Tetenal Paranol S developing times

<p>I started developing films recently and, so far, have used Tetenal Paranol S. I've read that Paranol S is based on the formula of Rodinal, and so employed developing times for Rodinal when no time for Paranol S was given.<br>

I've been producing some pretty grim results - flat, grey, murky - with Ilford HP5 film and, in an attempt to get to the root of the problem, checked developing times and found an apparent contradiction. Ilford recommends 6 minutes for Rodinal, and Tetenal 11 minutes for HP5.<br>

I use 1+25 dilution at 20 degrees.<br>

Is Paranol S fundamentally the same as Rodinal or not?<br>

Thank you<br>

Rex</p>

<p>Yes it is fundamentally the same as R09/Rodinal. In fact Tetenal is producing it for almost all different brands (Compard, Adox, etc.).</p>

<p>However with any high speed film R09/Rodinal/ Paranol S you will end with a lot of grain and speed loss.<br>

So for HP5+ expose on E.I. 200 - 250 and start with a standard dilution of 1+50. But it is better to use a slow- or medium speed film with Rodinal, especially in 35mm format.</p>

<p>Rex,</p>

<p>At some stage I'm planning to try out Paranol S myself so your post is interesting. It is said that Paranol S is exactly the same as the last formulation of Rodinal produced by Agfa. I haven't got an old Agfa Rodinal data sheet but I seem to remember that HP5 at 400 ASA needed 8 minutes at 1/25 dilution. Since you are getting flat negs at 6 minutes that sounds about right. What agitation do you give the tank? What enlarger are you using? Is it a condenser head or a diffuser head?</p>

<p>Robert, this is a most helpful response, thank you.<br>

Please excuse my ignorance here. When you say expose on EI 200-250, does this mean set the film speed on the camera to 200-250? Then, with a dilution of 1+50, how long would I develop for?<br>

In line with what you say, I certainly seem to be getting better results with an ISO 100 film.<br>

Rex</p>

<p>Chris<br>

I'm not able to print; I'm scanning negatives, so I guess this could also be a factor.<br>

As regards agitation, my routine is ten seconds in every minute.<br>

This morning I developed a roll of HP5 for 11 minutes, in line with Tetenal's recommendation. My first impression looking at the negatives is that they look markedly different to the ones I've been producing, with sharper definition, but I lack sufficient experience to be able to read negatives. I'll have to wait until I've scanned them later today.<br>

Rex</p>

Indeed set the iso on the camera on 250 (and expose on that). The whole developing time is depending on the

temperature hence the standard (20C table) and the agitation. More agitation means quickly a denser negative but with

Rodinal type developers means to many agitation less sharpness and worse: more grain. So the trick with Rodinal type

developers is to minimize the agitation. Because this developer gives enhanced grain in 35mm it is normally used for the

slow- and medium speed fims (iso 25-100).

In my Photonet gallery some of R09 and Fomapan 200 creative film in 35mm. Tack sharp, minimum agitation (and Leica

glass).

<p>Robert<br>

I'm interested in what you say about agitation; I'll certainly explore that avenue some more.<br>

I now realise that I've seen three different recommendations for developing times for HP5 in Rodinal/Paranol S at 20 degrees and 1+25: 6 minutes (Rodinal, on the box for HP5); 8 minutes (Agfa Rodinal process grid); and 11 minutes (Tetenal's website for Paranol S).<br>

6 minutes definitely doesn't work for me, producing the horrible soup I mentioned earlier. I developed a film for 11 minutes yesterday and was much happier with the results: sharper, more texture and sense of depth. The highlights were overblown for my taste, so I think 11 minutes is a bit too much.</p>

 

<p>Rex,<br>

<br />I dug out my darkroom tech file and found an old Rodinal data sheet. For HP5 Plus at rated speed and for a gamma of 0.65 it gives a time of 8 minutes at a dilution of 1+25 and 20 C. </p>

<p>Thanks for that, Chris.</p>

<p>This was shot with HP5 and developed in Paranol S for 11 minutes. I used a site lamp for illumination at it was shining directly onto the seat. I think that part is overblown. Maybe 11 minutes is a bit too long, I don't know. I like the texture in the paving. Maybe I'm one of those new to film photography who is being seduced by strong contrast. Time will tell, I suppose.</p><div></div>