I get long scale and shadow detail.

So like Guy says maybe start with a normal set up and then change around. But only change ONE variable at a time, that way you won't go completely crazy.
 
Ronald M said:
Some kind of European taste for punchy negs.
Click to expand...

All of AGFA's data were for a CI of 0.65, way higher than you can print with normal tonality on normal paper. But it did make APX films seem like they could achieve their nominal ISOs in Rodinal, which, with normal contrast, they did not.

Marty
 
Freakscene said:
All of AGFA's data were for a CI off 0.65, way higher than you can print with normal tonality on normal paper. But it did make APX films seem like they could achieve their nominal ISOs in Rodinal, which, with normal contrast, they did not.

Marty
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct!
 
In my experience 1:25 is only suitable for low speed, fine/ultra fine grain films. 1:25 + Tri-X might be good for a certain look, a particular situation, etc. For normal contrast scenes 1:50 works most of the time. For really long scale subjects/scenes, 1:100 is great. 19 minutes for 1:100 works for all films I've tried; keep the agitation minimal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom