Stand development with Rodinal

Hi, I did my first rolls of 120 film and 135 film (both Neopan 400) developed

in Rodinal 1+200 stand development and I have a problem. The details are

Rodinal 1+200, presoaked for 5 mins, room temperature(!), 30secs initial

agitation and left for 2hrs, shot at 400.

 

This was my first time stand developing and there was a gradient of density

across the height of the negative. Looked like uneven development. The 120 was

way worse than the 135. Plus the 120 had these undeveloped spots near the

darker edge of the negative. I was using SS tanks and was sure there was enough

developer to cover the film. The 135 was developed in the 120 tank (seperately)

too and showed the same gradient at a lesser level but no spots.

 

Does anyone have an idea as to the cause of this?

"Left for 2 hours"; if you mean that you agitate only once, then here's the problem: You should agitate every minute.

I have never thought that stand development was good with a developer like Rodinal.The thought behind stand development, is to have the developer compensate to even out the shadows and highlights. The theory is that the developer will become exhausted as it developers the highlights and will continue working on the shadows, to evening out the contrast range of the neg. I found uneven development with Rodinal ,and switched to something like a D23 two part developer instead.

I know what your problem was. I use a simi stand with Rodinal I give it 5 inversions to start I don't ptesoak and I also give it 5 inversons at 15 and 45 minutes.

 

Larry

I do like Larry, almost. First 30 secs continous agitation, then two inversions after 5 min,

another two after more or less half an hour, then again another two after something like

another half an hour. Total 90 mins for HP5 shot at 800 in 1+150 at 20?C. No problems, but

what is the advantage compared to 10 min in 1+25 with normal agitation? I found no

advantage.

I find it gives better shadow detail and the grain is nicer not to mention I am lazy.

 

Larry

Well, my aim was to get accutance effects and better tonality etc. As I said I have never done stand development before and so I was basically trying it out to see what all the fuss was about.

 

From what I read, stand development for accutance works best with no agitation apart from the first 30s-1m. Rodinal seems like one of the classic developers to use, and I had it lying around so I thought why not. I am not sure how semi stand stacks up so I'll give that a try next.

 

Stand is great because you don't have to do any work! Dump film in and leave it. Well, that's the theory anyway. Better than watching over the tank for 10 minutes or so. I'm not sure, but I think that 2 hours of development with agitations at 1 min intervals will probably melt my film... ;)

You'd need to be pretty patient too!

I use Rodinal 1:200 and get nice results every time. As others have stated, I do 30 seconds of initial agitation but then I leave it sit for an hour only - two hours, in my experience, causes fogging at that dilution.

 

- Randy

I don't know what benefit you can hope to get by developing 120 size b&w film for two hours. Your workflow must be very slow. There are many ways to develop film with good contrast and tonality without letting it sit in a tank for two hours at a dilution which must be very difficult to work out accurately. Neopan 400 is a very versatile film. It works well in D-76, D-76 1:1, Microdol-X 1:3, Clayton F60 1:9, NACCO Super 76 (either dilution), HC-110, and others. Rodinal is the last developer I would think to use for Neopan 400 even in 120 size.

Two hours are excessive, probably explaining the uneven development. In fact I suspect 45min. would be plenty, and I'll try that rating Acros at 50 to explore extended shadow detail.

 

Stand development MEANS you let it stand after initial inversions, you don't "agitate" every minute as somebody suggested above.

 

If you have the itch to agitate Rodinal, use it diluted @ 1:50. Even then, don't "agitate," just gently invert 3X each minute after gentle inversion 15-20 times in the first 30 seconds. No banging on counter tops, swirling, shaking.

 

I've just done this test with R-09 (more convenient packaging than "Rodinal"): 1:200 stand development test with half-stop brackets 35mm Fuji Acros(100), Kindermann SS reels. 20 inversions in the first 30 seconds, then no more, stand 1 hour. Have a glass of wine, watch the sun go down.

 

Development very even, including shots designed to evaluate evenness, exposure latitude appears about 1/2-1 stop each way from center in both very flat open shade (metered with Gossen Digisix and two Canon F1 meters in agreement). Scenic photos done same roll worked well in maximum contrasty light (Santa Fe NM afternoon, clear sky, rating @100).

 

Obvious best ei is the 100ei Fuji states on the box though 1/2 stop extra exposure might help in extreme contrast (negs tend flat so I add about 15pts of contrast in Photoshop).

 

Using Nikon V scanner @ 4000ppi and Vuescan set for "slight grain reduction" fine grain is sharp corner-to-corner @11" (helped by FH-3 carrier). It appears that same film in R-09 @ 1:50 using same workflow has virtually no grain, but a little grain may add sense of sharpness...your mileage may vary :-)

 

I see a little of the famous Rodinal edge effect (very thin dark outlines separating a few light grey Vs white areas (eg. chrome against faintly darker concrete in bright lighting)... contributes to image's impression of sharpness.

 

In other words, stand 1:200 is a great way to develop Acros...though it's a little tough to measure the 1.25cc necessary for 1:200 in a 250cc tank :-)

It would be interesting to see where the "point of diminishing returns" is, re: edge effects, compensation, etc and time. I did 1+100 for TXT 120 shot at at least 3200 if not 6400, 60s initial and 2-3 hours (the 2nd time around I had to go out for a while) and they look great. Perfectly even. Maybe it's the 1+100 rather than 1+200. Maybe it's the massive underexposure. Not sure.

 

allan

...btw Neopan 400 is GREAT in Rodinal 1:50, even pushed to 800. It's EASY to accurately measure (even to fractional cc) when you have a cheap 100cc measuring vial, marked at cc. The reason some folks use Rodinal is specifically to get the highest acutance and to avoid mush, as well as to get the unique "edge effect". Grain is easily controlled, while maintaining grain sharpness, using Vuescan.

First of all, I'm not fond of using Rodinal with fast films-- I generally limit its use to 125 speed films or slower. Nor am I fond of true "stand" development since there is indeed a risk of some unevenness due to convectional currents and the construction of the film holder creating turbulence near the edges of the film which affects development even if that risk is small.

 

I prefer a semi-stand method where agitations are relatively short but well spaced-- upwards to 5 minutes apart but no more than that. You can control the developer's action on the film by varying dilution and agitation schedules, keeping in mind that developer exhaustion is enhanced by higher dilutions and less agitation. This exhaustion affects the most exposed areas first, so mid to high dilution (1:100 or 1:200) and a bit more agitation will better favor the midtones over the highlights while still greatly benefiting the shadows.

 

Pre-soaking does tend to improve evenness of development during the first few minutes, and this may be more important for stand developing.

RH, why are you "not fond" of Rodinal with fast films? Grain?

 

As we know, Rodinal defines grain rather than dissolving it. If a person is grain-averse he probably should use a developer with sodium sulfite to dissolve it. Do I misunderstand your point?

 

...that there may be "small risk" from reel turbulence doesn't mean one actually sees that in practice. However, plastic reels are famous for uneven development, Vs stainless, specifically because of they way they're built. Use of Patterson et al would inherently increase risk.

Let me chime in and agree with John Kelly that Neopan 400 (ei 250)in Rodinal 1:50 is one of my favorites. Good in 35mm, great at 6x6.

 

Sorry I can't help with stand development.

Wow, lots of different methods to think over! Thanks guys and gals!

 

It would seem that a lot of people are thinking that 2hrs is a bit much. I based my method on Lex's method. Seems like I have a lot more experimentation to do.

 

Measuring the Rodinal is easy. I use 120 size SS tanks for developing so I need a larger amount of Rodinal, about 2.5ml. I use one of those really long glass pipettes. Its a 1 ml job and graduated.

 

I don't mind grain as I think it adds to the perceived sharpness and character of and image so Rodinal is one of my favourites. I sometimes find 120 film developed with a normal developer like D76 a bit too smooth and lifeless. Even for portraits. I agree that standard development of Neopan 400 with Rodinal is great! I just wanted to see if there was any improvement with stand development.

question to those who dilute 1+200: what is your minimum quantity of Rodinal solution to ensure full developement? 10ml, 5ml? 10ml after dilution leads to a tank capacity of 2liters, right?

In my Sunday test I intended 1.25ml of R-09 with 250ml of water (one roll in smallest Kinderman tank).

 

Unfortunately my 100ml graduated cylinder doesn't show partial ml so I had to make a sloppy visual estimate....somewhere between 1.5ml and 1.0ml. Could have been 1.33 :-)

 

2.25ml would have been 1:100 and development time would have been the same...but tonality might have been different. Don't know.

 

I need a 1ml graduated pipette!

 

Yes, 10ml of Rodinal in 2000ml of water is 1:200.

""Left for 2 hours"; if you mean that you agitate only once, then here's the problem: You should agitate every minute."

 

Heck no! Not for stand-development!

I get fully developed results (with some overdevloped areas) with 2.5ml of Rodinal in 500ml of water for 120 film. I do 135 film in the same amount of developer but I think Lex gets away with 1.25ml in 250ml of water for 135 film (36exp)... Either way, an extra 250ml of water and 1.25ml of Rodinal is not going to break the bank so I'd go for the safer option.

Chuk, I don't know what "Lex" is, but you're making a reasonable utilitarian (seat-of-pants, non scientific) decision.

 

That you believe you're seeing "overdeveloped areas" is unsupportable, as none of us can measure locally undeveloped areas: your observation or your exposure or your 2 hours are the problem. But this is photography...in the end "whatever works."

There's some good information here:

 

Stand development with rodinal

There's some good information here:

 

Stand development with rodinal

 

Thanks for sharing this link. It was a good read and I guess I finally understand what stand development is.

 

I fail, however, to understand its advantages with respect to traditional Rodinal/R09 development. The blogger in the link above states:

The theory is that the developer exhausts itself in areas which require greater development, while remaining active in less-exposed areas. In other words, the highlights don’t burn out whilst the shadows develop a bit more detail.

 

Which sounds good, but is not IMHO supported by the scans of the negatives they post on the page. In all of these shots the processing looks off to me, with burnt or close to burnt highlights and chalky featureless shadows. I am able to get much cleaner highlights and better shadow detail using traditional 10 mins R09 processing with Fomapan 100/200 in 120 format.

 

The cost-saving benefits seem like a moot point also. I use Fomadon R09 at 1:50 dilution in 600ml solution. So I need about 11.8ml of R09 per 120 roll. A 250ml bottle of R09 costs 5.45 Euro from Macodirect. I've just finished my first bottle of the product, having developed 21 rolls, with a cost per roll of 25 Euro cents.

 

What am I missing?

Edited July 15, 2019 by pablo_escobar

I have been using Diafine for close to 50 years (not continuously, though).

 

Diafine is called a compensating developer, as it tends to develop shadows longer than highlights.

With many films, this allows for an increased EI. 50 years ago, I use a lot of Tri-X at 1600,

and Panatomic-X at 250.

 

Stand development also has the same goal. Whether it works in any individual case, I don't know.

 

And, of course, you don't know how the ones you mention would have come out with

different development.