Max Compression: Rodinal Stand or PMK

Hi,

 

I managed to get somewhere I shouldn't recently and shoot a roll of Acros

(35mm) with only the last 4 frames on the roll duped for testing purposes!

 

The shoot was in an dim, abandoned building with direct sunlight breaking

through the roof and various holes.

 

I rated Acros at 1-and-a-third stops down from nominal at 40 and metered and

shot for shade (which was typically f8 @ 2sec). The sunlit walls however

metered 7 stops higher with their incident reading (f8 @ 1/60). I do want to

have detail in these highlights because they were not just speculars but

covered about 10% of the frame. I want to retain as much shadow detail as

possible because they were most of the frame.

 

I have used dilute stand dev with Rodinal in the past but have seen no great

compression in tones in my opinion. PMK however, I have had good compression

but the thing that bothers me greatly is that Acros seems very sensitive to

agitation and PMK needs almost continuous agitation. With this being shot on

35mm I suspect the sprocket holes will lead to agitation marks if I go the PMK

route with Acros?

 

With just 4 test frames to play with what do you think promises most range

compression? I realise I'll probably need to flash my paper etc whatever film

developing method is optimal.

Suppose I should add the sunlit areas were of light coloured objects too (light yellow painted walls) whilst the shadow areas contained dull items (old dark wookwork). So reflected meter readings would reveal a dynamic range much in excesss of 7 stops.

IF you have tried dilute Rodinal with very minimal agitation and not found sufficient compression then that probably counts that out. I have a very little bit of experience using TMax400 (35mm) for the interior of a church with lots of deep shadows and a very bright rose window. Not exactly the same sort of situation as you have, but one in which PMK gave pretty satisfactory results.

 

There are lots of opinions about PMK and how to make it work. I didn't use minimal agitation (which I would call two or three agitations in the whole dev time except for the initial agitation which I think must be pretty thorough). But I agitate far less that is generally recommended for PMK. I use a single reel Jobo tank which requires 250mL to cover the reel. I use a bit more (maybe 280mL- I've never measured) so that there's not much air in it. There has to be some, else agitation will not move the developer around, but just a little bit. I think that this minimises oxidation which seems to be the culprit as far as streaking is concerned. My agitation is just gentle inversions to move the developer around a bit. Maybe two turns every 2 minutes. This was at 20degC.

 

Of course, if the negatives are valuable to you, a test would be in order.

PMK can be done in a closed tank. Invert and twist 2 times every 15 sec. You can also use an open tank and lift rod. Rotate 1/2 turn and lift the height of the reel at the same time. Rotate the rod opposite way while lowering back down. Use double quantity so the film stays in solution. Neither method leaves marks. Sprocket hole streaking is from not enough agitation, not too much. I have done hundreds of rolls of PMK that both ways.

 

 

The times will be faster in the closed tank by 30 % as the developer does not oxidise as you develope the film.

 

Get another roll and shoot some inside pics showing an open window in an attempt to duplicate the good roll. Practice. Then do the 4 dup frames and print them before you do the good shots.

I've never used Rodinal, but PMK will keep shadow detail and highlite detail and also make the middle gray gradations much smoother because of it's "auto masking" feature when you do the second development with the used developer. The agitation needs to be that 15 second invert twist and turn type because PMK Pyro is a pretty week developer. Also, becuase of that, the recommended amount of developer is 500 ml per 80 square inches of film. And yes, I agree with the above poster that sprocket hole marks are due to not enough agitation.

 

Is Acros a silver rich film or the t-grain film? I will say that I think PMK Pyro works MUCH better with silver rich films like Tri-X, Neopan 400/1600, HP5+, etc rather than T-Max or the ilford Deltas.

 

There is also the "water bath" method. Develop a little, then put the film thru a water bath, then back in the developer, then water...............but this takes much refining to get things where you want it.........so I dont think at this point it would do you much good. I've done it with HC-110 on a limitted basis, but when I found PMK Pyro, well, that ended that.......heh.

Hi Brian.

 

If PMK or Rodinal are your only options, I'd go with PMK and print on VC paper. My first choice would be 510-Pyro 1:500 with semi-stand development. Acros responds very well to staining developers, in my experience. Good luck.

 

Jay

I would also go with a staining developer. In my experience, Rodinal has limited ability to control high contrast scenes even when highly diluted and used with reduced agitation. Staining developers do a much better job and seem to retain better tonality when used to compress contrast. I would also use reduced agitation with such a scene but as you already know, PMK isn't designed for this. This is one reason why I use Pyrocat-HD although Jay reports that his 510-Pyro is every bit as good. Probably not the best time to try a new developer, but perhaps its something to consider in the future.

Thanks for all your replies some of which confirmed what I'd said about dil Rodinal stand dev not compressing tones to any real extent. I thought I was out on my own with that.

 

So staining it is. I must say the last few posts reminded me of a developer I have got: It is a staining AND stand developer. It seemed to work well on all the test rolls I used but by some magic (!) when I was finally sure I could trust it, it knew which were my 'good' rolls and totally messed them up and I have no idea why (expt for one idea that is so remote - that being I had to open a new container of purified water to mix the soup for my 'good' film...I don't want to sound paranoid but whats the chances I opened a contaminated container of purified water eh? No I don't want to think about it because I *will* get paranoid). I rode over 100miles in the frost and ice to photograph some leaves up a tree too...all that for the film to be ruined. So of course I have never touched that developer since.

Pyrocat HD will deal with this contrast fairly easily even with acros. Very resistant to steaking with minimal agitiation too. I'd try this over PMK.

Ok Brian, here is all the info on Fuji Neopan 100 Acros in Rodinal 1:50

 

Shadowless lighting (1:1): ASA/ISO 200 68F 13.5min, 70F 12min, 72F 11min, 75F 10 min

 

Flat lighting (1:2 - 1:4) ASA/ISO 160 68F 10.5min, 70F 9.5min, 72F 9min, 75F 7.5min

 

NORMAL (1:6 - 1:8) ASA/ISO 100 68F 8.5min, 70F 8min, 72F 7min, 75F 6.5min

 

Contrasty lighting (1:16) ASA/ISO 64 68F 7.5min, 70F 6.5, 72F 6min, 75F 5min

 

Very Contrasty lighting (1:32 etc) ASA/ISO 50 68F 6min, 70F 5.5min, 72F 5min, 75F 4.5min

 

My web friend, Keith Tapscott in another thread stated that Rodinal is a very grainy developer, and he is correct. The reason for using Rodinal is to give maximum sharpness in fine grained films. Use it in TX and you'll see so much grain that it is virtually unusable. Although 35 years ago, I would occasionally use TX and Rodinal 1:100 or 1:150 with developing times of an hour or more. It was grainy but sharp.

 

Lynn

Thanks for the time Lynn, for some reason i wasn't notified of this reply and happened back here by accident.

 

I'm working on why my two bath stainer didn't work so I can definately exclude it (or not).

 

I do like rodinal and Across though those are a std combo I use for 'normal' lighting situations.

"The reason for using Rodinal is to give maximum sharpness in fine grained films. Use it in TX and you'll see so much grain that it is virtually unusable."

 

Depends who you ask. Ralph Gibson uses TX in Rodinal. He overdevelops and overexposes it as well. He doesn't care for shadow detail, either.