Tri-X and Rodinal

[max_barstow]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I realize this is a very old, and over-discussed topic, but I'm dredging it up. I've been using this combo (with a Leica IIIb and 50mm elmar) since I started taking pictures (about two years ago), and what I now do is rate the film at IS0400 (the speed is important to me for handheld shots), develop at a dilution of 1+25, 9mins, with 10 seconds agitation 20seconds into the first minute, and after that 10 seconds at 90 seconds, then continuing this way every 1:30mins, until 8:30mins in, when I do 10 seconds agitation, then leave it till 8:55, when I pour it out to replace it with stop. I realize that 9mins is relatively long for 1+25 concentration, and that I'm doing very minimal agitation.</p>

<p>I am still a bit inconsistent at getting good exposures (I have a tendency to get very thick negatives outdoors, and slightly thin indoors), but am now wondering if this inconsistency is more to do with my developing. What is technically 'wrong', if anything, with how I'm developing, and what might I do to 'improve' it, all things being subjective?</p>

<p>Thanks, Max</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>To get EI 400 with Rodinal on Tri-X, you wind up with a rather high contrast index. This means you don't get much exposure latitude.<br>

Rodinal is a speed-losing developer. For a contrast index of 0.58, you can't really hit "box speed" on films. The old Agfa data sheets for Rodinal show "box speed" at contrast indexes in the range of 0.62 to 0.65.<br>

Try to setting into an EI of 200, and come up with an appropriate developing time, and you'll probably be a lot happier, and you'll still have the Rodinal look.</p>

[sumo_kun]

<p>Well, I've had good results with Tri-X and Rodinal at 1:25, shot at 400. You say you get thin neg indoors and thick outdoors. Is this on the same roll? It depends on what you think is thick and thin, but this sounds like you are metering incorrectly. How are you metering? I assume you are metering with a hand held meter. If so then maybe you just need more practice with it. If you are using sunny 16 then well, you just need to practice some more to get the hang of things.</p>

<p>John, I'm not too hot on the topic of C.I. but the difference between 0.58 and 0.62 is probably not going to cause anyone great printing problems unless you have a really controlled system... or is it?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Maybe try something else other than Rodinal just to see if it gives you more consistent results?</p>

<p>I do all my Tri-X in D-76 undiluted. One of these days, I'll get adventurous and try 1:1 dilution. :)</p>

[SCL]

<p>Max - I think part of the problem is inconsistent exposure, either your metering technique needs improvement, or perhaps your shutter speeds are out of spec. The other part is that you really should calibrate your effective film speed for your developer/development technique by shooting a sacrificial roll and bracketing your exposures.</p>

[frank.schifano]

<p>What John wrote about Rodinal being a speed loosing developer is absolutely correct, and the difference between a contrast index of .58 vs. .65 is significant. Maybe it's not earth shattering, but a CI of .65 is a pretty contrasty negative that's not likely to print so nicely on the standard grade 2 paper. It's not a great result if you want to scan the negatives either. For that you want a pretty flat negative that's not too dense. If you really want to use Rodinal with Tri-X, then rating the film one stop slower than box speed, with a slight decrease in development time, is probably a pretty good idea. I don't really care for Rodinal and Tri-X together. Not only do I find the grain objectionable in many cases, the speed loss negates any advantage to be had from using a faster film. Sometimes it can work; but as a general rule, it's not so good. D-76, ID-11, HC-110, or XTOL all work better to give you finer grain and better speed. My go to developer for Tri-X is XTOL for the smoothest grain and best speed of the bunch. </p>

<p>I do think though, that your problem may have more to do with exposure than anything else. It's fairly easy to gauge a good exposure outdoors even without a meter, but indoors presents a whole host of problems. Often, a room will appear to be far more brightly lit than it really is. Meters can be fooled if there's a light source in its field of view. The list goes on.</p>

<p>If you have an incident meter, use that instead of a reflected light meter. It will tell you how much exposure is needed to properly expose something that is about 18% gray. It may sound counter-intuitive, but it's really not. Once you've established the exposure for that standard, all the other tones in the scene will fall right into place where they should be. If you want to emphasize the shadows a bit, add some exposure. To keep the very bright highlights from blowing out, do the opposite. If you want both, add some exposure and cut back development by 15% or so. If you have only a reflected light meter, get as close as possible to your subject to take the reading so as to exclude any extraneous light from affecting the reading. A spot meter will allow you to do the same thing from a distance because of its naturally narrow angle of view. In either case, it's important to take a reading off something of approximately the same reflectance value as the standard 18% gray card.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>I'm consistently getting full box speed out of Tri-x developed in Tmax developer. 1-4 68 degrees f. 6 minutes. 20 inversions up front and 10 at the top of each minute.(bright sun conditions)</p>

<p>Not high contrast. Well controlled highlights and unblocked shadows. Very decent compromise between fine grain and sharp detail as well. </p>

<p>I know you asked about Rodinal so I'll butt out now but i had to get it off my chest. :0</p>

<p> </p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I didn't quite follow your agitation scheme, but that might be part of the problem. I would simplify it. All inversions are once every 2 seconds (pretty slow is fine, you just want to keep fresh developer flowing over the emulsion). Agitate this way continuously the first 30 seconds, then agitate 7 or so times (5 seconds worth) every 30 seconds.</p>

<p>Rodinal is not my favorite developer for Tri-X, but it is a classic combination. I would also prefer XTol or D-76. If you want a film that will help keep your speed up, and is also a liquid, you can make HC-110 work with a lot of versatility in dilution.</p>

<p>However, I'm more suspicious of your shutter speeds, given it is such an old camera. Do you have another camera you can fire side-by-side with the Leica to see if the speeds are close? It might just need a CLA.</p>

[max_barstow]

<p>Thanks for all the replies,</p>

<p>What's contrast index? I have some sort of notion from the name, but nothing else. I do like the look of my prints when the neg's density is reasonable, so my real concern about developement is whether I am inadvertently over/underdeveloping my negs, and therefore getting inconsistent results.</p>

<p>Stephen, can you translate this into English please!? "calibrate your effective film speed for your developer/development technique by shooting a sacrificial roll and bracketing your exposures."</p>

<p>I think the shutter was okay on the Leica, but either way I've just moved to a Rollei 3.5F, so that's not relevant anymore. I use a Weston Euromaster, and have an invercone (which I've not really used much). I find metering outdoors difficult because of the sky giving my meter too high a reading, for which I then overcompensate (and get an overexposed shot), my problem indoors is that the Weston isn't terribly precise under low light. Maybe I should get a battery powered meter; suggestions? Also, how do you use an incident light meter, and what is the difference/point of it compared to a reflected light meter?</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Max what Stephan meant is your results may vary. The settings I use with my F100 and matrix metering that give me good results may be different than the results you get with your Rollei and a handheld meter. A test roll may tell you to shoot Tri-x at 200 or 320 instead of 400.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>develop at a dilution of 1+25, 9mins, with 10 seconds agitation 20seconds into the first minute, and after that 10 seconds at 90 seconds, then continuing this way every 1:30mins, until 8:30mins in, when I do 10 seconds agitation, then leave it till 8:55, when I pour it out to replace it with stop. I realize that 9mins is relatively long for 1+25 concentration, and that I'm doing very minimal agitation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Max, besides merely deviating from standard recommendations, that is a peculiarly specific development and agitation scheme. Considering that you're relatively new to this I'm inclined to ask how you came up with this development process? It sounds like something you might have read elsewhere, perhaps by a photographer whose work you admired, and mimicked the process hoping to reproduce that photographer's results.</p>

<p>Anyway, I'll offer a few suggestions:</p>

<ul>

<li>Get a better meter - any good incident meter from Gossen, Sekonic, Minolta or other should do. Many older selenium meters are now grossly inaccurate. In the past couple of decades I've found exactly one battery-less selenium meter that was reasonably accurate, and even it was mechanically inconsistent (an older Bewi Automat).</li>

<li>Check your meter against the charts on <a href="http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm">Fred Parker's Ultimate Exposure Computer</a> site (a collection of charts that expound upon the simplistic Sunny 16 rule of thumb). If your meter is grossly different from those charts, the meter or your metering technique is suspect.</li>

<li>Stick with a standard development agitation pattern until you have a specific need to vary based on personal experience (such as wanting to achieve a particular effect after having tried the basics). That includes stand processing or other unusual agitation schemes. There should be a very specific reason to deviate from standard development, otherwise you're creating too many variables and won't know whether your meter, metering technique, camera (with shutter calibration) or something else is responsible for the inconsistencies.</li>

</ul>

<p>Also, if you're looking to reproduce the overall look of b&w photography from a previous era, try re-rating the film to half the box speed and give appropriately less development to avoid excessive contrast and grain. But if you're looking to reproduce the more contemporary trend toward featureless blacks, chrome-bright whites and obvious grain, shoot at box speed or "faster" (underexposed) and overdevelop. The latter will deliver a higher CI (contrast index).</p>

[denniswms]

<p>All the B&W images on my web site are processed in Rodinal. 25 years of Rodinal. Aggressive agitation the first 30 then two inversions with thumping taps every 30 for the duration. I do not believe one frame was rated at over 125 ASA with 95% at 100 and specifically all AGFA (Pan 100) till it was unavailable. I use Acros Neopan 100 now. <br>

Temp and agitation make the negs but it's all about proper exposure to the film or processing technique becomes irrelevant. You cannot properly process film unless you know exactly what you did to it. I meter off a grey card giving it the exact same light at the same angle that my subject will receive. Indoors, outdoors, full sun or subdued- works every time and I do it identically every time.<br>

Once the film exposure technique is no longer an issue and every frame is spot on dependable you can tweak the processing to provide negs which print to your taste. I print on grade 3 Seagull matte printed through a cold light using Dektol. Ansel Adams "the Negative" was my bible decades ago but nothing has really changed. You may wish to reference that.</p>

[max_barstow]

<p>Whatever I do, I need to rate it at 400, just for the speed. I reckon a newer meter would be a good start; could you recommend something which does flash, incident and reflected metering? Also the grey card is a good idea.</p>

<p>And yes Lex, I initially used a similar development to Ralph Gibson (who I think does about 13mins), then reduced it to about 11, then reduced it to 9. The agitation isn't that irregular, I just explained it poorly; there's some agitation in the first minute, then 10 seconds agitation at 1:30, 3:00, 4:30, etc., and instead of agitating again at 9mins I go a little early, so I can stop development at 9.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>I'm also inclined to think your metering if off, but in addition to that I'd also suggest you change your agitation when developing. I give 6 inversions in the first 30 seconds then one inversion every 30 seconds after that.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Max, I thought I'd read about that development/agitation pattern before but couldn't remember whether it was attributed to Gibson or someone else.</p>

<p>Since you specified Gibson's work you probably prefer the higher contrast and more visible grain, so rating Tri-X at 400 and using Rodinal as you have described is probably appropriate for your aesthetic preferences. Nothing wrong with that.</p>

<p>The variation you're seeing between frames on a single roll is almost certainly due to metering and exposure and has nothing to do with your development technique. If you're generally happy with the results you've been getting then keep rating the film and developing as you have been.</p>

<p>It's likely your meter isn't responding well in dim lighting now. I had similar problems with a 1950s era Bewi Automat - a pretty thing with a faux-ivory case, but not really practical. It worked fine for incident metering in daylight but became erratic in dim lighting. And it used an odd internal mechanical mechanism that rotated the entire scale, which contributed to deviations up to 1 EV between readings, so it was necessary to take three or four readings in dim lighting and average the results.</p>

<p>Another possible cause for variations is the camera shutter speed, but since you've noticed similar irregularities with both the Leica and Rollei TLR the more likely culprit is the meter.</p>

<p>You'd probably find more useful recommendations for buying a good used meter by searching the archives. I'm still using the same old Minolta Auto Meter IIIF that I've had for years. It's not one of the most highly regarded incident/flash meters around but works well enough for my needs and I got it for only five bucks in a pawn shop. I also have a Pentax Spotmeter V, a freebie from another shop (needed to have the battery cover drilled out to change the battery because the previous owner apparently used an air impact wrench to crank the cover threads permanently shut). Good analog needle spot meter but I don't use it very often. Incident metering covers around 90% of my needs for b&w film.</p>

[max_barstow]

<p>I have my eye on the Sekonic 308-S Flashmate; is it good, and is it worth 130quid? It seems relatively cheap, but if I can get something equal for less or secondhand, it would be nice.</p>

[ray .]

I just got a 308, about to use it today. It's nicely designed, very simple. Incident reading matches up well

with my camera meter. I'm just not sure about using it as a reflective meter though, because it's hard to

know exactly what area it's reading when you point it toward the subject.