TX @3200 w/Rodinal

[neil_swanson]

Someone asked for samples and the "are you a TX man?" was getting kind

of long so........

 

Over on another rangefinder forum some poster showed some shots with

TX at 3200 and developed in Rodinal. I shoot alot at 1600 and 3200

but use TMZ. BTW I've found I like those TMZ negs more in HC110 than

T-Max developer. Great scans and nice tight sharp grain.

 

I'd never consider Rodinal for pushing. Now I was of course was

looking at his JPGs on a screen but I thought I'd try it. Crazy long

times and very very little agitation is the trick.

 

 

The grain is typical Rodinal tight honest grain the film is born with,

no checmical "smudging" to make the film look smoother. I like grain.

Long ago I decided that if I shoot 35mm I have to accept grain. I'd

get in a wet darkroom and I'll get it in a dry one too.

 

These were both shot on TX at 3200, window light, handheld with an EOS

1n RS and an 85mm 1.8 at I think 125th @2.8. Scanned with a Minolta

5400 and barely touched in PS CS.

 

I don't know if the grain or look of the prints will come across on a

monitor but give it a try.<div></div>

[neil_swanson]

Here's another done the same way. Times are all for 68F, agitate first 5 secs, and then wait 5 minutes to do it again!!! Agitate every 5 minutes for 5 secs. ISO1600 20-22 mins., ISO3200 30-33 minutes, ISO6400 41 minutes, ISO 12,500 51 minutes. I haven't tried 6400 and 12500 and may never.<div></div>

[c_d5]

Wow...

[sprouty]

Thanks so much for posting these, I was the one who asked. And now that I see the results all I can say is double-wow. I'll be trying this over the weekend.

[fredus]

Could you provide a 100% crop of some part of the picture just so we could get a better view of the grain ?

 

Thanks ! These look terrific !

 

Fred

[neil_swanson]

Now just to mess with you this was shot on the same day with a friends Nikon D2h. You know that "only 4meg can't be any good" DSLR. I was curious to try it. I have no digtal camera at all yet I have 7 Nikon lenses and one body. I think it does pretty well but, Rodinal gives certain films a real "zing" that other developers don't, even RAW ones. Believe ot or not a 6x9 print from TX3200 and D2H @400 is so close it is silly. The D2H is very smooth and very sharp, the Rodinal print has that film/grain zing I like.

 

I made a 12x17 BW print on my 2200 with UT7 inks from MIS. It is a killer print. I took one to a local store that sells DSLRs etc and showed it to them along with the some shots from scanned film done the same way. I don't think they had ever seen good BW from a DSLR. Funny thing was I showed them a 12x17 from TMZ @3200 and they commented on the filter I must have used to make the digital shot look like film.

 

Anyway good thing I'm broke or I might just have one of them there DSLRs. I've tried Canons and Nikons and whether it is good or bad, for me anyway they can't match film for high ISOs. Grain is better than noise IMO. All that is for another forum though. I like film and I like rangefinders.<div></div>

[neil_swanson]

I hope I did this right. I took it up to 100% and cropped out a piece.<div></div>

[douglas k.]

Neil, what is your dilution with the Rodinal? Thanks in advance.

[notraces]

Neil -- are you using any sort of RIP on the 2200? Just curious -- I'm starting to print

more on my 2200 -- and would love to print b&w. I've heard some of the software RIPs

really help...

 

Nice images, too -- I'm going to have to try the LONG dev times with Rodinal -- Amazing

shot from the Nikon dslr, too...

[nathaniel_pearson]

Surprisingly nice results from such a heterodox combo!

[john_brewton]

Like your 3200 shot, Neil. I suppose my problem with 3200 is I am dependant on the lab for the developing. When I scan it with my 5400 I get tons of grain. I've even tried scanning at less resolution but still have the same problem. But I suppose you are showing us this to prove a point and you've made it. OTOH, you can get the same thing with TriX at 400, IMO.

[neil_swanson]

All the times I posted are for 1:50 dilution. For 16 0z tank I use 10cc of Rodinal and for a 32 0z tank I use 20cc of Rodinal. All at 68F.

 

For printing with the 2200 I do it 2 ways. Most of the time I use only the black ink, we call it the BO method. Do a search for Clayton Jones. His site can direct you with the few changes you need to make to your current printer settings.

 

The nice thing about BO prints is the printer is still a color printer also. BO prints are very very nice. There are no color shifts in the print under different viewing areas. They have a nice "film" look to them. You can get very clean whites, prints that pop.

 

I've also tried the UT7 ink set from MIS (www.ink-supplies.com). No RIP, no software changes. Just $78 bucks worth of ink. For this you remove all the color inks and install the UT7 inks. This is the least expensive way to make BW prints w/o color shifting, meteramism (sp).

 

With UT7 you can make cool, warm, neutral, carbon (platinum looking) and 3 shades of sepia.

 

What you do is download free curves from a link from the MIS site. You get the print already to go and then add the curve for the print tone you want. On screen it goes all crazy colors but those colors represent what you'd get if you had color ink in the printer. NEVER save a print with the curves, clear the curves before saving.

 

Print like normal but check the "No color management" box in the printer menu. Let the curves set the color.

 

It's really easy and as I said no $$$ RIP. I read alot about the QTR, (quad tone rip) on the yahoo digital BW printing forum. It seems those guys spend WAY too much time fiddling with settings and just generally having problems.

 

So far the UT7 has been just working. I'm printing a Barmitsvah (sp) now for a friend. I was goping to do BO but the carbon print tone matches their album better.

 

 

BO printing is really easy, cheap and there is no special inks that may clog or give you problems. And no software to buy.

[wh]

I reckon I'll give this a go too... anyone tried HP5 at 1600 in Rodinol, by the bye?

 

Anyhow: very very interesting stuff there, cheers for sharing!

 

Will.

[stuart_richardson]

Neil -- you have offered more useful information in this thread than I have read in the last

couple of months on this forum. Both the stuff about developing and on printing with the

Black only on the 2200. I will look up clayton jones, as I am interested in how to get better

black only prints (mine tend to have very little shadow detail). Thanks a lot for the

comments, and great photos. <P>Stuart

[notraces]

Neil -- great information -- thanks much. Jim Arnold (chime in Jim, if you're reading this)

-- has written much on the subject of Black Only printing -- take a look at <a href="http:

//www.jimarnold.org/1280/" target="_blank">Jim's site</a> -- there's a lot of great

information there -- I know Jim's very happy with his prints... Thanks again, Neil -- great

stuff.

[neil_swanson]

Shadow detail can be tough. You have one ink, black to cover all the bases so you've got to have good detail in those shadows in the first place. That was one reson I tried the UT7 ink set. It doesn't however use all 7 inks all the time for all tone options. It does use light black often, it only uses the yellow postion when printing sepia. Uses alot of the cyan position inks for warm and carbon. But it should and maybe actually does offer smoother transitions into shadow areas.

 

Shadow detail is dependent on exposure and not so much on film development. Shadows develope first and highlights later on in the process.

 

People expose film so many ways and meter so many ways too that one must be consistant in how they expose their film. I suggest to use one film and get to know it. Get to know why an exposure didn't give you what you needed.

 

When I tried that D2H for the first time in the store I stepped outside and set the camera w/o using the 1000+ point full color analitical (anal?) multi-matrix system. It was a bright blue sky sunny 16 day and the exposure was 1/500 at F8 at ISO 200. It just is/was. If I had used the in camera meter it would have been wrong for what I shot. Consider an incident meter instead of in camera reflective meters.

 

So if you aren't getting enough shadow detail you may need to expose more. DUH, didn't mean that that way. It may not mean you need to rate the film at a different speed but just aim the meter to a different area. Aim and meter for middle greys. If that doesn't get the detail you want then set a different ISO.

 

You should also ask yourself if shadow detail is a problem with "wet" or silver prints also. Maybe it isn't the BO printing or maybe it is the scanning.

 

Didn't mean to start a photo 101 class here. Hope I wasn't too basic.<div></div>

[neil_swanson]

I just read Jims' page. FWIW I haven't had any clogs or problems in over a year of 2200 BO prints with MIS Ebony ink. I did have early problems with some, not all of the UT7 ink cartridges. I bought others and they've been fine. The problesm weren't clogs, the printer just never thought they were full.

 

You can also make great BO prints with just plain old matt black Epson inks. The OE Epson Ultra-chrome inks are fool proof in case you get worried and you can buy it anywhere, Staples, CompUSA etc.

 

If you go to the www.Luminous-landscape.com site and go to Michael Johnstones pages way back in his archives is a 2 part interview with a BO printer. A good read.

[stuart_richardson]

Thanks Neil -- what I meant was there was very little shadow detail as compared to my

black and white RC/fiber prints. I think part of it is scanning, but in many images that have

shadow detail on the monitor wind up with much less in the BO printing. I have found that

my fiber printing blows away my digital black and white printing, but I have seen black and

white digital printing done extremely well by professionals...I am just trying to optimize it.

Is shadow detail better with the matte papers than with luster? I like ilford premium luster

for color printing and usually like pearl for black and white in the dark room, so I am not

all that keen on matte papers, though I have made some nice prints with them.

[neil_swanson]

I haven't done anything but matt prints. I haven't tried the other surfaces as I think that the matt papers have a longer life. The MIS Ebony is a very long life ink/dye or whatever it is and I don't thik it can be used on glossy paper at all, but maybe for luster or semi matt it would be OK.

 

Shadow detail I don't know but I think you can get a deeper black on glossy paper.

 

Maybe I should get one of those sample packs of papers other than matt. I'd just rather print than test.

[vuk_vuksanovic]

<i>"Scanned with a Minolta 5400 and barely touched in PS CS"</i>

<br><br>

this means you let the scanning software do a lot of work! what was it? seems to me it has removed most of your grain. the pictures look good, but they don't look like the tri-x i'm used too. some details regarding your post-processing would be appreciated (i typically start with RAW output from vuescan).

<br><br>

vuk.

[vuk_vuksanovic]

neil

<br><br>

i am still very perplexed by all this. your jpegs look very, very slick and i just don't see how pushing to 3200 and processing in rodinal can get you there. the 100% crop you've posted looks very odd--the "salt and pepper" effect looks like something i got back from a minilab scan ages ago. it's the sort of thing that happens when machines attempt to sharpen grain. here's the sort of 100% tri-x crop that i am used to (4000dpi):<br><br>

<center>

<img src="http://www3.sympatico.ca/qstatistic/new/BW014740-mayaCROP.jpg">

</center>

<br><br>

here's the complete (compressed) shot:<br>

<a href="http://www.avzine.com/vuk/maya05/maya2k5tri_x1.htm">http://www.avzine.com/vuk/maya05/maya2k5tri_x1.htm</a>

<br><br>

i hope this doesn't come off as confrontational. i am impressed by your jpegs and curious how you achieved the result. my downsizing/unsharpmasking for web display tends to accentuate grain. prints looks a lot smoother.

[neil_swanson]

I use a 5400, and save as TIFF files. I use Vuescan. There is some USM here as I cropped from the file that made a 6x9 print.

 

My USM settings were probably 100, .5, 1. That is a guess but close. I did a very slight bump in contrast also and that is about it.

 

Surprised by the way the grain looks for Rodinal and TX? So am I. And for 3200? Really surprised. Gotta be the stand developement. Think how little I agitated over half an hour development. Total of 7 times I agitated for 5 seconds. My usual D-76 1:1 looks more grainy than these. Try it!

[neil_swanson]

Oh and no sharpening or cleaning or any such stuff in Vuescan. And no multpass scanning either. This is one pass.

[vuk_vuksanovic]

neil.

<br><br> would it be too much to ask for you to scan/save in RAW mode and send me a file for playing around with? ;-)

<br><br>

i have a brand new bottle of rodinal in the cupboard and will be trying you experiment very soon.

[russell_brooks]

The problem with these scans is that the plane of focus of the negative is bowed during scantime unless it's in a glass carrier. It only takes a little bit of bow to create the mushy look that Vic(?)'s jpg shows above. Check it under a loupe and I'm sure the original neagtive is crisp.