robert_macdonald Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Well i've become interested in the almost legendary Rodinal, I'vetried it with Tri-X, APX 400 (sharp, but grainy), and Plus-X which Ibeen quite smitten by. Does anyone else use this combo? Opinions? Thanks Robert MacDonald Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 I know that you have asked about Plus-X in Rodinal, but you are likely to love FP4 Plus in Acutol. A recent thread discusses FP4, and one of the posters took my recommendation and raved about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Yes, see: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007iet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arjen van de merwe Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 This Hans Beckert could also give you some threads on rocket science, or the sewer system of Kuala Lumpur. Very interesting, but not really what you asked. I use plus-x regularly, usually in D76 (at ISO64), for real fine grain. But for optimum sharpness I do use it in Rodinal (ISO80) sometimes, and I do like the combination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Yet, Arjen, you do not point out that Rodinal is inferior to Acutol, is an ancient formulation (1881) not at all optimized for modern emulsion. It is a primitive developer compared to Acutol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
severi_salminen Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 "Yet, Arjen, you do not point out that Rodinal is inferior to Acutol, is an ancient formulation (1881) not at all optimized for modern emulsion. It is a primitive developer compared to Acutol." Why change something that is not broken? Why is Rodinal inferior to Acutol, Hans? (Rhetorical, don't answer). Rodinal gives big grain (that someone might like) and good acutance, Rodinal is very, very cheap to use, it lasts forever and can be bought at almost every photographic store and one bottle can develop easily 50-100 films. That doesn't seem so inferior to me. You have to remember that not everyone qualify the products like you do. Hans is a typical example of "Film/Developer of the Month" kind of photographer. Robert probably knows that in many cases it won't matter a sh!t what film brand you choose (of same speed) or which high acutance developer you use. The differences are minimal and they very rarely stand out of the final product: the photograph. The differences are there when doing AB comparison but when someone looks a photograph it wis very hard to recognize the materials used. Everyone seems to be chasing the magic bullet (I know, it is sometimes fun and interesting and I also do it). Robert, sorry for this OT post. I can't answer your question but, as allways, it is easiest to try out yourself. In these things it is quite impossible to rely 100% to others' opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__jon__ Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 >Hans Beckert , mar 23, 2004; 11:22 a.m. >Yet, Arjen, you do not point out that Rodinal is inferior to Acutol, is an ancient formulation (1881) not at all optimized for modern emulsion. It is a primitive developer compared to Acutol. This coming from someone who used 95ml of a bottle of DD-X and claimed it no good. I would be cautious with Hans Beckert's/Mike Scarpitti's erratic and questionable advice. 'Primitive'? Yes, there are some primitive elements in photography here... I've still got a few boxes of APX 100 4x5 sheet in the fridge... I'm thinking that Rodinal will be interesting to use with this film. Tell me a bit about the APX 400 results--what format, how big did you comfortably enlarge, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobias_begalke Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Your question is somewhat moot since you'll see how Plus-X develops in Rodinal compared to the developer(s) you've been using so far as soon as you try it. That being said I find that Plus-X and Rodinal don't work together all that well. The few times I tried that combination I found the negatives too grainy. My favourite 100-ASA-film with Rodinal is APX 100. The sharpness this combination produces rocks and while the grain is larger than that of TMX in Rodinal it looks lovely in my opinion. Cheers, Tobias Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Severi Salminen , mar 23, 2004; 11:41 a.m. <b>"Yet, Arjen, you do not point out that Rodinal is inferior to Acutol, is an ancient formulation (1881) not at all optimized for modern emulsion. It is a primitive developer compared to Acutol."</b><p> <i>Why change something that is not broken?</i><p> Then why not use wet plates? Color sensitiation? Who needs it? Blue-sensitive is good enough for me!<p> <i>Why is Rodinal inferior to Acutol, Hans? (Rhetorical, don't answer).</i><p> Finer grain, better speed, better shapness and tonality, for starters.<p> <i>Rodinal gives big grain (that someone might like) and good acutance.</i><p> Coraser grain than Acutol, and less sharpness than Acutol.<p> <i>Rodinal is very, very cheap to use,...</i><p> So is urine...<p> <i> it lasts forever and can be bought at almost every photographic store and one bottle can develop easily 50-100 films. That doesn't seem so inferior to me.</i><p> Unless results matter to you...<p> <i>You have to remember that not everyone qualify the products like you do.</i><p> Right, some people are pros....<p> <i>Hans is a typical example of "Film/Developer of the Month" kind of photographer. Robert probably knows that in many cases it won't matter a sh!t what film brand you choose (of same speed) or which high acutance developer you use. The differences are minimal and they very rarely stand out of the final product: the photograph. The differences are there when doing AB comparison but when someone looks a photograph it wis very hard to recognize the materials used. Everyone seems to be chasing the magic bullet (I know, it is sometimes fun and interesting and I also do it).</i><p> I have used this product many years.<p> See: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007iet <p> In particular, note: <p> "Hans, where are you located to I can come kiss you?<p> I did FP4+ in Acutol today, rated 125, 7 min, 1+14 in my F4s...<p> ....so magical...:D <p> The differences are <b> not </b> minimal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_eaton Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 I agree with Hans about FP4, and perhaps FP4 combined with Acutol. Never tried it, but it looks good on paper. In other respects Plus-X and FP4 are two different films on opposite ends of the spectrum. Otherwise, if Hans stopped having sex with his Kodachrome slides he woulnd't be so frustrated. His raves about Acutol are starting to remind me of the father from 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding' who uses Windex on everything. I wonder how Acutol works on removing the stains from my car seats as well? I've played with Rodinal with Plus-X, and the combination works, but APX seems to be the better material. In my humble opinion (stop laughing Lex), Tri-X Professional is a better match, and *does not* take as much a grain penalty over PX as you'd think. Difference between Tri-X Pro and Plus X with Rodinal at 1:50 is very slight with TXP having a much nicer tonal range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_hull Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 I was thinking of making some grilled chicken quesadillas for dinner. Instead of guacamole, I was wondering what might help develop them? Hans? Acutol must be of newer formulation than guacamole!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 1. Plus-X is probably the worst medium-speed film currently made 2. Rodinal is not the best acutance developer 3. FP4 Plus is likely the best medium-speed film currently made 4. Acutol is the best developer for it QED: Why use Plus-X in Rodinal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timothy_nolan Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 As he who raved in the other thread, I'm all about experimentation, hence having tried FP4/Acutol... But some of my work still might call for Rodinal effects too. I'd say don't be afraid to try new things, but what you're doing isn't necessarily *bad*, just different, and only you can assess how you value those differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_menegatos Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 I've used Plus-X in Rodinal. Very nice combination. My subjective opinion... it has the look of tri-x in rodinal with finer grain and better sharpness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
severi_salminen Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Ok, Hans, you didn't seem to get it. Do you understand that you are not helping anyone by not answering the questions made. Example: <br><br> "What is the best way to develop Tri-X in XTOL?" <br><br> "You should try Tmax3200P in Microphen insted."<br> "FP4+ is _a lot_ better film than Tri-X."<br> "Urine is a cheaper developer than XTOL."<br> etc.<br><br> Do you see the pattern? It is not up to _you_ to try to figure out why Robert chose the materials in the question. I even gave you a few valid resons. You didn't seem to think they are good reasons but Robert or someone else might think they are. Cost, availability, capacity (how much film/amount of developer) and storage life might be important issues to someone. Equally I might say to you that "Tmax3200 is a lot better film than FP4+. Why? Because it is faster". Obviously that kind of statement would help noone in any situation. Just remember that there are more than YOUR definition for "best" and "worst".<br><br> BTW, for some odd reason I juts get the impression that you would like to see everyone use the same films and developers as you do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Severi: You may note my first post said: 'Hans Beckert , mar 23, 2004; 10:13 a.m. 'I know that you have asked about Plus-X in Rodinal, but you are likely to love FP4 Plus in Acutol. A recent thread discusses FP4, and one of the posters took my recommendation and raved about it.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
severi_salminen Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Subject: "Plus-X in Rodinal"<br><br> Q: "Does anyone else use this combo? Opinions?"<br><br> A: "...you are likely to love FP4 Plus in Acutol."<br><br> This is not the first time and apparently not the last one either ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Yes, he asked for 'opinions'. My opinion is that Plus-X in Rodinal is greatly inferior to FP4 in Acutol. It is within the general confines of the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
severi_salminen Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 I'll promise that this is my last reply to this thread.<br><br> Hans, your original reply said _nothing_ about Plus-X developed in Rodinal. You didn't give any information why Plus-X/Rodinal might be a bad choice (even compared to FP4+ in Acutol). You (or the link) didn't specify what aspects you don't like in Plus-X/Rodinal combination and why FP4+/Acutol might be used instead. You are simply talking only about FP4+/Acutol and Robert didn't ask about that combination. And saying "inferior", "best" or "worst" has no information value in it if you don't give any arguments. None. But thanks for an interesting discussion :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustys pics Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Hans- Rodinal is a "Primitive Developer"? UGH! Mmmm! Caveman LIKE Rodinal! Rodinal GOOOoooD. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Russ, if you like Rodinal, you go ape (ha ha) for Acutol. Rodinal's reputation is better than the results would warrant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob fowler Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 I've tried Plus-X sheet film in Rodinal and wasn't happy with the results and went back to using either HC-110 dilution H or Microdol-X. I never tried Rodinal with any of the roll film version of Plus-X though. YMMV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_appleyard Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 A question like this always seems to bring out the "best" from our members. Robert, I'm afraid only you can decide if you like this combo. Certainly, it works for many. Try it, try them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank.schifano Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Well Robert, you've opened a hornet's nest with this one. I've never tried the Plus-X/Rodinal combination myself, but it might have possibilities. I have a few rolls of Plus-X around and will probably give it a try. I can tell you though that FP4+ works well in Rodinal 1+50. This should be no surprise to many. FP4+ is just nice stuff to work with and delivers the goods with just about any developer, provided you take some care to do it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_mcdonough3 Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Hi Robert, I use Rodinal at 1:85 dilution and expose the Plus-X at an ei of 200. I think the time is 9 min at 75 degrees. The results are stunning. The grain is suprisingly small. not really noticible in an 8x10 print. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now