Is Rodinal good with any film ?

[paul_c8]

<p>My film stocks are coming to an end and I am just about to do an order from BH Photo (Im based in Australia) its the cheapest place to get stuff (not just film) and gets here within 3 days.<br>

I only have Agfa Rodinal (Original) as it keeps so well and I live in a very small unit so having a bottle I can keep in the cupboard for ages even when open is a bonus, I do like grain and am mostly developing my own film 35mm and 120 and scanning it. <br>

Anyways I have been mainly an Ilford user over the last few years but am willing to try different films, I have just been looking around google and most of the threads come back to this site.<br>

I have been googling TMax Tri-X, Ilford Delta, and Neopan Acros in Rodinal and he majority of the threads or reply have been negative saying don't use it use this and that and its kinda putting me off my ordering.<br>

I know i shouldn't listen to what the internet has to say to seriously as its everyones own opinion, but I am throwing this out there to hear the pro's and con's with this developer with these films. </p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Rodinal is better with slow to medium speed films. </p>

[john_shriver]

<p>The other very practical, long-lived, and economical liquid developer concentrate is Kodak HC-110. Don't make the stock solution, just mix directly from concentrate. The syrup lasts pretty much forever. You need a 5ml syringe to measure out the syrup accurately.<br>

HC-110 provides full film speed, where Rodinal is a "speed-losing" developer. But it won't provide the crisp grain Rodinal provides, at least not at Dilution B. It has more solvent action than Rodinal.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

Just a reminder that B&H won't ship liquids if that is the OP's only source..

[larrydressler]

<p>I Second HC-110.<br>

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>I like Rodinal with Ilford Pan F+. Here are some examples:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/3712100</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/3712092</p>

<p>Nice sharp images. That is fine for children and people with good skin. For middle aged women, it will not only show every wrinkle they have but ever wrinkle they will have in the next 20 years <grin>. </p>

<p>The only other film in current production that I have tried it with is Delta 100; I prefer DD-X with the Delta series. The best film I have used Rodinal with is Agfa APX 100, unfortunately no longer made.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Like Brooks, I've been using Rodinal with Ilford Pan F+ and been very satisfied with the results. I've tried it with Tri-X, but not really happy with the outcomes....I'll try it with stand development in the next few weeks and see if there is some improvement.</p>

[stephen t]

<p>I'd second John Shriver's comments: Rodinal for slow to medium, HC110 for faster films. Get both - they last a LONG time. BUT get the earlier formula of Rodinal: Adox APH-09 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1085020-REG/adox_12055_adolux_aph_09_black.html</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Yes, Paul will need to order from Adorama, as they will ship liquids, not B&H.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Hmm. B&H will ship some liquids, for instance they will ship Ilford Ilfotec DD-X. But they will not ship Kodak HC-110. Nor will they ship Adox APH-09. I suspect that it depends on the pH, if it's too high (strong base, hazardous to aircraft aluminum), they won't ship it.<br /> I like DD-X, good long life, even in open bottle, but it's pricey, and not very concentrated, so it would be expensive to ship.<br /> Adorama hasn't added the new bottle size of HC-110 to their website yet, so you can't order it. Nor do they carry Adox.<br /> <br />Maybe Freestyle Sales is your saviour?</p>

[charles_h2]

<p>Hi Paul<br /> How's life down under?</p>

<p>All the major film developers work wonders, if you apply their strengths and get around their weakness. Rodinal is an incredible developer, and yes, it will work with just about any film. It yields very sharp images, and minimal grain if you remember that it is a speed decreasing developer, and is susceptible to over agitation. In other words, it works best if you pull the film. Over-expose and under develop, and be careful not to over agitate. With this method you will get beautiful mid-tones. A look that only Rodinal can produce (this is <strong>not</strong> a claim that it is the best developer). It is the quality that makes aminophenol (the developing agent in Rodinal) unique. There are photographers that have used and produced excellent images with all the major film developers on the market, and a few have created their own. I don't believe in a magic bullet, just a good aim.<br /> The attached images were shot with Tri-X 120, and diluted 1:50</p><div></div>

[owen_omeara]

<p>Rodinal and HC-110 should get the job done after a bit of work getting hued to them with various films.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"...I do like grain and am mostly developing my own film 35mm and 120 and scanning it."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depends on the film format, your scanner, tolerance for grain, and desired output.<br>

<br>

Most of Rodinal's reputation comes from an entire century ago when most serious photographers used larger format film and contact prints or relatively little magnification in enlargements from medium and large format film. As miniature format film - mostly 35mm - gained in popularity, photographers looked for a finer grain developer.<br>

<br>

I liked Rodinal with 35mm Tri-X for darkroom optical enlargements. Ditto Diafine, for optical enlargements in the darkroom. But I lost my taste for the stuff with scanning. Grain aliasing exaggerated the grain unpleasantly. So for scanned b&w negatives I eventually shifted toward finer grain developers such as ID-11, HC-110, and even Microphen (not really a fine grain developer, but not bad at full strength stock solution). Nowadays I keep Rodinal around only for stand developing. There's a certain look I like for long exposure nighttime photography with Tri-X, FP4+ and a few other films, combined with stand developing for 2-3 hours in very dilute Rodinal, around 1+200. But those 35mm negs usually look better with darkroom optical enlargements than scanned.<br>

<br>

Even with generous tolerances for grain and acutance there are other choices that are subjectively better, including Beutler formulas (recipes can be found online, including photo.net archives). I preferred Tetenal Neofin Blue for 120 and 35mm - no idea if it's still available. I still have a few tubes of Neofin Blue concentrate left, but I don't know whether they're still good after several years in storage. Diluting some developers such as D-76, ID-11 and others will increase acutance without exaggerating grain like Rodinal.<br>

<br>

It's also better suited to older style emulsions. Most major manufacturers of miniature format films - Kodak, Ilford, Fuji - were under pressure for decades to create 35mm films with *finer* grain, films that could rival the performance of medium format film with travel friendly 35mm camera gear. Those films were designed with better developers in mind - finer grain, less fogging, better speed. Don't expect the classic look of a previous era with today's Kodak Tri-X and Rodinal. Several years ago Kodak changed the Tri-X emulsion so that it performs more like the 1990s version of T-Max 400: more sensitizing dyes (the residual tint often described as bluish or purplish, whereas the previous generation of Tri-X finished with a neutral steely gray base); finer grain.</p>

<p>When you see photos online you like that were developed in Rodinal, ask the photographers:</p>

<ul>

<li>about the film format - 35mm, medium or large format</li>

<li>exposure data - how they rated the film and metered the scene</li>

<li>developing data - dilution, time, agitation technique, etc.</li>

<li>whether it was scanned from the negatives or optical prints in the darkroom</li>

<li>what kind of scanner and whether they used any post-processing to reduce grain/noise - some automatic dust reduction/spotting digital filters will also minimize grain aliasing</li>

<li>how much post processing was done in reducing the scan from the original scanned resolution to the small online JPEG you're seeing - downsampling a high resolution scan will tend to de-emphasize grain, while careful unsharp masking/contrast masking can retain apparent sharpness without exaggerated grain.</li>

</ul>

<p>These techniques are essential to getting the desired looks from scanned films. The techniques are different from darkroom techniques, but just as important to getting the desired finished look. </p>

<p>But, long story short, you'll always wonder if you didn't try it. So order some Rodinal and give it a try. You'll probably like it for some photos and find the exaggerated grain annoying for other photos. Just depends on your style of photography and expectations.</p>

[paul_c8]

<p>Hi Guys thanks for all the feedback, I think it kinda went off topic a little Im looking at buying film not a new developer I have 1.5 litres of the original stuff, as mentioned I don't mind grain and usually use hp5+ and fp4 35mm. <br>

I did shoot a roll of neopan 400 2 months ago and forgot I shot it at 250 and developed it for box speed and the results came out great. I was just wondering if Ordinal is good with Tri-x. TMax, delta and any other films that are 400. <br>

I have always wanted to try PanF but I was giving 2 rolls a while back and nothing came out i have heard its a very tricky film to keep if your not going to shoot it or develop it straight away but to be honest would like something a bit faster 100-400 I've just never tried the tax trip-x or delta films. also does anyone shoot Neopan acros 100 in rodinal ? <br>

Im using a canoscan fs4000u for scanning which I'm ok with and if there are some negs i really want scanned i pay for real wet mounted drum scans.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>If you're already satisfied with HP5+ and FP4+ in Rodinal there's no compelling reason to switch. But if you're just curious and want to expriment...</p>

<p>Pan F+ is finicky. It's good with Rodinal, but seems best downrated to EI 25. And Pan F+ needs to be developed promptly - the latent image seems less stable than other films. Properly exposed and developed Pan F+ shouldn't be blank, even if developing is delayed several weeks or months. But it should be developed ASAP after exposure. I have a bunch of Pan F+ but seldom use it. I prefer T-Max 100 anyway in fine grain films.</p>

<p>Of the various ISO 400 films I tried with Rodinal, Tri-X and APX 400 looked good to me. But APX 400 in Rodinal worked best at EI 200 - it was overrated at ISO 400 and tended to lose true shadow detail. Older Tri-X was good at anything from EI 200-800 in Rodinal. FP4+ looks good in Rodinal too, and better downrated a bit to EI 64-80.</p>

<p>I didn't care for the look of T-Max 100 in Rodinal. It's among the few developers that show any grain with TMX, and the tonality is nothing special, not any better than with other developers. I don't see the point of using a virtually grainless film like TMX and forcing it to show grain. There are plenty other films for that.</p>

<p>T-Max 400 in Rodinal at EI 400 can be interesting. It shows really tight salt and pepper grain that's most noticeable in large expanses of middle gray to darker gray. It's an interesting way to get the gritty look of pushed film, but with normal tonality - full shadow detail. Usually I'd have to push TMY to 1600 and soup in Microphen to get that grain, but it looks "pushed".</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Paul,<br>

I'm a Rodinal user of some 30-odd years standing and have used it with all films. It is the most robust and reliable developer I know. I have had half empty bottles 4 years old that still work perfectly. It will work with any film, depending on what you mean by 'work'. I have some genuine old Rodinal in stock at home but am now using R09 until I buy some Adox Adonal, which I am advised is the 'true' Rodinal formulation.<br>

<br />It is an acutance developer and thus does nothing to minimise grain, hence some people only use it for slow/medium films. However, since I generally downrate films, this is not an issue. Most commonly I shoot Ilford FP4 at 50 ASA and dev in Rodinal at 1/50 dilution - grain is not an issue, even less so on medium format.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>For the OP and other readers, do take safety precautions with undiluted Rodinal. Because of its strong alkaline PH, skin contact is dangerous and eye contact could be very serious. Gloves & goggles indicated. Keep away from kids. </p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Even diluted it can cause problems. I was sitting and inverting a tank when the lid fell off. I must say that having even 1-50 dilution in you lap is comfortable.</p>

<p> That said you may also want to try out Acros 100 and Tmax 100.</p>

[Fotohuis RoVo]

<p>I have used Rodinal/R09 since I was in the darkroom (1967). I am still using it but in 35mm format only for slow- and medium speed films.<br>

Rodinal doesn't work in the optimum way for tgrain type films, however Acros 100 is maybe an exception. The disadvantages of Rodinal are more grain and speed loss. The advantages are the sharpness and acutance, especially on classic cubical type films. It is also a cheap developer but in pure photographic ways this is a minor point (at least to me).</p>

<p>Talking above on Rodinal/R09 and Acros 100, 1+50, E.I. 64 :</p>

<p><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3669/10223497283_a776dece9b_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="443" /><br>

M7 + Summarit F/2,5-75mm</p>

 

[nathancraver]

I like Rodinal a lot with Tri-X 400 shot at 200, but when I shoot it at 400 or higher, I use HC-110, mainly because I haven't

bothered to try Rodinal at higher ISOs yet. I also use Rodinal with FP4 for 4x5 sheet film (shot at 100). The last batch of

sheets I developed, I mistakenly had some TMax 100 mixed in with the FP4 and they turned out great, though the TMax

could have used another 30 to 45 seconds to boost contrast, but they print just fine. I tried semi-stand development (1

hour with two inversions at the half hour mark) with the FP4 once in Rodinal diluted to 1+100, but they ended up way

overdeveloped. Good thing they were just BS test shots. Next time, I'll try stand development with HC-110.