Rodinal vs d76

I bought a few rolls of ilford pan f plus 50 and i was wondering what

developer is better for this film? d76 is what i use for most things,

but i heard that rodinal is better for slow films as it brings out

more sharpness but since ist a slow film, no grain. is this right? so

what dev should i use also what is the dev time for rodinal 1-50. i am

asking you because in dightal truth is says 7 min for tri-x and tmax

100. i use 10 min in stock. thanks!

Marko Kovacevic

I like Pan F+ in Rodinal 1:100 for around 15 minutes for a base time.

 

- Randy

What character istics does the film have in thers exposures?

<p><a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/3615832>Shooting the natives</a>

 

<p>pan F+, rodinal 1:50, 20C, 10', two inversions every other minute, IIRC. Diffusion enlarger.

The similarities will be bigger than the differences, but there are a few.

<p>

Rodinal is supposedly sharper than D76, but other things dominate that.

<p>

Primarily, Rodinal has a different characteristic curve. D76 gives a relatively flat one, while

Rodinal seems to be steeper in the toe and shoulder and flatter in the middle. This means

that you get more detail in the highlights and shadows, but the midtones appear more

consistently grayish. As a consequence, Rodinal will produce an image that appears to be

sharper where there's good contrast between blacks and whites, but it'll look a bit softer

where it's contrast between light grays and dark medium grays.

<p>

Here are a couple of images taken on Pan F+, same roll of film, same scene, 1/10s at f/

8.0, mirror lockup, Canon 50mm/1.8 II lens. The first is developed in D76 1+1, the

second in Rodinal 1+50, times from Massive Dev Chart, standard agitation:

<p>

<center><b>D76 1+1<p><img src="http://www.plumgreen.com/devtest/

devtestd762.jpg">

<p>

Rodinal 1+50<p>

<img src="http://www.plumgreen.com/devtest/devtestrod2.jpg"></b></center>

<p>

(I can also provide you with high-res scans.) Again, my opinion is that they're largely the

same -- the Rodinal does a bit better in the highlights (the skyline) and shadows (the

blinds), and overall, it looks a bit grayer.

I only ise developers that contain NO sodium sulphite. Podinal does not and D76 does. The effect of sodium sulfite is to etch silver and create finer grain. The down side is that the silver migrates to the highlights and is plated with the end results masking information in these areas. Rodinal is a much more compensating developer which means the highlights and shadows are much more open. My choices are Ilford HC and Rodinal.

 

 

http://www.photo.net/photos/X-Ray

I'd stick with what you know - D-76. PanF+ is quite a contrasty film by nature, and Rodinal will only exaggerate its contrast.

 

Plus, the supply situation with Rodinal is also a bit "iffy" since Agfa pulled out of the business. Why start using a developer that's in the throes of a change of ownership? Let the dust settle and the inevitable teething troubles settle down first.

d76 is what i use for most things... Marko.

 

as opposed to Rodinal, which was your faorite last month.... So, now you want to try PanF... or is it Efke? But I thought Tri-X was your favorite?

 

And all this before you turn 14 years old....

Pete, i like contrast so i will probably use rodinal for it. kl ix, i am curently usuing d76 for tmax 100, tri-x, ilford delta 3200. i am usuing rodinal for slow films. i am using ilford multicontrast dev for papers ilfostop, and afga age fix. about rodinal. i have the original bottle that says...Agfa- oringinal agfa sign, rodinal

B&W Film developer. i got it as a part of the agfa B%W hobby kit, which came with everything. what do you think of that?

Marko Kovacevic

Contrary to popular belief, Rodinal does contain sulfite. It is used as a preservative and in a small quantity but it is there. If you want a developer without sulfite them use Patrick Gainer's fine PC-TEA. It also costs less than Rodinal and lasts a very long time.

I've bought Rodinal in the last few weeks so it seems that production is up and running again. Pan F is a very fine grained film so it will perform well in Rodinal. Ollie Steiner, who used to post in these BBs was a Pan F/Rodinal man and produced some excellent work with that combination.

Not to hijack the thread here, but I'd like to thank Stephen Lich for posting that

pair of pictures. I've been working with both D-76 and Rodinal, but I currently

seem to be developing more than I'm printing. Seeing the differences really

helps.

I've been experimenting with three different compensating formulas: divided D-76,

Rodinal, and Diafine. I'm testing Acros, FP4. Neopan 400, Neopan 1600, Tri-X, and HP5+.

 

So far Acros in Rodinal 1:50 just knocks me out. Look at the facial tones and how much

the shadow side seems illuminated. FP4 couldn't come near this for grain, definition, or

scale.<div></div>

"KL IX , may 09, 2006; 12:52 p.m.

d76 is what i use for most things... Marko.

as opposed to Rodinal, which was your faorite last month.... So, now you want to try PanF... or is it Efke? But I thought Tri-X was your favorite?

 

And all this before you turn 14 years old...."

 

 

KL IX, I know what you mean, it does become frustrating trying to advise/help someone, when their ideas keep changing. Had a client like that once, she never understood.

Concerning the comment about sodium sulfite (a D-76 ingredient) reducing the grain and plating the highlights, that is only true when D-76 is used full strength. The sodium sulfite is then at a strength of 100 grams/liter. When D-76 is uses at 1:1, then the sulfite is only at 50 grams per liter, and its effect on the image is greatly reduced. Sharpness also improves at this dilution. When used at 1:3, the sulfite is now at 25 grams per liter, and is doing nothing at all. In fact, at 1:3, D-76 actually qualifies as an acutance developer.

 

Marko, try the Rodinal, or else you will never know what it can do for you. But don't throw out your D-76! Try it on a couple of rolls of Pan-F, to compare with the Rodinal.

 

At ISO 50, Anchell & Troop give 11 minutes at 68 degrees for Pan F in Rodinal 1:50.

Marko,

 

Given the amount of time between changes in what you use and calim to like, it really won't matter what you use. You haven't been using any of these developers or films long enough to get results that would indicate anything about them - but rather about the skill of the user.

Just use one thing and learn it well. I like Rodinal for most things - there are 10 answers here telling you ten different things, from helpful, through extremely subjective all the way to down right stupid - why don't you make some opinons of your own?

I do PanF+ in Rodinal 1+50 quite a bit - it works great. I used Rodinal with every other film I use, and liked the results (except with Delta 3200 - but I don't really like it no matter what its in). Also, there is no such thing as "no grain" - it may be smaller, or larger - but its there. Here is an idea: use a C41 B&W film - your firends will still think you're very artsy, and you will have a 400 speed film with next to no grain per se.

One more thing, I don't recall who said this, but if you are getting images that are "more grey" with Rodinal, then you should really look into it... its probably not the Rodinal.

I've seen two trends in the issue of noise (grain) to signal (whatever is not deemed noise).

One was exemplified in my mind with Microdol X and it's attempt to yield thin but long-

scale fine-grain negatives that would tend toward the look of larger format films*.

 

The other has to do with the public's growing acceptance of rougher, more immediate and

gritty visual information. The aesthetic of grain has to do with what you're after. Like the

filed-out 'verification border' in some people's neg. carriers, it can become a factor in how

the photographer wishes to present his content as well as shaping his audience's

expectations. I plan on adopting three B/W emulsion/developer combos and sticking with

those for a while. The only one in question is 400 speed in D-76 (divided). I like the edge

effects and excellent compensation of Rodinal, but it's too grainy at that speed.

 

 

*I imagine this might have had something to do with newspaper and magazine execs

feeling that 35mm entailed an unacceptable drop in quality as they defined it. They felt the

same way about MF, I'd bet.<div></div>

Jeff,

 

I also have used the Acros/Rodinal combination, rating the Acros at 50 ASA and devving in Rodinal 1:50, 20 C, 7 minutes. Love the results. For me, Across and TMX don't give of their best in solvent developers, but the acutance of Rodinal plus its control of highlights works well with these films.