Delta 400 and Retro 400s in Rodinal - which dilution?

[krzysztof_kalukin]

As in subject. I'd like to try Rodinal developer (have used ID11 or Microphen before). Which dilution should I use? What would be the

difference between 1:25, 1:50, 1:100 or 1:200 in developed negative?

 

Kal

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

<p>Hi!</p>

<p>Happy Holidays!</p>

<p>Check Here:<br>

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=&Developer=Rodinal&mdc=Search</p>

<p>Hope this helps you.</p>

[krzysztof_kalukin]

it does not.

 

I'm aware that I can develop my films in those dillutions, but would like to know what effect I'm going to achieve - how the

developed negative will differ depending on dillution.

 

Kal

[russ_kerlin]

<p><em>In general</em>, higher dilutions will result in larger grain size but greater edge sharpness (accutance). Some developers (Rodinal being one of them) will also produce more compensation between highlights and shadows (i.e., less contrast) at higher dilutions. And of course, more dilute solutions offer improved economy.</p>

 

[User_502260]

<p>The lower dilutions, like 1:25, will work faster. The higher dilutions will lenthen your developing times. There will not be a large difference in grain between a low dilution and a higher dilution. The higher dilutions may give more of a compensating effect so the contrast between shadows and highlights doesn't become too great. Some people like what is called "stand development" with Rodinal. This woud be done with a dilution of between 1:100 and maybe 1:300 and the developing time would be measured in hours, not minutes.<br>

Rodinal is not a fine grain developer at any dilution and is used more for slow speed and medium speed film than with fast films. A favorite film of Rodinal users was Agfa APX 100, especialy in 120 size. APX 100 was not a very fine grained film to begin with but users who liked its tonality in Rodinal often mitigated the grain problem by using it in 120 size. Some people use Rodinal with fast film to accentuate grain. The best recommendation for reducing grain with Rodinal is to agitate gently and not too often. Rodinal is not my favorite developer but there are times when it can produce interesting results. Rodinal has excellent keeping qualities and that's one thing its users like. Rodinal is considered by some to be a high sharpness developer. With faster films the extra grain it gives can actually reduce sharpness but whether that is good or bad is a matter of taste. Rodinal and Rodinal-like developers are now sold under various names like Adonal and R09. If I were not looking for some kind of special effect I would not use Rodinal with any 400 speed b&w fim. </p>

[leighb]

<p>Rodinal is better suited to low-speed films. I've used it for over 50 years, but never with fast films.</p>

<p>Make sure you have at least 10ml of the concentrate for each 36-exposure 35mm roll (or equivalent).<br>

Depending on the size of your developing tank, this may limit the highest dilution you can use.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>There so little difference in the results from Rodinal at 1+25 and 1+50 that the only reason to choose one over another is the desired processing time. I prefer times of 6-10 minutes for developing roll films in tanks because the pour times are less critical. Rodinal times at 1+25 are often so short I'd be comfortable using them only with tray or open tank processing. So I usually consider dilutions of all developers with regard to time.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"In general</em>, higher dilutions will result in larger grain size but greater edge sharpness (accutance)."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Conventional wisdom for Rodinal is that, unlike D-76 and similar developers, acutance is not influenced significantly or at all by dilution. What I do see with more dilute solutions of Rodinal is higher fog.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Some developers (Rodinal being one of them) will also produce more compensation between highlights and shadows (i.e., less contrast) at higher dilutions."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While I like to believe there is some compensating effect with my preferred developers - such as highly dilute Rodinal at 1+200 for stand processing, Microphen at 1+1 or HC-110 with modified stand development - so far I've found no scientific evidence to support my beliefs. While I don't discount the concept of a compensating effect, there doesn't seem to be any universal standard for evaluating it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"And of course, more dilute solutions offer improved economy."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's the main reason I typical use highly dilute Rodinal. It's a fairly expensive developer compared with HC-110, my other favorite liquid concentrate for long term keeping. But I wonder whether it's really more economical if we follow the conventional wisdom that requires more of the concentrate in solution to offset the dilution. I usually ignore the conventional wisdom and squeak by with the bare minimum of Rodinal concentrate in solution. But that doesn't make it a good practice.</p>

[ian_gordon_bilson]

<p>With regard to Lex's comments,it needs to be remarked that adherents of Rodinal show an almost religious attachment to this mystical developer.<br>

I had the ill? fortune to find two 500ml glass bottles of the stuff in a deceased estate,and almost immediately had a client desperate to have his Rollei 80 processed for 1 hour,stand,1:200<br>

Images ?,certainly. A quantum leap ?,arguably.<br>

I tend to think it is 80% emotion,and 20% science.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>I almost always downrate film and because of this I use the higher dilutions, usually 1/50, to give me development times of 7-8 minutes. Short development times, i.e. under 5 minutes are difficult to control accurately. I also use Rodinal at even higher dilutions (1/75 and 1/100) to increase the compensating effect and control highlight density when shooting interiors of buildings.</p>

[russ_kerlin]

<blockquote>

<p>While I like to believe there is some compensating effect with my preferred developers - such as highly dilute Rodinal at 1+200 for stand processing, Microphen at 1+1 or HC-110 with modified stand development - so far I've found no scientific evidence to support my beliefs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lex, I can't say I have scientific evidence either, but my <em>experience</em> strongly suggests this to be the case. My primary film is Fuji Acros which I find to be rather contrasty in D-76. While a higher dilution (i.e., 1:3) helps, I find I get much better compensation with HC-110 and Rodinal, particularly at higher dilutions or stand development. I have also found two-bath developers to work rather well.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Conventional wisdom for Rodinal is that, unlike D-76 and similar developers, acutance is not influenced significantly or at all by dilution. What I do see with more dilute solutions of Rodinal is higher fog.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would agree that dilution has a more marked effect on acutance with D-76/ID-11, and while acutance may technically not change much with dilution in the case of Rodinal (since it is inherently a non-solvent developer), there is likely an increase in edge effects in very high dilutions (and also stand development), which increases <em>perceived</em> sharpness.</p>

<p>I really like the 1:100 development time for Acros given in the MDS with the modified agitation. For me, it provides consistent results with the right amount of contrast and perceived sharpness. And because Acros is a fine grain film, I get reasonably fine grained prints. BTW, I rate it at EI50.</p>

<p> </p>

[russ_kerlin]

<p>OK, more directly to <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6852290">Krzysztof</a>'s question, that's a bit more difficult since I have never developed Delta 400 in Rodinal, and I have never shot Retro 400S at all. Plus, it depends somewhat on the types of images and the desired effects.</p>

<p>Neither of these films are considered fine grain films, but since Rodinal is a non-solvent developer, it is not going to help much with grain size at any dilution. My personal preference therefore would be to maximize compensation and edge effects by using higher dilutions. In fact, I am intrigued by the one listed for Delta 400 in the MDC with semi-stand agitation (1:100 for 36 minutes). While twice as long, it is similar to the one I use with Acros. I have a few exposed rolls of Delta 400 right now, and I may give this a try out of curiosity.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I tend to think it is 80% emotion,and 20% science.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I don't know about that, but I am definitely a convert. I used to pooh-pooh Rodinal but now love it. For me, it works well, which in the end is what's it all about. </p>

<p> </p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Re. the compensating effect of highly diluted Rodinal. I tested this by shooting two rolls of 120 film. The camera was mounted on a tripod, the light was constant and I took the entire 24 shots under exacly the same conditions. I then processed one film in Rodinal at 1/50 and the other in Rodinal at 1/100. In the negs processed at the 1/100 dilution, the detail in the leaded lights of the windows was clearly more evident in the final prints. It did succeed in significantly limiting the highlight density while the shadow detail remained unaffected.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Here's the first picture: FP4 rated at 50 ASA, exposure time 30 seconds at f/22 (including + 2 stops for reciprocity failure).</p><div></div>

[chris_waller]

<p>Actually, I've just read my notes and the dilution for the first shot was 1/75.<br /> Anyway, here's the one devved at 1/100.<br /> Allowing for the limitations of my scanner, I think the increased detail in the leaded lights is visible. The shadow detail around the chairs in the centre foreground is much more evident as well.</p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Those are very good examples, Chris. Were those scans from negatives or optical enlargements?</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Lex,<br />Those scans are from prints made on Ilford MG IV on a conventional enlarger.</p>

[russ_kerlin]

<p>Chris, very interesting. I assume everything else was constant (i.e., developer, filter, print exposure, etc.)? If so, even a small variation in dilution would seem to produce visible increase in compensation. Thanks!</p>

<p> </p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Russ,</p>

<p>Yes, they were both printed at grade 1.5 and everything else was kept the same, as far as is measurable, for both prints.</p>