Classic200 in Rodinal and W2D2+ an observation

Discussion in 'Black and White' started by tim o'brien, Sep 19, 2003.

  1. A while ago I asked about development times for Classic200 in W2D2+.
    The best answer given was to ask John Wimberley himself. So I did.
    Others asked that I keep them informed as to what I found out.

    He had no experience with that film but recommended 10 - 11 minutes
    development. From these early experiments, it appears to me that that
    might be about a minute too long for this emulsion.

    I took my Zeiss Ikon Trona out with a boatload of 3 1/4 x 4 1/4
    filmpacks loaded with Classic200. Shooting both sides consecutively
    with the same exposure, I came up with 3 pairs of negatives. Taking
    one of each pair and putting them in my homemade tubes in a Patterson
    System one tank, I developed them according to instructions (10
    minutes) for the W2D2+ developer. I then took the other half of the
    pairs and developed them in Rodinal 1+50 for 12 minutes, which I know
    gives me a very nice negative.

    I have proofed both negatives of each pair, under glass, with a #2
    filter, side by side, on the same sheet of paper, Ilford who knows
    what multicontrast RC. Developed in the zonal developer that Lex uses
    and finished processing and airdried.

    An absolute black on the Rodinal negative (zone 2 1/2 or so to my
    eye) is about a zone 4 to zone 4 1/2 on the W2D2+ negative. There is
    still some absolute black in the W2D2+ negative so this indicates to
    me that that there is a fair amount of shadow compression going on in
    the Rodinal processed negative. I hadn't expected an expansion of
    tonal scale on this end of a pyro negative, and frankly I am pleased.
    The highlight scale look very similar on both sets of negatives with
    the Rodinal negatives having perhaps just a bit more sparkle in the
    zone 7-8 range.

    I have no densitometer so I can't give you truly scientific readings
    for my observations. I would be interested if someone sees something
    wrong in my method for comparison and test. I can tell you I am
    pleased with both sets of negatives and look forward to printing both
    to 8x10 or 11x14 as the sharpness of both developers complements the
    sharpness of the 70 year old Zeiss Ikon lens.


    tim in san jose
     
  2. I'm not sure than anyone lacking a densitometer could make any better or more valid observations.

    You guys and your pyro variation developers are driving me nuts. Here I am, trying to pare down the developers I'm using and you're all tempting me to *add* yet another!

    BTW, Tim, is there enough difference between prints from the two trials to show in a scan that you could attach either here or to your photo.net folders? I'm guessing that the best way to ensure a valid comparison is to lay the prints side by side on the scanner and treat 'em as one image, I dunno. Seems that would minimize any chance of software making automatic decisions that would influence the end results.
     
  3. Lex,
    I'll try. I am the victim of a crappy scanner so I am not sure the differences will show up to start. When I do, I will scan them together as that's part of the comparison process. Come back Monday. I am off for the weekend and I don't have ISP access at the house (for sanity sake).

    tim in san jose
     
  4. Lex,
    I have added the requested scans. Click on my name. I hate my scanner. Those contact sheets are "SHARP". Oh well, you can see the tonal variations I have mentioned.

    tim in san jose
     
  5. Thanks, Tim. I've left a comment (not a critique) on the photo page.

    The difference is remarkable. I really hadn't expected to see such a major difference but the results are undeniable even in a low-rez scan.

    You pyro guys are really getting on my nerves, making me curious to try the stuff. ;>

    Now, then, what will I have to quit using so I can justify yet another developer...?
     
  6. I wouldn't classify myself as a Pyro guy (yet). I have used about half of my W2D2+ and am very pleased with the results. Some films seem to stain easily, some don't. I have not printed enough of this stuff to get a feel for total tonal quality of my negatives.

    The results of my testing so far is cutting D76 1:1 out of my processing scheme. This is quite a change as I went through photo school developing in nothing but.

    So... for developers, I have Rodinal 1+50 for slow speed stuff (PanF, Efke50/100 and Agfa APX100) and W2D2+ for Classic 200, Tri-X and Neopan400.

    I know you are an experimentor so I'll share some of my ideas for the next couple weeks with you.

    I have a roll of Efke25 120 I will develop it in W2D2+.

    I am going to try the PanF in the same stuff and do a comparison with the Rodinal 1+250 in stand development.

    I want to take my development times for the PanF stand from 2 hours down to 90 minutes.

    And last but not least... I have 4800 feet of 46mm Kodalith. I am going to see what happens when you expose for the E.I. of 12 and develop in regular Rodinal (probably 1+25 to start) and W2D2+ as well as Dektol 1:6. I am starting to think of how to build a camera for the 46mm stuff. I don't want to reroll 4800 feet of kodalith onto 127 rolls. It can be done but what a PITA.

    tim in san jose
     

Share This Page