Tri-X in Rodinal is turning out to 'grey'

[aa]

About a month ago, I actually shot a roll of TriX at 400 (usually I

push it to 1600 and develop in TMax developer), and I really liked

the results. I'm pretty sure I developed it in Rodinal*

 

However, since then I've gotten really 'GREY' results. Very little

contrast. And a big problem I have is that I've changed about a

million things at once, so my troubleshooting menu is quite long.

I've read this forum enough to know that someone with a ton of

experience might point me in the right direction.

 

My short list

1. Rangefinder (Canonet QL17) vs Canon AE-1 SLR

 

2. Switched to homemade Rodinal, although my homemade rodinal worked

well when I tested it on EFKE 25.

 

3. Bad fix

 

4. Time is off - I'm going by the Massive Development Chart

 

5. Too little agitation?

 

6. I start out at 20C, but with 10-20 minute development

incubations, the temperature drops enough so that it is

underdeveloped.

 

7. My Dimage Scan Dual IV is not working properly (although by eye

the negatives just don't look that contrasty)

[frank.schifano]

"1. Rangefinder (Canonet QL17) vs Canon AE-1 SLR"

 

Provided both cameras are working withing spec and your exposures are correct, this should not be a real problem. The Canonet QL17 has a pretty decent lens. Mine usually delivers the goods quite nicely, but I don't often trust the meter. It's not bad if you can get hold of the correct 1.3 volt battery. The 1.5 volt alkaline button batteries will read high when new and drop as the battery ages. If you know about this you can compensate for it by measuring it against a good hand held meter. You don't say which lens you're using on the AE-1.

 

"2. Switched to homemade Rodinal, although my homemade rodinal worked well when I tested it on EFKE 25."

 

Of course it's a possibility, but not a likely one. The developer works well with another film with the same timings that you used for the store bought variety? If so, that's not your problem. You didn't mention dilution ratio or the time you used. Ten to 20 minutes is a really big spread.

 

"3. Bad fix"

 

If the fix were bad the film would be opaque to a degree. If the fixer will clear an undeveloped film leader in 3 minutes or so, it's still good.

 

"4. Time is off - I'm going by the Massive Development Chart"

 

They're not perfect, but as departure points the data in this chart are pretty good. Again, we'd need more specific details about the dilution ratio and development times you used when you got these bad results.

 

"5. Too little agitation?"

 

Can't comment. No details about your agitation technique.

 

"6. I start out at 20C, but with 10-20 minute development incubations, the temperature drops enough so that it is underdeveloped."

 

You may be on to something there. If the temperature is dropping considerably during development, the process will slow down. Keep your tank in a large tub of water between 1/2 and 1 degree F. above processing temperature between agitation cycles to stabilize that.

 

"7. My Dimage Scan Dual IV is not working properly (although by eye the negatives just don't look that contrasty)"

 

Easy enough to tell. Use a known good negative and see what you get. If that's good, it's not your scanner.

[aa]

You'll see why it gets more murky...

 

"1. Rangefinder (Canonet QL17) vs Canon AE-1 SLR"

Provided both cameras are working withing spec and your exposures are correct, this should not be a real problem. The Canonet QL17 has a pretty decent lens. Mine usually delivers the goods quite nicely, but I don't often trust the meter. It's not bad if you can get hold of the correct 1.3 volt battery. The 1.5 volt alkaline button batteries will read high when new and drop as the battery ages. If you know about this you can compensate for it by measuring it against a good hand held meter. You don't say which lens you're using on the AE-1.

 

AE-1, I use a 50mm with f/1.8, the QL is f1.7 I think, so probably close enough.

On the QL17, I just guesstimate the exposure with a chart and past experience. I'm pretty decent at this and haven't had problems in the past.

 

"2. Switched to homemade Rodinal, although my homemade rodinal worked well when I tested it on EFKE 25."

 

Of course it's a possibility, but not a likely one. The developer works well with another film with the same timings that you used for the store bought variety? If so, that's not your problem. You didn't mention dilution ratio or the time you used. Ten to 20 minutes is a really big spread.

 

I used the Rodinal-like dev at 1:50 and 1:100. When I test my Rodinal vs original Rodinal on EFKE, I didn't see a problem. (I didn't compare both developers on TriX though).

 

 

"3. Bad fix"

 

If the fix were bad the film would be opaque to a degree. If the fixer will clear an undeveloped film leader in 3 minutes or so, it's still good.

 

I didn't check this time, which was only the second time I used this fix, but the first time for fixative the film cleared in 1-1.5 minutes. I did 5 minute fix both times.

 

"4. Time is off - I'm going by the Massive Development Chart"

 

They're not perfect, but as departure points the data in this chart are pretty good. Again, we'd need more specific details about the dilution ratio and development times you used when you got these bad results.

 

So it was 1:100 Rodinal on TriX for 12 minutes at 20C. (If you INCREASE the time of developer past what is recommended, then if anything you get MORE contrast?)

 

"5. Too little agitation?"

 

>Can't comment. No details about your agitation technique.

 

 

For first 30 secs continuous

 

@2 minutes

 

then at 5 minutes

 

No more.

 

What does too little agitation result in generally? Or can one make such a general statement?

 

 

"6. I start out at 20C, but with 10-20 minute development incubations, the temperature drops enough so that it is underdeveloped."

 

You may be on to something there. If the temperature is dropping considerably during development, the process will slow down. Keep your tank in a large tub of water between 1/2 and 1 degree F. above processing temperature between agitation cycles to stabilize that.

 

EXCELLENT IDEA!

 

"7. My Dimage Scan Dual IV is not working properly (although by eye the negatives just don't look that contrasty)"

 

Easy enough to tell. Use a known good negative and see what you get. If that's good, it's not your scanner.

 

ANOTHER EXCELLENT IDEA.

 

Attached is a picture of what I'm talking about. In real life the walls in this

[dford]

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml">histograms</a>

[nige_buddy]

<I>"So it was 1:100 Rodinal on TriX for 12 minutes at 20C. (If you INCREASE the time of developer past what is recommended, then if anything you get MORE contrast?)"</I><P>

read the MDC again... I think you'll find it more like 20 minutes... I personally use 18min

<P>

<P>

<I>"For first 30 secs continuous

<BR>

@2 minutes

<BR>

then at 5 minutes

<BR>

No more." </I>

<P>

This probably adds to the too-short-time. Try 18mins @ 20C with 2min agitation intervals.

[luben karavelov]

I use 30 minutes with one agitation in the middle.

[frank.schifano]

"What does too little agitation result in generally? Or can one make such a general statement?"

 

Yes you can make that sort of a general statement. Increased agitation speeds up the development process by exchanging exhausted developer in contact with the film with fresh developer more often. It stands to reason that partially exhausted developer will work more slowly than something with more potency. You can often see recommendations to shorten development times anywhere from 10% to 20% if you use continuous agitation as would be the case when using a Jobo CPP or CPE processing system for that very reason. The opposite is also true. Decreased agitation slows down the development process, but you run the risk of uneven development. Now some folks claim that they don't have that problem, but I'm not one of them. Every time I've tried using stand or semi stand development with very dilute developers in spiral tanks I wind up getting what's commonly called "bromide drag." It looks like zebra stripes running across the short dimension of the film. I'd rather not waste time and film trying to fix that by changing dilution ratios, tanks, reels, or whatever. I just agitate at least once each 60 seconds and don't have to worry about that. I must be doing something right because most of my negatives print very well on a grade 2 paper or with an equivalent VC filter and paper combination.

[bobmichaels]

Classic case of changing many variables then wondering which one caused the final result to differ. Go back to exactly what you were doing previously; same camera meter, same film, same developer, same everything. Then see if your results duplicate what you got before. That's your baseline.

 

If you get identical results, then change one variable at a time.

 

But when you change meters, e.i.'s, developers, fixers, developing time, agitation techniques, developer temperatures you are restarting completely. You don't even have the benfit of manafacturer's suggestions.

[aa]

IF I DID IT THE RIGHT WAY, THEN IT WOULD MAKE IT TOO MUCH LIKE WORK! I'M DOING THIS FOR FUN.

 

Besides, I'm out of that same film (I bought TriX as a bulk roll), I'm out of my original stock of Rodinal, and I want to learn how to use my rangefinder with no on-board meter.

 

I think with the very good advice so far, I've got a good shot at getting good results.

[ehaque]

I use all the same equipment as you, even bought tri-x in bulk. But no Rodinol, was thinking about buying that.

 

I think it might be your scanner. My Dual IV can screw up the tones and make the image look like its made out of just white and one shade of grey. I don't know why it happens to only some frames. But it almost stopped happening to me since I started to scan at 16 bit in b&w mode.

 

BUT.. it still happens sometimes when I scan my friend's Tri-x done in Rodinol. You should scan those b&w negs in colour mode, then just pull saturation to zero. If the image looks good then you know its the scanner messing up in b&w mode.