Huge Grain on APX100 / Rodinal

[irvine.short]

<p>Hi All,</p>

<p>Any idea what went wrong here please?</p>

<p>I recently processed 5 or 6 rolls of Agfa APX100, some branded as Rollei Retro 100</p>

<p>They were all processed in Rodinal 1:50 for 13 minutes at 20 deg C</p>

<p>This is how the grain turned out, nice but surprisingly huge:<br /><img src="http://i.imgur.com/ecH7wDx.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="441" /></p>

[SCL]

<p>With Rodinal I've found a slightly cooler temperature reduces the visual "graineness".</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>That's why I don't like Rodinal. <br>

I wish APX100 was available in 4x5 sheets.</p>

[irvine.short]

<p>a quick search for images tagged with APX 100 and Rodinal brings up nothing like this</p>

 

[christopher_ward2]

<p>Looks less like grain than the result of too cold rinse water. You wash/rinse water needs to be the same as your developer temp or you get that texture on the film ,some people like it. Chris</p>

[stephen t]

<p>I've heard that Rodinal is better used with faster, conventional emulsion films. Thus, would HC110 be a better choice for the APX100??</p>

<p>But I've not seen grain quite like that image either from a 100 speed film. Maybe an issue with those rolls of film?</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>You need to provide a higher-magnification scan of a small area to see if this is reticulation. But Rodinal is known for making the grain on film very "sharp" and "present." It's also a speed-losing developer, and APX 100 and APX 400 were only barely as fast as their rated ISO speed, so you may be under-exposed or under-developed, which increases grain.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>It was rodinal, what did you expect? Rodinal can give you impressive results but involves a bit of skill. It is not tolerant (as shown) to being treated without respect.</p>

<p>I would suggest....</p>

<p>1) Keep the dilutions down. Unless you are shooting high contrast or pushing (same thing), you are not really gaining much with high dilutions. Try not to use less than 1:25. I do use 1:100-1:200, but that is with stand developing and is something completely different.</p>

<p>2) It's a snob! Don't agitate, swirl gently like a fine glass of wine. Swirl less often at the beginning and a little more at the end.</p>

<p>3) Take notes and adjust your times. Don't get stuck on other peoples times. It's just a starting point and it's your process.</p>

<p>4) Don't shock! Develop at room temp (what ever it is). Pre poor the rinse water so it adjusts to the same temp as the rest of the chemicals and film. I keep a 20l spouted jug filled in my dark room. Often what people see as grain is reticulation.</p>

<p>5) The real secret to having a rich image is pulling the film. Try it.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>How was that photo scanned and prepped for JPEG? Makes a big difference.</p>

<p>APX 100 in Rodinal is grainy. So is APX 100 in Neofin Blue and any other acutance developer. But the grain and sharpness look very natural and typical in my darkroom optical enlargements. I don't usually scan negatives like that because scanning tends to exaggerate grain. If you prefer finer grain choose a different developer.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Apx 100 seems to love HC-110 more than Rodinal.</p>

<div></div>

[thadley]

<p>Try dilution 1:75, Keep all solutions at an even temperature (68), good agitation for the first 10 seconds with a flick of the finger to dislodge any air bubbles on the film and after that very little agitation - 1/2 twist at the end of each minute. There is some theory that as the highlights develop, the developer in that area becomes weaker. The minimal agitation allows the shadow areas to develop while the highlights will develop less. I had success with this many moons ago with Tri-X (400) and Agfa (25).</p>

[john_stockdale2]

<p>Lex is spot-on with his comments about scanning. My Nikon 35mm film scanner makes good negatives look like the OP's example.</p>

[david_l3]

<p>If you examine the negative up close with a magnifier I doubt you'd see the actual silver grain that large. Scanners can have a problem with the digital signal processing with respect to the scanning resolution. Do a search for grain aliasing. My old Epson flat bed scanner was very prone to grain aliasing. Some scanners are better at preventing it, some are awful with it. John Stockdale's comment is an example. </p>

[bernard_lazareff]

<p>@ Larry Dressler:<br>

1) A slip of the keyboard? I guesss the caption of your large photo attachment is "APX100 in <strong>HC-110</strong> dilution B"??<br>

2) What is the size of the negative (or of the scanned portion as shown)<br>

3) Grain really nice. Tonality, looks peculiar but so is the scene; need to try for myself. Time/temperature/agitation?</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Yes APX 100 HC-110 Dilution B 35mm 20C 7 minutes.. Agitation was 30 seconds initial then 5 inversions every minuter after.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Yes, that looks about right. I have processed APX 100 in Rodinal in the past and that is the sort of grain I got.</p>

[irvine.short]

<p>OK chaps, it seems it was a combo of under exposure and "unsharp mask" on the scanning software. it is "Epson Scan" on a V600</p>

<p>Same settings on Efke 25 with D76 were great, but that is hardly a fair comparison.</p>

<p>Wish I had processed a few before doing all 6 at once...</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Regarding sharpening during the scanning process, use either very light sharpening or none at all. Depends on how flexible the scanning software is. If it offers complete control over unsharp masking try adjusting the radius and masking to minimize grain aliasing artifacts. With the image magnified, adjust the unsharp masking settings until you see the desired differences in micro contrast, without going overboard into aliasing/jaggies and halos from oversharpening.</p>

<p>Save the major sharpening tasks for later in the process, after tonal adjustments, spotting/healing, etc.</p>

<p>With extremely intrusive grain, noise reduction software may help. Working in layers or using a selective brush can minimize grain where it's most noticeable (skies, large expanses of same/similar continuous tone without any significant detail), while not affecting areas with critical detail.</p>

<p>Some of these digital editing techniques were adapted from darkroom printing/processing techniques, so there's nothing wrong with using the available tools to get the end result you want.</p>

[pics]

<p>Rodinal and APX 100 isn't exactly a fine grain combination, but it shouldn't look quite as grainy as your example. Areas of continuous tone (the sky for example) will make the grain more visible however. In the shot I posted, it is definitely more obvious in the sky. Aside from some sort of calamity with your exposure/developing process, I would look into the settings on your scanner.</p><div></div>

[James G. Dainis]

Get an 8X loupe and look at the film.

[spanky]

<p>Which APX 100 are we talking about? If your box states "Made in Germany" then the general consensus is that it's left over APX from the last coating by Agfa before they went under. If your box states "Made in EU" then many folks feel this is re-branded Kentmere 100. I've used both in Rodinal and they are different emulsions, I do think the Kentmere version is a bit more grainy.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p> It is from what I can discern German. The British were always loose with the Sterling and even Kentmere reacts fondly. The thing is It is not the film or is it as it is 10 years old now since the last run after the refit that killed AGFA. Go Unions Kill more. Oh I have a Union card.. I am unemployed.</p>

<p> Enough of my Humor/ Humour. If it was APX the last crap ran out years ago. The 400 was not worthy of the name and the 100 I used to call little sister 64.</p><div></div>

[Dave Luttmann]

How did you agitate the film? Rodinal is very responsive to agitation.

[irvine.short]

<p>Agitation:<br />After I have poured the developer in I invert the tank 3 or 4 times and bang it a couple of times on the counter to dislodge bubbles.</p>

<p>After that one inversion every minute.</p>

<p> </p>