lex_jenkins Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Oh, I almost forgot to respond to Robert's original question... so many distractions around here. Yes, Rodinal is excellent with Tri-X and pretty good with APX 400. It's tough to build up contrast with APX 400 in Rodinal, tho', so it's not the best combo for my diffusion enlarger. So what's my definition of "excellent"? I like it. Just as I like asparagus steamed only slightly so it's still crisp and despise the stuff when it's cooked to limpness. You don't have to define or defend your preferences in photography either. Now, then, if you'd asked "Is there another developer that will give me the essential characteristics of Rodinal but better (sharper, etc.) with Tri-X and APX 400?" then, of course, the heated digression of this thread would make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timothy_nolan Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Lordy.... ...these are OPINIONS... ...and thank gosh there is a place like photo.net for them to not only exist but hey, you can search them too! ...i have wildly experimental methods and results...but I would be lost without photo.net's many and varied opinions on almost *anything* I might try... ...search... ..,weigh opinions... ...be happy you have this resource... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vatovec Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 I tried this combination just once recently (PlusX and Rodinal), for a portrait of a young lady with tungsten lights on 6x7 with a softar filter attached exposed at ISO 100. The results where very pleasing, the tonality was better than HC110, and the grain wasn`t an issue (on MF it rarely is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_waller Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Rodinal may well be the world's oldest commercially produced developer but with the right film it can give superb results. Try it with Kodak TMax 100 - a combination used by Wynn White, no less. It is the most robust and reliable developer I know. I also use Rodinal with Ilford Delta 100, rating it at 50 ASA, both in 35mm and 120 formats. In medium format it is bitingly sharp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_appleyard Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Hey folks (and this means some of our "patrons"), COOL IT! There's no need for "jerk", "sex with Kodachrome slides" and "buffoon" (from a previous thread). While I don't always agree with what Hans says and sometimes his answers are painfully brief, most often he is correct in what he says and I have never seen him go down to your level and resort to name-calling. If you don't like an opinion on here, state why in an ADULT manner and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_macdonald Posted March 24, 2004 Author Share Posted March 24, 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." That is why I use this combo. I never expected this kind of reply, sheesh! I have also heard things about FP4 and will have to try it one of these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_hull Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 One simply cannot speak in absolutes. I disagree with anyone saying that one particular film is better than any other without exception. Opinion are fine, we all have lots of, that's why we are here. I have a problem with anyone stating opinion as edict or fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim obrien Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 I'm with Lex on this one.. Plus-X in Asparagas Juice @ 21C. Does it for me. No limpness in my pictures if you keep the time under 9 minutes. Of course my standard answer is APX100 in ABCPyro. tim in san jose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classcamera Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Here is an actual answer to your question: Rodinal is a good for TXP exposed in an average fashion, and somewhat above average in push processing, for pull processing it leaves much to be desired and there are many other developers that work better. The grain problem can be eliminated by diluting it to 1/50, for the most part. What format are you using? In 4x5 I have found that the grain is just fine for 11x14 enlargements when diluted to 1/25. One last thing that Rodinal is excellent at is developing old out of date film, high dilution rate makes it economical, and it will leave pretty good contrast even on heavily fogged film. For all you Ilford shooters out there, if Tri-X is handled correctly, it is every film you will need between speeds 50 and 1200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_appleyard Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 And now for something completely different.... Robert, I like Plus-x, I like Rodinal. To me, they work well together with a photo that has texture to it like an old barn, or a photo of an old man with a white beard. I feel the subject has to fill the frame when using Plus-x in Rodinal. To me this combo is not good for scenics with lots of clear blue sky; skies come out a bit too griany. Crop the blue sky out and you might be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 <i>Moderator's note: Several comments have been chopped wholesale from this thread because they were needlessly argumentative *and* contributed nothing to the subject of the original question.<p> If this puts some responses out of context, you can thank your fellow forum members for their inability to restrain themselves.<p> And until further notice such ham-fisted, axe-wielding deletion or, if you prefer, censorship of entire replies will continue when such replies are inappropriate or off-topic. I don't have time right now to exercise greater discretion in editing.</i><p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_stockdale2 Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 Although the developing agent in Rodinal is one of the oldest (I think it was actually 1891), the formula for Rodinal has changed somewhat over the years (at least twice since I started using it, and I was born considerably later than 1891). Although the accountants at Agfa have had as much to do with the formula revisions as the photochemists, it nevertheless gives a look that can be exploited very effectively with current films. FWIW, I am a fervent user of that other famously ancient developing agent, pyro, which predates Rodinal. To each his/her own. The argument is about how the print looks, remember, and not the date of discovery of the developing agent. Why did I write this? It's so obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 John: The date of discovery of the developing agent is not the issue. The formulation is. Metol and hydroquinone have been around for as long as para-aminophenol. Nonetheless, by varying alkalinity strength and type, concentration and relative proportion of developing agents and other additives, quite different developers can be created from these two agents. The point is that Rodinal is a primitive developer, not optimized for today's films. Its principal advantage is its cheapness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim obrien Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 No Hans, Rodinal's principle advantage is: I like what it does to film. End of story. If I want ultra smooth grain, nice tonality, incredable range in both highs and lows on my negative, I use my W2D2+. If I want that slightly gritty, a bit more contrasty look, Rodinal is what goes in the tank. If I want a really graphic sort of look with no blown highlights, I'll stand develop my PanF in very dilute Rodinal. If I just want to get some medium speed small format stuff out, FX-39 is the answer. If I went out street shooting at night with Tri-X at 1000 - 1250 Diafine is the ticket. I guess what I am trying to say is, I am the photographer, not you. Better yet, I am the artist. Period. 5 looks, four developers, and none of them is Acutol. Are you amazed? tim in san jose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Johan Bolmsjo , mar 27, 2004; 06:05 p.m. "Acutol really is a better acutance developer than Rodinal which fluffs up the grain. Shadow detail good, but it's always good with HP5:) http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006Vh6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johan_bolmsjo Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Hehe, I have to stop reading photo.net so much:) I'm not the old timer here so don't take my words too seriously. I did one roll of Plus-X in Rodinal 1:25 and it was very nice. The curve seems more straight than when deved in D76 so the shadows are not so murky and I like that. Grain sure, but nice structure. Just as Tri-X in Acutol:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_appleyard Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Hans, where do you get the idea that Rodinal "fluffs" the grain? What does that mean? Are you speaking of "grain clumping"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_appleyard Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 I'm not sure that my pevious post should be directed at Hans after all, but if the author of that question would care to comment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Jim: I was referiing to Johan's post here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006Vh6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 "Fluffy" grain? And I thought I was the king of vague, technically unsupportable assertions around here. I yield my crown. ;> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 I do believe that Johan may be trying to describe 'more pronounced' grain in Rodinal, compared to the more compact grain of Acutol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johan_bolmsjo Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 HP5 in Rodinal is not a hit, grain clumping to the extreme, fluffy was perhaps not the best wording. HP5 and Tri-X in Acutol shows grain that could be expected from these films but more visible than say D76 because of the acutance effect. Hans, when you say the Acutol has good tonality, what do you mean? Pleasing density curve shape or good tonal range? I have found acutol to have a pleasing curve shape with some films, good shadow detail, but almost any other developer with a given film will show a better tonal range. I mean it's in the nature of an acutance developer. Some will say that, hey Rodinal has great tonal range but I beg to differ. Plus-X in Rodinal 1:25 is great but Plus-X in D76 will show a greater tonal range. 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