TX @3200 w/Rodinal

[neil_swanson]

Vic, how do I send a really big file? Yahoo lets me send 20 or is it 10 meg files. I have to look.

 

Do you think the grain in mine looks to good? or sharp? Have you used rodinal before? It has nothing/zero/zip in it to alter the sizes and shape and edges of the silver as laid out by the maker of the film. Microdal softens grain alot, D-76 a little and HC-100 a little less. Dilute them all and they do it less. Rodinal grain is very very sharp grain. Many people don't like it.

 

I've used Rodinal on and off for decades. I've had regular old TX at 400 look grainier than this. Rodinal hasn't changed its formula, Kodak has. I now think that TX ought to be shot at @ISO800 for Rodinal as its normal speed. That is just my feeling based on how I've been seeing the tones above middle grey seeming to be too compressed.

 

Anyway how could I send a really big file to you.

[jonathan_reynolds]

This is Tri-X at 800ASA in Emofin.

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3236096-lg.jpg"></center><div></div>

[jonathan_reynolds]

PS - I don't feel my scanner handles grain in my Tri-X negs very well, though I note the excellent advice in another current thread. Still, I feel Emofin holds up pretty well in this interesting comparison.

[jtk]

Neil..wow wow wow...sweet shots...gotta try that...I've been using it with Delta 400 (why am I shooting that stuff?), pushing a little to no particular effect.

 

I love Rodinal on other films...used well, as you have, the grain makes little points on which the eye can turn, increasing the sense of sharpness..hot air talk, but I think that's true...same thing with the old 2475...

 

I don't think you mentioned the famous Rodinal "edge effect" that's so evident on the glasses frame in your 100% ...that also ads to zip and the sense of sharpness...

 

HAVE YOU USED 3200 with less emotional/dramatic images? ...like generic outdoor scenes or larger indoor situations in which there's background detail, miscellaneous stuff everywhere in addition to the center of interest?

 

I've seen other 3200/rodinal TriX portraits, very effective exaggerating the cragginess of old men with warts and pipes etc, have never seen tender-looking images of people with smooth skin...SO I've wondered how generally useful the 3200 technique would be...

 

HAVE YOU TRIED QTRgui...the QTR for non-anal-ists? I agree with your mild snipe at the QTR forum....I use QTRgui primatively and happily...sometimes previsualizing the B&W result from an original shot in color, rather than shooting original B&W (color scans well if one doesn't need Rodinal grain) ...after all, what's the diff between previsualizing B&W from a color world and previsualizing it from a color scan from color film?

 

LAST QUESTION (DUMB): How is your example a "100%" crop...are you saying it's 1% of the whole?

[vuk_vuksanovic]

neil.

<br><br>

to send the file to me, you could burn it on CD and mail the thing, or perhaps upload it to webspace you may have. if you go to the link below and click on "© vuk vuksanovic", it will set up an e-mail message to me and i can provide you with my postal address. cheers.

<br><br>

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

[jonathan_reynolds]

And another question, Neil: The highlights are blocked in all your Rodinal examples - just a matter of observation, not trying to be offensive. Is that a characteristic of the development technique, or have you inadvertently introduced it post-development?

[jtk]

Neil, just fyi the highlights are NOT blocked up on my monitor, a Samsung Synchmaster 192N.

 

Absolutely the *only* parts of your images lacking detail are the ultimate specular highlight in each eye. The brightest skin areas have just the right amount of detail...your skin tones are beautifully rendered.

 

Perhaps just by luck, or perhaps because I keep things simple, I get extremely close matches between monitor and print in color and B&W. And not to brag, but I know what I'm seeing: I've got long experience evaluating expensive color prints with a high profile color lab's customers and managing color for a very large circulation magazine.

[jonathan_reynolds]

John, you really see tones in the top half of the ear in that first shot?

[jtk]

Whoops...Reynolds is right in one image...the ear of the gent with the glasses is blown out...I'd ignored that because I was rivited by the eyes/expression.

 

Maybe you could burn the ear deeper, dodging the face to the same brightness. Probably not, Reynolds is probably right about that image...you'd probably just create a dull grey ear with no details unless you took it artificially all the way to very dark...IMO this would suggest extreme cropping, rather than full frame, or use of another frame of the face in which the ear isn't as prominent.

 

Nice photo in any case.

[jtk]

Jonathan, I apologize... but do you see highlight problems in the other image? That was the one I was thinking about when you commented on loss of highlight details.

 

IMO the "problem" if there is one is one of lighting. That's what I was wondering about when I inquired about 3200/Rodinal outdoors or in complex room environments. The only examples I can recall of this technique all involved tight portraits like Neils, though they were never as lovely as his, never suggested general utility as much as his images do.

 

I'm going to load my IIIC for this technique, see if it turns my 35mm 3.5 Summaron into an ambient light indoor lens :-)

[jonathan_reynolds]

Yes, it is a nice image, so are they all. But we are discussing the pros and cons of a developer/film combination. Take a look at the forehead highlights on the other shots too.

 

A big potential drawback with push development must be the blocking of highlights through unrestrained development of these well-exposed areas. The dilution and the long stands without agitation that Neil uses will restrain this because the developer gets locally exhausted, also contributing to edge effects.

 

I'm genuinely interested in how all this balances out in Neil's technique, bearing in mind that there are other ways to achieve other balances, like two-bath developers.

[jonathan_reynolds]

No offence taken, John.

[jtk]

Jonathan, I've looked at the forehead highlights, per your suggestion.

 

I do see detail in all but the tiniest spot of the forehead highlight of the balding man (sorry..."crew cut man"). Depending on lexicon, that detail may or may not be tone. Since his skin is young and obviously a little oily, especially on his forehead, I think those tones are retained properly. But they're on the edge.

 

In a scan of a Rodinal negative, pores and sparse film grain may be what we should expect/seek in the highest, pre-specular zone. I think this is either subjective or a matter of monitors.

 

What point are you making, regarding the Rodinal exhaustion/edge factor and two baths? I'd be interested in your experiences with two baths, your recommendations, or any links. Rodinal, like Neofin (another ultra-sharp old favorite that keeps grain pristine WITHOUT edge effect) seem more convenient ways to get this special look. Pyrocat is another, though I've never bothered.

[jonathan_reynolds]

"What point are you making, regarding the Rodinal exhaustion/edge factor and two baths? I'd be interested in your experiences with two baths, your recommendations, or any links."

 

OK, John, here goes. I apologise if this sounds like a hobby horse to anyone.

 

In 2-bath development, the film is first soaked in a mild developing agent like Metol, in a neutral solution, where development proceeds very slowly. After it is saturated, it is transferred - with the developer it carries - to a bath of pure alkali (no developer) where things hot up. Because the developer carried in the emulsion is limited, highlights are automatically restrained, and there is an associated mild edge effect too.

 

It's a different approach, but one with much going for it. Shelf life is long, because the developer and alkali are kept separate. It's economical. Grain is small and smooth because of the mild developing agent (my scans don't do it justice). Film speed is fully exploited. Developing times do not lengthen appreciably with repeated use. Developing time is short compared with very dilute 1-bath developers as in Neil's technique.

 

The one I favour is Tetenal's Emofin (rate new Tri-X at 800 ASA, dev 7 minutes, half in each bath). You can also push the speed up above this, but you will progressively lose shadow detail and increase fog as in all push processing - I don't find the need. There's also an age-old formula for the Leitz 2-bath developer in most textbooks. I read an article ages ago, saying it is pretty good in a straight test against Emofin.

 

This is not to knock Neil's technique in any way. As you can see, it produces lovely pictures. I just find the chemistry fascinating - it's so understandable, in a way that the software underlying PS can never be. Actually, I expected Emofin to block highlights because of its acclaimed restraining properties. What I find is that ordinary highlights often require some care in printing, but no worse than with other developers. BUT extreme highlights like lights or bright windows really do seem much better defined and more printable.

[neil_swanson]

Hi guys. Just checking in. I can't really do much e-mail at work so I'll chime in at @6pm EST. Keep the thread going!

[jtk]

Thanks Jonathan.

 

I'm off to buy some Tri X. This time it's Rodinal.

 

I'll order some Emofin if I can find it ...probably JandC.com ?

[neil_swanson]

OK so I got some questions asked of me and/or comments. I've got the 2 prints next to me. The first shot of Tom is a little light on screen. There is detail and tone in his ear.

 

The shot of John is much more like my print. There aren't any blocked highlights in either print. I wouldn't judge on screen JPGs to seriously but hey. it's all we have here. But as someone said sometimes things block up in pushed images and sometime there is no way you can have shodow detail.

 

The shadow detail you can get with TX at 3200 is less than you'll get with TMZ at 3200. TMZ is what, a true ISO 1000? So it will did into shadows that much more than TX which at 3200 is 3-4 stops under exposed at 3200.

 

So far I've only used the TX at 3200 for these shots and at a basketball game. I haven't scanned any B'ball frames yet but they look good. Nice sharp images.

 

The edge effect of Rodinal was mentioned and yes I like it very much. You get great sharp separations between tones. Makes things POP! and it really brings out details.

 

I've never tried the QTR printing and really can't see any reason to. I really like the BO printing look and the UT7 set is a great cheap alternative to alter print tone.

 

The 100% crop I may have done qrong or not like is sometimes done here. I blew the image up to 100% on screen and cropped out a piece. What the hell you see the grain pattern so it works right?

 

Vic, I will send you a CD of a RAW scan. You're address?

[jtk]

I don't know anything about QTR, the mother ship. If you think of QTR as DOS you can think of QTRgui as Windows-without-the-hassles.

 

Quadtone Graphic User Interface version (QTRgui, an idiot's delight) is easy as pie and IMO gives three arguable advantages over Black Only, which I also like:

 

1) Sliders. QTRgui gives slider controlled *tone control* from sepia to cold black...the spectrum tends warm if you use OEM pigment (the black is itself a little warm, but very dense), but you can use MIS inks to get cooler tones if you want. There are geek/anal-ists who want to make even QTRgui complex, but that's their trip...I doubt it hs to do with the image. It also gives slider-controlled ink control, which reduces plugging up in darkest shadows.

 

2) Because QTRgui controls colors as well as blacks to make controllable UNTINTED B&W it clearly produces smoother tones in some situations...less evidence of dots (if that's a concern...theyre already hard to discern, even on glossy). The colors are imperceptable in themselves and, because they're OEM pigments they maximum archival...for those who care.

 

3) With two scanners I've noticed occasional very tiny glitches in scanned grain patterns, printed black only, that vanish with QTRgui.

[neil_swanson]

So where can I read more about this QTR? Web site? Thanks

[jtk]

http://www.sbillard.org/Shareware/QTRgui.htm

 

Again, this is the GUI version of QTR.

[johndc]

Wow. Great thread. Can we archive this?