Rodinal 1:25 Beginner Technique

Hello all, I am new to the forum and a newbie in processing my own film. After lots of research in several sites I still cannot come up with an answer to my needs.

I will start from the beginning, I am willing to have an approach like Moriyama to my film photography. I don't care about the grain, I don't care about the midtones, I do care about my whites and my blacks, I want contrast.

I will be using a Nikon L35AF, Tri-X and Foma 400 films and a yellow filter.

I narrowed my search to the following, and please correct me if I am wrong:

- Underexpose and Overdevelop: use either film as 1600 in camera and develop longer. The Nikon only goes up to I.E. 1000 but as I've read they suggest 1000 if you want to go to 1600. Here I have my first concern.

- Use Rodinal: 1:25 will give me more contrast but I cannot find the 1:25 dilution in the DigitalTruth DevChart for 1600. Would it be a problem that my camera goes up to 1000? Which should be the temp/times to be used for 1600 in 1:25?

- Using the filter: I've read that using a yellow filter reduces one stop. So using I.E. 1000/1600 would be like shooting in 800? Should the dev times be adjusted to that?

Seems I have a lot on my plate, one thing sure: I want that gritty contrasty b&w tone.

Any recommendations are more than welcome!

Thank you all!!!

The fact that your camera goes to ISO1000 only means the lightmeter is limited to that ISO. I don't know the specifics of your camera, but if you can use it in full manual mode, you can calculate your own exposure times for ISO1600 (and basically "override" what the built-in meter tells you).

A yellow filter will typically cost you one stop, so indeed you expose as if ISO800, but of course if your camera has TTL metering, you need to meter without the filter on if you follow this approach.

As for Rodinal, I've used it with Tri-X rather at ISO800 dilution 1:50, and that already gave plenty grain and contrast. So maybe try first with 1:50 and see how that goes? Especially since you're starting out, I would go with tried-and-tested formulas first to reduce the number of variables you have in case things do not work out. As your experience grows, you can start experimenting with your own times, dilutions etc. but in the beginning keep things simple for yourself.

The dilution isn't as important as making sure that you have sufficient developer in the tank. At high dilutions Rodinal can run out of active ingredients and effectively become a compensating developer giving low contrast.

I can't remember the recommended minimum amount of stock Rodinal per film, but you're unlikely to drop below it easily.

WRT the 1:25 dilution times: Remember, you're not aiming to maximise shadow detail as you would with an EI rating of 1600. You want contrast and grain. So just take the recommended box speed time/dilution and add 10 to 20% to the development time to boost contrast and grain. How you rate the film in the camera will just dictate how much shadow detail will disappear.

No 400 ISO film made is capable of a true 2 stop push to EI 1600 anyway. It's just a bogus numbers game.

Besides, you can always boost contrast during printing or scanning. Getting back shadow detail you wish you hadn't lost is a lot more difficult.

Minimum recommended is 5ml; if you use 1:50, for 300ml (Patterson tank, single 35mm roll) you need 6ml, so you're fine.

Another thing with Rodinal is that grain is also quite dependent on temperature (higher temperature, more grain) and agitation (more agitation, more grain). If you stick to the normal agitation scheme (10sec for every minute of development), you'll get plenty grain. Personally, I used very gentle and very little agitation with rodinal, which helped keeping grain under control.

 

No 400 ISO film made is capable of a true 2 stop push to EI 1600 anyway. It's just a bogus numbers game.

 

I suppose, since if a film could give true EI 1600, then it would have been rated at 1600 in the first place.

But for T-Max 400, and I believe also Tri-X, Kodak recommends no development change for EI 800,

and some increase in time for EI 1600. They seem to believe that it has enough latitude for 800.

One reason for discontinuing TMZ is that TMY could be pushed to 1600 or 3200, and give reasonable results.

(Yes with more contrast and grain, but maybe not so bad.)

That doesn't consider that TMZ could push to 6400 or 12800 or 25600, though maybe with

increasingly poor results.

And then there are compensating developers, which attempt to increase development of

the shadows, without overdevelopment of the highlights, including my old favorite, Diafine.

Over the years, the suggested EI for Tri-X in Diafine has wavered between 1200 and 1600,

and many have been happy using it that way.

If you look at the characteristic curves for Delta 3200:

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file_id/1872/product_id/682/

you will note that there is no straight section. Especially at higher development,

they curve up a little more early, before the main part of the curve.

This means that they are a little more sensitive at higher development

times, higher EI rating, than some other films might be, with a more

straight center section of the curve.

Note also that there are times up to EI 25000 in some developers,

only up to 12500 in Rodinal 1:25 (at 20 minutes).

"If you look at the characteristic curves for Delta 3200:

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file_id/1872/product_id/682/

you will note that there is no straight section. Especially at higher development,

they curve up a little more early, before the main part of the curve.

This means that they are a little more sensitive at higher development

times.."

- No, the curves show that there is exactly zero change in light sensitivity, and only a change in density (contrast) for the same exposure.

The origin of every one of those LogE/Density curves stays firmly put on the X axis. If there was a true change in sensitivity those curves would move to the left of the graph with increased development time; they don't. Therefore there is no change in light sensitivity.

Having no straight line portion to the curve is totally irrelevant. It simply shows a non-linear relationship between contrast, exposure and development time.

Underexposing with Rodinal is an odd choice. As Anchell and Troop say, it is a "speed losing" developer. That is, for the same density range (thus contrast) on the negative, you're going to need a lower EI (more exposure) than with D-76. Lots of folks shoot Tri-X in Rodinal at EI 200. Don't worry, it will still be grainy, as Rodinal has minimal solvent effect. If you want "crisper" grain, try higher dilutions of Rodinal.

If you want high film speeds, consider "speed enhancing" developers, like XTOL, Microphen, and DD-X.

(I wrote)

 

"If you look at the characteristic curves for Delta 3200:

 

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file_id/1872/product_id/682/

 

you will note that there is no straight section. Especially at higher development,

they curve up a little more early, before the main part of the curve.

 

This means that they are a little more sensitive at higher development

times.."

 

- No, the curves show that there is exactly zero change in light sensitivity, and only a change in density (contrast) for the same exposure.

 

The origin of every one of those LogE/Density curves stays firmly put on the X axis. If there was a true change in sensitivity those curves would move to the left of the graph with increased development time; they don't. Therefore there is no change in light sensitivity.

 

Having no straight line portion to the curve is totally irrelevant. It simply shows a non-linear relationship between contrast, exposure and development time.

Ilford doesn't believe it is irrelevant. As well as I know, this is why they call it 3200 instead of 1000.

Yes the origin where the curves start going up stays pretty much the same, but in many cases important details will be in the lower part of the curve, above the origin.

Two or three stops underexposed (from the ISO value) puts what would be in the middle, down into the lower part of the curve, but still above the place where they start curving up. That can make a big difference in some low light situations.

Yes, some shadow detail that you would otherwise get will be lost, but important parts will come out well enough.

"Ilford doesn't believe it is irrelevant. As well as I know, this is why they call it 3200 instead of 1000."

- Flash manufacturers also add one full stop (at least) to the rated Guide Numbers of their speedlights. It doesn't make it any less of a lie. That's the reason why Ilford's graphs are marked in the near meaningless "Relative Log Exposure" instead of the absolute value in Lux.

Below is a comparison between small areas of the frame from a Nikon D700 DSLR (left) exposed at ISO 3200, and Ilford Delta 3200 (right) rated at EI 3200 and developed in Microphen; a developer which is supposed to give up to half a stop speed increase.

As can be seen, the shadows in the DSLR shot are much more open and well gradated. That's if you can see past the golf-ball sized grain of the Delta "3200".

QED.

Ilford says:

If you are without a D700, and in lighting conditions requiring a fast film,

and you have a roll of Delta 3200, what do you do? If the choice is between

no picture and shooting at EI 3200, Ilford says to shoot at 3200.

Many dark scenes can fool meters, so are often underexposed from the

optimal exposure.

"If you are without a D700, and in lighting conditions requiring a fast film,

and you have a roll of Delta 3200, what do you do? If the choice is between

no picture and shooting at EI 3200, Ilford says to shoot at 3200."

OK, so I have a roll of Delta 3200 and it's getting dark, but no mention of any camera. What now?

That's a completely non-sequiter argument that really doesn't address the basic fact that "pushing" development alters film speed not a jot, and simply increases contrast - I.e. density is increased for any given level of exposure above some hard and fast threshold.

 

(snip)

 

That's a completely non-sequiter argument that really doesn't address the basic fact that "pushing" development alters film speed not a jot, and simply increases contrast - I.e. density is increased for any given level of exposure above some hard and fast threshold.

This is true, as film speed is based on one point on the curve. But real scenes use more than just one point, and if those parts of the scene get appropriate development, you get a usable negative.

Reminds me of some of the rules from the FTC on measurements of stereo power amplifiers. There are a number of ways to make an amplifier sound better than it really is, so the FTC came up with some rules, some of which measure an amplifier at continuous maximum power. But real music mostly never does that. (Though some rock comes close.)

The ASA (and now ISO) measurement is a good way to deter cheating, by making a specific measurement system, but it doesn't apply to all scenes that one might want to photograph. Many low-light scenes are naturally low contrast, not including light sources that are within the frame. Some additional contrast is good, but ISO doesn't know that.

My favorite FTC rule is that you are not allowed to have the model number contain twice the appropriately measured power per channel. That is, you aren't supposed to even hint that you are adding the power of the two channels.

I don't know of any ISO rules related to ISO speed and film names, but they might disallow the 3200 in Delta 3200 if they did.

The ISO standard for black/white film specifies that two points on the sensitometric curve be taken to establish film speed. One at a density of 0.1D above base+fog, and another at 0.8D above B+F. The average slope between those points establishes a standard development, and the 0.1D toe density establishes the speed.

The exposure required to give 0.1D above B+F is then used to calculate the film speed. Plain and simple!

The formula is: Speed = 0.8/E in lux/seconds and rounded to the nearest 1/3rd stop increment. Such as 100, 125, 160, 200, 250, 320 etc.

Ilford and others get away with hyperbole like 3200 by declaring (in small print) that it's an Exposure Index rating, and not giving an ISO rating at all! Actually it's about 1250 ISO.

(snip)

 

The exposure required to give 0.1D above B+F is then used to calculate the film speed. Plain and simple!

 

So, in the end, it is one point that determines the speed, even though many other points are used to make the image.

If there is a long straight section between 0.1D and just a little below Dmax, then one point, and the slope of the line, is enough.

But Delta 3200 has pretty much no straight section. It curves most of the way up, and the amount of that curve affects the final results much more than just the point at 0.1D. ISO tries to give one number for a whole curve.

It's nothing to do with the shape of the curve, which is in log-log form anyway. (Seen in linear space it would look totally different, and almost indistinguishable from any other film's curve.)

The ISO standard specifies the average slope between minimum useful density and an exposure 20 times greater, to give a density of 0.7D above said minimum density.

The density of 0.8D is approximately half of the useful printable density of a developed negative, and would give mid-grey in the print.

That standardises the development condition. The minimum useful density of 0.1D is then used as a measure of film sensitivity, which, as can be seen does not vary significantly with variation in development time.

No amount of arguing with ISO's methodology will alter that fact, and the shape of the curve doesn't alter it either.

It takes a certain fixed exposure - measured in lux-seconds - to overcome the inertia of the film. No amount of "pushing" the development changes that manufactured characteristic of the emulsion. Measure it how you will.

There's certainly plenty of interest in this topic.

Why not start off with one of the higher contrast films and end the struggle. I love Illford Pan F and it's easy to build contrast with any developer. The challenge with all the slow films is to hold back contrast.

You may have started with the wrong film.