Rodinal vs DD-X for FP4+ and Tri-X

cam_shaw · October 6, 2016

Hi all!

I have been playing with FP4+ and Tri-X in Rodinal and DD-X. I like the results from them all to be honest, but could do with better eyes than mine Using FP4+ I have developed a roll in DD-X, Rodinal (1+25) and Rodinal (1+50).

I think the DD-X looks cleaner (less grain) but I have not noticed an increase in sharpness with the Rodinal and I'm struggling to tell the difference between the two concentrations of Rodinal. I know the 1+25 is supposed to be sharper but I just can't see it. Maybe you can? Using the Tri-X I have developed a roll in Rodinal (1+25), Rodinal (1+50) and Rodinal (1+100) using semi-stand (the Ted Forbes method). I have yet to try the Tri-X in DD-X which I may do this week time permitting. I scanned the negatives on an Epson V800 using the Epson software and unsharpening mask set to medium (the default). These scans are straight out of the scanner, no post at all (please excuse any stray dust). Could you knowledgeable people have a look for me and see what you think. Are the results acceptable? and are the differences between the Rodinal concentrations small or is it just me!

Below are the links to the full size (55mb) .TIFF files scanned at 4800dpi (35mm).

Thanks in anticipation!

Here are the small resized (700 wide - 100mb max) images.

The above image is FP4+ in DD-X

The above image is FP4+ in Rodinal (1+25)

The above image is FP4+ in Rodinal (1+50)

The above image is Tri-X in Rodinal (1+25)

The above image is Tri-X in Rodinal (1+50)

The above image is Tri-X in Rodinal (1+100) Semi Stand - the Ted Forbes method.

FYI - all shot with a Canon A-1 and 50mm f/1.8 lens. Developed at 20 degrees C with times from the Massive Dev Chart.

SCL · October 6, 2016

To me the differences weren't meaningful.I've used Rodinal, mostly with Tri-X and Pan F+ for a couple of years now. It is very convenient for me, but my favorite developer has always been D-76. Pyro has fascinated me, but to date I've never used it. But back to your shots...unless you were enlarging to exhibition sizes, say 3x4 ft, I doubt most people would notice the differences. The "sharpness" difficulty I have is that this wasn't a fully controlled experiment in the sense that you're comparing apples to oranges. You don't elaborate if you used different f stops on your lens so we don't know if you chose a sweet spot for one shot but not the next, so one constant is possibly thrown out, no indication if a tripod was used, so there goes another, and no statement of the point of focus in each picture...so there goes another. Not trying to be critical....all shots look good to me, but if you truly want comparative visual analysis of the effects of each developer, concentration, and film type, stronger controls are in order.

john_shriver · October 6, 2016

Grain will be softer in DD-X, and you'll have more film speed than Rodinal can give. DD-X is a "speed enhancing" developer, can easily give you true EI 500 on Tri-X. Rodinal is "speed losing" developer, it's a challenge to hit a proper EI 250 with Tri-X.

bernard_lazareff · October 6, 2016

Nice to have undertaken those tests. But...

If you want to decide whether there are (small) differences between various combinations, and which differences, you MUST:

<ol>

<li>Use the same scene for all combinations</li>

<li>Ask the opinion of "naive" observers that do not know which is which when they evaluate the qualities of the prints (sharpness, grain, whatever)</li>

</ol>

john_stockdale2 · October 6, 2016

To add to Bernard's suggestions, tripod is needed to ensure a fair comparison of sharpness, and the differences in effective film speed will need to be taken into account. Also the type of photos you want: you might prefer the brilliant sharp look (maybe Rodinal) for shiny motorbikes but something smoother for flattering portraits.

The other thing is scanning compared to wet printing. A different contrast is generally recommended (by others: I just do wet prints). No problem if you only do one or the other.

One final complication: even using the same materials for a long period, I have found that my results gradually improve as I learn from printing difficult negatives. For example, a bit less development for a particular roll taken in contrasty circumstances (combined with careful metering). I think this tweaking eventually reduces the differences between film/developer combinations.

cam_shaw · October 10, 2016

Hi all,

Thank you for taking the time to reply! All excellent points. I think I should have been more specific about the 'tests' and I absolutely take on board about comparing 'apples to oranges'.

To be honest, I had already shot those rolls and so instead of just developing in DD-X like I usually do, I thought I'd try a few different development options. If I wanted absolutely scientific comparisons then I would have had the same subject with the same lighting and tripod mounted the camera and used the same lens and aperture and been a lot more 'controlled' about it as has been kindly suggested. The objective of the development exercise was (and is) to see if there is a noticeable difference between the different types of development I have tried and I HAVE come to a few conclusions myself (so all is not lost lol). I have also now developed the Tri-X in DD-X (not yet scanned) and I am pleased with the results (to my eye anyway)!

The conclusions I have come to are the following:

For me, the DD-X developer is great for FP4+ and Tri-X on 35mm. Low grain and sharp enough.

Rodinal is too grainy for me on 35mm unless that's the effect I'm after in a particular case.

I can't tell the difference in sharpness between the Rodinal at 1+25 and 1+50 on 35mm.

I REALLY messed up with the semi stand development. I watched the Ted Forbes video on stand development and applied his technique which was develop normally for 4 minutes then let stand for an hour with two inversions at the 30 min mark. This worked fine for shots at or near box speed BUT I read that it does not matter what ISO your shots are with stand development, so I shot some Tri-X at 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 and 6400 just for a test and the higher ISO images were completely underexposed (virtually clear negative at 6400). I think the 'develop normally for 4 minutes' had a lot to do with that! Perhaps it would have been better to just do two gentle inversions at the start and then 2 more after 30 mins then leave for the full hour. Have I got that right?

Just FYI, all the above images were shot hand held at various apertures and shutter speeds. The focus points were:

1st image: the 'M'

2nd image: nearest headlamp

3rd image: nearest headlamp

4th image: two axle stands

5th image: carburettor body

6th image: centre of front grille (taken at f/1.8 which is why the nearest headlamp is out of focus)

Tony Evans · November 8, 2016

Cam,

This works for me on Acros, PanF+ and FP4+. Rodinal (1 in 100) semi-stand with continuous inversions for first minute, than stand for 1 hour with 1 gentle inversion at each of 15, 30 and 45 minutes. Now trying with Arista EDU Ultra 100 and Kentmere 100. Low to medium ISO films only. To avoid gradient lines I always overload the tank a little. eg, 400 ml not 300 ml, 600 ml not 500 ml, etc.

Sign In

Rodinal vs DD-X for FP4+ and Tri-X

Recommended Posts

cam_shaw

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SCL

Link to comment

Share on other sites

john_shriver

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bernard_lazareff

Link to comment

Share on other sites

john_stockdale2

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cam_shaw

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Tony Evans

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Explore

Forums

Learn

Job Opportunities