Newbie question about Rodinal

I have always thougth that more diluted Rodinal gave more acutance

and more grain to the film, but recently I've readed some persons

telling the opposed.

 

What's really the effect of diluting Rodinal at 1+25, 1+50 or even

1+100 in a film? Has the same effect in all films (ASA 100/400, "old"

grain and T grain,...)

 

And finally, a question for people who use Rodinal: what dilution

sugest me for TriX and/or HP5?

 

Thanks all for this marvellous forum (this is my first post)

Ricardo

There is no concensus about the effects on dilution of Rodinal. Further, comparisons between 35mm and 120 film processing are invalid in my opinion because 120 processing uses twice the amount of solution per square inch of film in comparison to 35mm processing in a tank.

 

One school of thought suggests that since Rodinal is a highly alkaline developer (more so than most others), and high alkalinity is known to cause grain clumping, then diluting it would result in less grain. But with higher dilutions, the developement time is longer, which "may" cancel out any grain advantage of diluting.

 

Rodinal works best with slow and medium speed films, unless one is specifically looking for grain.

Rodinal in more concentrated dilutions (1:25) tends to cause grains to clump together, making them appear larger. Greater dilution (1:100) yields much finer �salt and pepper� grain which can be quite lovely.

 

Do not confuse this with �fine grain� which is a photographic euphemism for mushy grain caused by a mushy developer like Microdol which makes the grain harder to see and thus appear finer.

 

Rodinal produces hard, sharp crystalline grain particles which are easier to see and thus may be interpreted as a more grainy appearance. It�s largely a matter of personal taste.

 

If you dramatically reduce the agitation (still development) the silver will tend to gather at the edge of your subjects, the way sand gathers around a stick pushed into the beach at the water�s edge, causing great apparent sharpness. It�s like drawing a black holding line around objects in your shot.

 

Agfa recommends using a minimum of 10ml of Rodinal per roll of film. A 1:100 dilution, therefore, will require one reel of 35mm with three empty reels as spacers in a stainless tank with 1000ml of distilled water and 10ml of syrup.

 

Many workers who are unaware of this rule will develop four rolls in this setup. Most times it will work (depending upon the emulsion thickness) but will require much longer development time. Therefore, times recommended by users can vary widely.

 

You really need to run exposure/development tests for your equipment and your way of reading light and your agitation methods, etc. But a safe place to start is around ten minutes or less for strong concentrations and twenty minutes or less for 1:100.

 

Also look into Calbe R09 which is the original Rodinal formula which has not been changed (cheapened?) Since before WWII. It�s available from JandC Photo online in the US and Canada. Many photographers claim it is superior to Rodinal.

>There is no concensus about the effects on dilution of Rodinal\

 

Mark is right. When I used Rodinal, back in the 70's, I always preferred 1:50 for everything. The only exception was Agfa 25 (then know as IFF), which I developed 1:100 for extra acutance and forgot about the grain.

According to Anchell and Troop in "The Film Developing Cookbook," the changes made by Agfa to Rodinal from the original formula are not photographicaly significant.

You'll get a lot of sophistry and hot air on this subject, I'm afraid. There seems to be something of a cult around the use of this developer, with the adherents mightily spinning the supposed magical qualities of this elixir.

 

I have very limited experience with Rodinal, but after developing some high-speed film (Ilford HP5) in it, at 1:50 dilution, I can say that the results are much too grainy for my liking. This is for 35mm; to be fair, I plan on testing it with larger formats (6x9 and 9x12), and with slower film. But with this much grain, I say acutance be damned! (It's so grainy that it might actually be good for someone seeking a sort of "impressionistic" effect in their prints.)

 

You ought to go ahead and try it yourself, at various dilutions, to see what it does. I'm discovering that many things photographic are much more art than science, and that your own empirical tests are a better guide than any formulae handed down from on high. (Of course, it doesn't hurt to get advice from someone who's been down the path before.)

I'm not sure that any given statement about Rodinal applies to all films, thus the different experiences. Everybody has their hand on a different part of the elephant. I agree that Rodinal produces a sharp crystalline grain pattern. It sometimes produces an etched look that can be useful. Beyond that, you just have to use it for a while to decide if the look is for you. In my tests with FP4+ it didn't produce superior acutance to D-76 1:1, in spite of many claims. In more casual tests I've never seen a dramatic difference between the various dilutions. One thing to watch out for in any developer shootout is to develop to the same contrast. It's not easy, but if the negs aren't developed to the same contrast, the results will be meaningless. BTW, it's one of the better developers for TMX.

<i>BTW, it's one of the better developers for TMX.</i><br>

<br>

I'm curious; in what way is it one of the better developers? Any specific qualities you've noticed?<br>

Fifteen years ago I flew from Boston (USA) to London (UK) for a month of street photography. Logistics dictated 35mm Tri-X, which was grainy and of poor commercial quality relative to the sheet film I normally used in the studio. A motorized SLR is really a blast to use, but that tiny little piece of film is just �the pits� to work with.

 

I decided that since I was not able to eliminate the graininess, I might as well celebrate it!

 

The results, 20x24 display prints from 35mm Tri-X developed in Rodinal 1:100, are really quite smart. The super-fine, tack-sharp grain is almost a special effect and definitely looks intentional.

 

One day when time permits I should like to take a crack at 35mm Ilford Delta 3200 with the same technique.

There's one thing you absolutely must remember when you read photo.net: You can't account for taste. One man's "grainy, virtually unusable" is another man's (or woman's) "high acutance, excellent tonality". I use Rodinal 1:50 on Tri-X and HP5+, 35mm. Yes, it is more grainy than, say, D-76, but the tonality makes up for it. 5x7 is the perfect enlargement size for this combination for me, although 8x10 is not out of the question. Grain is visible, but grain is beautiful. If you really HATE grain, use Ilford XP2 pulled to 200.

I agree with Evan.

 

Rodinal is not a "general purpose" developer,however I use it for everything with the exception of portraits that require big enlargements. The tones and grain is quite nice. If you don't like grain Rodinal is not a good choice, but if you what very sharp negs Rodianl is perfect. I use Trix and print mostly full framed 8x10's. Grain is evident but not at all distracting.

OK, I've just got to needle this topic a little bit more. That's the second time just in this thread I've read about how Rodinal yields "good tones". I'm sorry, but this smells of folkore to me. Does this mean that other developers <i>don't</i> produce "good tones"? Does Rodinal (or fill in the blank with <i>your</i> favorite developer) do something special with the contrast scale that other developers don't? Do other developers not render a part of the scene, say a 20% gray area, as a 20% gray (approximately) patch on the negative?<br>

<br>

I could see how you could very well get "bad tones", like if you used ortho film. I'm very skeptical of this claim. Please explain "good tones".

Well, it can be difficult to support statements about a particular pet developer, film, whatever, without examples. Here's one...

 

Tri-X in Rodinal/Xtol blend. The sky is almost grainless, partly due to the Xtol component, partly due to a very dilute solution of Rodinal and stand processing. The tonality is fairly typical Rodinal, tho'.<div></div>

Well, Lex, I'm sure you thought you were being helpful there, but then you say<br>

<br>

<i>The tonality is fairly typical Rodinal, tho'.</i><br>

<br>

Please, no more of this mumo-jumbo, man! What does that mean, "the tonality is typical Rodinal"? I mean, does the gray of the sky look more ... I don't know, <i>gray</i>? Purple? Loud? Sensual? If you stare at it long enough, do your eyes revolve in circles and psychedelic patterns start emerging from the "tonality"? Please explain ...<br>

<br>

By the way, yes, it's a nice picture: probably the nicest picture of a prefab steel building I've seen in a while.

I've used Rodinal for twenty years. It is at it's best with slower films but I do use it with some fast films, e.g. HP5 (although rated at 160 ASA, 1:50, 20 C, 9 minutes - for a condenser head). Rodinal, particularly at higher dilutions and reduced agitation has a marked compensating effect. Thus I know what Lex means when he refers to the 'Rodinal tonality'. Highlights can be very finely graded (particularly noticeable with TMX) but mid-tones are compressed. Rodinal and Tri-X (at 400 ASA, 1:50, 20 C, 13 minutes) is a notable combination and Fuji Neopan responds well to Rodinal - Neopan 1600 rated at 800 ASA in Rodinal gives sumptuous tones. Generally I use Rodinal at 1:50 dilution to give longer and thus more controllable dev times. It also allows the possibility of reducing agitation to achieve a greater compensating effect, which I find particularly useful with Kodak HIE infra-red film.

Sorry, grammatical error! - "It's at its best ...".

 

To really see what 'tonality' means you'd have to shoot the same subject under the same light then develop to the same density range, print to the same density range and then examine the prints closely. Or run grey scales and charactristic curves.

David, I feel your pain. I've no idea what tonality is, though I wish my prints had more of it :-) IMHO, it might have more to do with the scene than the developer. Scenes that have lots of defined gray levels seem to produce prints with tonality.

 

 

I've never liked the look of TMX. Even though it has great resolution, it doesn't come across as visually sharp. Processed in Rodinal, it appears sharper, though the grain is excessive for a slow t-grain film. It's easy to block up the highlights with TMX, and cutting development, say with Xtol, limits Dmax to a very low value. It appears to work at first, but leaves no exposure latitude. Rodinal gave me negs that had a reasonable density range, decent highlights, and were easy to print.

LOL! David, ya got me. I've now officially been doing this too damned long. I can no longer figure out how to express something other than in terms of itself. I've become the dreaded "expert," which I define as someone who's forgotten what it was like not to know something, or everything.

 

Time to retire. I'll just nip off and shoot myself now...

Lex, Lex--make sure that's a <i>camera</i> you shoot yourself with!

<p>Really, though, you of all people must see what I'm driving at. After all, I remember seeing your statement, "Death to the CW!" (conventional wisdom) somewhere else hereabouts.

<p>A recent previous poster got it just right, I think: my assignment, should I choose to accept it, would be to shoot the same scene with many different films, and develop them in many different soups (and many different dilutions: <i>aaaaargh!</i>), then try to print them under similar conditions and observe the results. Then (and only then) will "tonality" speak for itself.

<p>Damn; I just hope I can hear it when it does.

<p>Fortunately, I've got just the scene to do it: a beautiful (to me) industrial building just 2 blocks from where I sit and type.

If you would like to see how grainy Rodinal can take a HP5+, take a look at: <a href = "http://www.photo.net/photo/1656921">grains</a>.

These grains made me change developer to D76 and ID-11.

Tonality, tonality... an elusive term certainly, but it does exist, and different developers do lend different tonalities (sp?) to the same film.

 

I believe that this is caused by the fact that developers tend to alter the characteristic curves of films, so that the contrast in the highlights, midtones or shadows of a certain developer on one film is completely different than the contrast of a different developer on that same film. In my experience, dilute/slow working developers tend to give better tonality, that is, they are able to more accurately reproduce the nearly infinite amount of tones that were present in the real-world scene. Rodinal definitley fits this bill more than, say, HC-110 in my experience, where it takes 6 minutes to spit out Tri-X negs that are very "soot and chalk".

Slightly OT since I've not used Rodinal latelly (for some 15yrs...).

 

I do not care very much to 'tones' (or do I?) but I care very much for accutance, snap, life, you name it. And there cannot be obvious grain in 35mm.

 

I'm only able to achieve this result with highly active, higly dilluted developers. As an example, HC-110 1+63 is almost righ - if you add 1g/L of carbonate to it at development time.

 

So, Rodinal 1+100 or alike may fall exactly in this definition.

Tonality

 

What we must remeber is that characteristic curves are only a

crude tool for trying to undestand what a film + developer

do. In particular it looks at how large areas of uniform exposure

look. In the real world the viewers impression of an image is based

on much more than how evenly spaced the greys are. We perceive

micro details. So things like accutance, micro contrast, grain etc.

all come into play. So we can take two developers with characteristic curves so similar they should be indistinguishable, yet we will see

a difference in prints made from two "identical" negatives developed

in these two developers. Tonality is the term we use to try to

explain this effect.

 

Years ago I went away from Rodinal, in search of lower grain etc.

My images were good but they still lacked something. When I tried

Rodinal again I was very pleased with the look of my images. Others

I showed them to ALL commented that they looked "better" or "nicer"

or "richer" than the previous batch of photos.

David

 

I guess tonality could be a general term everyone uses to describe the way a negative looks. I can't define it in words and to be honest images on the computer screen don't do justice to a final print so posting an example is useless. I like the way rodinal and Tri-X looks. My negs are very sharp and hold detail in the most delicate highlights and midtones. I have been unable to reproduce this with other developers. I'll admit I have not tried many others but those that I have tried just don't seem pleasing to my eye. Perhaps its my technique but whatever I'm doing I seem to be doing it best with Rodinal.

When I was young and witty and could remember what I did a few minutes ago, I would take my Richoflex and a roll of b&w and try to be as creative in expression as one could with varient rays of light and assorted slivers of shadows. Now that I have aged with a slippery memory, I try to remember what it was that I did back then, seeing that all has been lost from time and neglect and faded like an old photograph. Then I ask myself "who the heck cares?" But there is one photograph that I distentively remember of a scene of a babbling brook and how pristine and clear it appeared, or could it be my mind is playing tricks on me? I do remember that I used D-76 to process it with. Maybe that is why now I fail to get the look I want. I haven't tried D-76. What about it?