cam_shaw

Well, thank you all again for your advice. I developed the two rolls last night and I was pleased with the results. The Efke 100 which expired in 1990 and I shot 2 stops overexposed at ISO 25, I developed in HC-110 (B) at 20 degrees C for 5 1/2 minutes using normal agitation and the results were pleasing. Some base fog as expected but very useable. After agonizing on how I was going to develop the 'Standard' 1939 roll I decided to to a quick clip test. I tried 6, 7, 8 & 9 mins on the clip in HC-110 (B) at 15 degrees and decided the 7 min mark produced a dark enough but not totally black result so I went with that. I also doubled the agitation for an increase in contrast, so 16 inversions at the start followed by 8 every minute for 7 minutes, then stop, fix, & wash as normal (all at 15 degrees C). I was a bit nervous considering that I shot the film at ISO 4 (roughly 4 stops overexposed) and my development was mostly guess work. There is more base fog than the 1990 roll (as expected) but I think the results are useable. I took the following cell phone shot looking through the negative at a light bulb (hence the white blob in the picture). Really pleased with the result. Thank you all. :-)

Ah, right. I will warm up the DD-X and see if they will dissolve back in and then test. So, is it best not to keep the developer in the fridge? I keep all my developers, fixer and stop in the fridge as well as my C-41 chemicals and of course film (exposed and unexposed). I now have some HC-110 so hopefully get round to some developing next week. Thank you all once again.

Thanks for all the replies! Very informative. Could I just ask though, is HC-110 dilution B 1:32 from concentrate? And from some comments, it seems I have overexposed somwhat but there is nothing I can do about that now. These rolls are certainly not mission critical. Just playing around really. I will buy some HC-110 then if DD-X or Rodinal are not really suitable. I need to replace the DD-X anyway as this bottle seems to have grown large crystals in a matter of a few months. The sealed bottle is fine, but the opened one is not, even though I keep it in the fridge. Thank you all once again.

Hi all, Apologies if this has been discussed to death but I have a question. I tried two test rolls of 127 film recently. Roll 1 was EFKE100 which expired in 1990. I rated this two stops below at ASA25 Roll 2 was a bit more experimental as it was 'standard' orthochromatic film H&D1300 which I rated four stops slower at ASA4. This roll is very experimental as it expired in 1939 and I just want to see if I can get anything from it. I have been trawling the 'net trying to find if there is a good starting point for attempting development of these two rolls. First question is: have I actually 'pulled' the film? or just compensated for the lack of sensitivity now due to age? In development, do I need to compensate as if I had 'pulled' the film or just develop normally? I'm a bit confused on this. 2nd question: best developer to try. I have Ilford DD-X and Rodinal to hand. I like the idea of using the DD-X as it's great for reducing grain and giving full film speed. Or I could go the safe option and stand develop in Rodinal for an hour. From memory, I think the film rescue project just develop normally and use something like D76. I would greatly appreciate any help or tips anyone can give me as I can't wait to see if I get anything from these films, especially the 'standard' film from 1939! Thanks.

<p>Hi all,<br /><br />I wonder if you can help me.<br /><br />I ordered the 1L Rollei Digibase C-41 kit in order to process some rolls of film I had shot over the summer.<br /><br />They are all 35mm but I want to also shoot some 120 colour too so I ordered the 1 litre kit thinking there would be enough chemistry there to fill my Paterson tank (600ml).<br /><br />I am a bit confused with regard to the required quantity of stabiliser. According to the instructions (which I downloaded), to make a 1 litre working solution, you need 900ml water and 100ml stabiliser. But there is only a 50ml bottle of stabiliser! All the other bottles have the correct quantities to make up a 1 litre working solution (dev, bleach, fix).<br /><br />Could you please advise if I'm doing something wrong here. I can't just make up a 500ml solution with the stabiliser as when I'm doing 120 film in a paterson tank I need 600ml to cover the film.<br /> <br /><br />Anyone had a similar problem or am I a lone voice in the wilderness...<br /><br />Many thanks in advance,<br /><br />Cam.</p>

<p><img src="http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/photonet/img149s.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/photonet/img150s.jpg" alt="" /><br> Daisies. Pentax K1000, 50mm f/1.7, Tri-X @ 400, Ilford DD-X (1+4) at 20 degrees for 8 mins. Scanned with Epson V800</p>

<p>Hi all,<br> <br />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'.</p> <p>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)!</p> <p>The conclusions I have come to are the following:<br> For me, the DD-X developer is great for FP4+ and Tri-X on 35mm. Low grain and sharp enough. <br> Rodinal is too grainy for me on 35mm unless that's the effect I'm after in a particular case.<br> I can't tell the difference in sharpness between the Rodinal at 1+25 and 1+50 on 35mm.<br> 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?<br> Just FYI, all the above images were shot hand held at various apertures and shutter speeds. The focus points were:<br> 1st image: the 'M'<br> 2nd image: nearest headlamp<br> 3rd image: nearest headlamp<br> 4th image: two axle stands<br> 5th image: carburettor body<br> 6th image: centre of front grille (taken at f/1.8 which is why the nearest headlamp is out of focus)</p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi all!<br> I have been playing with FP4+ and Tri-X in Rodinal and DD-X.<br /> I like the results from them all to be honest, but could do with better eyes than mine<br /> Using FP4+ I have developed a roll in DD-X, Rodinal (1+25) and Rodinal (1+50).<br> 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?<br /> 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.<br /> I scanned the negatives on an Epson V800 using the Epson software and unsharpening mask set to medium (the default).<br /> These scans are straight out of the scanner, no post at all (please excuse any stray dust).<br /> 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!<br> Below are the links to the full size (55mb) .TIFF files scanned at 4800dpi (35mm).<br> Thanks in anticipation!<br> <a href="http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/FP4+_DDX.tif" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/FP4+_DDX.tif</a><br /> <a href="http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/FP4+_Rodinal25.tif" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/FP4+_Rodinal25.tif</a><br /> <a href="http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/FP4+_Rodinal50.tif" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/FP4+_Rodinal50.tif</a><br /> <a href="http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/Tri-X_Rodinal25.tif" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/Tri-X_Rodinal25.tif</a><br /> <a href="http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/Tri-X_Rodinal50.tif" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/Tri-X_Rodinal50.tif</a><br /> <a href="http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/Tri-X_Semi.tif" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/Tri-X_Semi.tif</a></p> <p>Here are the small resized (700 wide - 100mb max) images.<br> <img src="http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/photonet/FP4+_DDX.jpg" alt="" /><br> The above image is FP4+ in DD-X</p> <p><img src="http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/photonet/FP4+_Rodinal25.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="428" /><br> The above image is FP4+ in Rodinal (1+25)</p> <p><img src="http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/photonet/FP4+_Rodinal50.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="426" /><br> The above image is FP4+ in Rodinal (1+50)</p> <p><img src="http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/photonet/Tri-X_Rodinal25.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="424" /><br> The above image is Tri-X in Rodinal (1+25)</p> <p><img src="http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/photonet/Tri-X_Rodinal50.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="430" /><br> The above image is Tri-X in Rodinal (1+50)</p> <p><img src="http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/photonet/Tri-X_Semi.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="435" /><br> The above image is Tri-X in Rodinal (1+100) Semi Stand - the Ted Forbes method.<br> 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.</p>

<p>Here are the small resized (700 wide - 100mb max) images.<br> <img src="http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/photonet/FP4+_DDX.jpg" alt="" /><br> The above image is FP4+ in DD-X</p> <p><img src="http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/photonet/FP4+_Rodinal25.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="428" /><br> The above image is FP4+ in Rodinal (1+25)</p> <p><img src="http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/photonet/FP4+_Rodinal50.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="426" /><br> The above image is FP4+ in Rodinal (1+50)</p> <p><img src="http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/photonet/Tri-X_Rodinal25.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="424" /><br> The above image is Tri-X in Rodinal (1+25)</p> <p><img src="http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/photonet/Tri-X_Rodinal50.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="430" /><br> The above image is Tri-X in Rodinal (1+50)</p> <p><img src="http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/photonet/Tri-X_Semi.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="435" /><br> The above image is Tri-X in Rodinal (1+100) Semi Stand - the Ted Forbes method.</p> <p>FYI - all shot with a Canon A-1 and 50mm f/1.8 lens</p>

<p>Hi all!</p> <p>Just an update. I have not developed the rolls I first spoke about, but I have been playing with FP4+ and Tri-X in Rodinal and DD-X<br> I like the results from them all to be honest, but could do with better eyes than mine<br> Using FP4+ I have developed a roll in DD-X, Rodinal (1+25) and Rodinal (1+50). I think the DD-X looks cleaner but I have not noticed an increase in sharpness with the Rodinal and I'm struggling to tell the difference between the two concentrations. I know the 1+25 is supposed to be sharper but I just can't see it. Maybe you can?<br> 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.<br> I scanned the negatives on an Epson V800 using the Epson software and unsharpening mask set to medium (the default).<br> These scans are straight out of the scanner, no post at all (please excuse any stray dust).<br> 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!</p> <p>Below are the links to the full size (54mb) .TIFF files scanned at 4800dpi (35mm).</p> <p>Thanks in anticipation!</p> <p>http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/FP4+_DDX.tif<br> http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/FP4+_Rodinal25.tif<br> http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/FP4+_Rodinal50.tif<br> http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/Tri-X_Rodinal25.tif<br> http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/Tri-X_Rodinal50.tif<br> http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Misc/photos/Tri-X_Semi.tif</p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks for all the replies. Some very interesting points made there. However...</p> <p>With the release of the 5DMKIV, perhaps that could be a contender (excellent in all respects except price). £3600 in the UK at present and that is a HUGE amount of money, BUT potentially possible IF I skip an iteration and upgrade every 8 years or so? At least I know what is physically out there now with the new series of sensors in the full frame sector. If the 6DMKII has the same IQ but the same autofocus as the 5DMK3 then it might be a contender but it's only conjecture as we don't know what the spec will be or even if it will be released at all.<br> <br />I still won't be buying until next year, but one thing I'll have to concern myself about is the whiplash effect from the upgrade! ;-) </p>

<p>Hi David,<br> Interesting slant. I was talking to a guy at a race meeting in January who had a 5DsR and he was raving about it. For me the pros would be exactly as you describe, but the cons (in order) would be: Not as good high ISO performance as the 6D in low light (even Canon admit that), HUGE file sizes and cost. It is a fantastic piece of kit though and if I was doing high detail studio work I would get one without blinking. I am also liking it's autofocussing system.</p> <p>With regard to the 5DMK3, it's a big old beast but again 5 year old technology (when I am ready to buy) with an excellent autofocussing system but the IQ almost the same as the 6D for a fair bit more money. I'm not sure about buying a used body. Primes ok, but zoom lenses and bodies I'm a bit nervous about unless they are from a dealer and come with some sort of warranty.</p> <p>Yes, the improvement over my current body will be very dramatic and I'm very much looking forward to it and the day when I can watch some videos comparing the 5DMKIV and 6D MKII and make an informed choice.</p> <p>Talking of used bodies, I initially considered a 5Dmk2 and mk1 but after looking at the specs and watching some comparison videos the results were pretty poor so I gave up on that idea as I'd want this new body to last me 5 years or so. Maybe more.</p>

<p>Good advice guys. I'll wait and see. Just wondered if anyone was in the same boat and what their thoughts were. Thanks again.</p>

<p>Hi Glenn! Yes, I have seen that and love Zack Arias. I think he's brilliant. Kind of puts it all into perspective. Having said that, I think he also shoots with a medium format Phase One? So, perhaps they aren't all the same. ;-) lol.</p> <p>Incidentally, I was not disrespecting crop sensors at all, I love mine and the reach and extra depth of field it gives, BUT there are certain instances where full frame (or 35mm) gives better results. Horses for courses really and being as I also shoot with 35mm film (and 120) I am used to the focal lengths from those and full frame would make things a bit easier for me. I will still keep and use my crop sensor and use it when conditions are appropriate.<br> One example recently was when I was shooting at a disused railway yard in the evening as the light was going down. I was using a Pentax K1000 with the 50mm f/1.7 and 35mm film. I also wanted some digital photos, so I slapped my 50mm f/1.4 on my 700D and was frustrated by the fact that I could not get the same shots as I would have to stand much further away and there were things in the way! Yes, I could have used a 35mm lens but I don't have one and it would have to be a fast one as I was shooting around f/1.8 <br> Also, on the flip side I was shooting at a model show (small model railway/houses - not supermodels!) which was indoors and and even my crop sensor did not give me enough depth of field for the shots. Yes, I could have used a longer exposure and stopped down to f/22 but using a tripod would have been cumbersome and inappropriate. OR I could have used focus stacking, but it made me think as my step-daughter was getting much better DOF with her point and shoot with it's much smaller sensor albeit with much poorer image quality. Each has it's pros and cons I guess.<br> </p>

<p>Thanks for the replies guys! Good advice. <br> I guess the prices might be (guessing) £1,000 for the 6D and £2,000 for the MK2 and probably a little less for the 6D in spring 2017. I know the mk2 will be over twice the price of the mk1 but if it gets me where I need to be then I'm ok with that, but of course I don't want to spend out on the 'latest & greatest' if I don't need it.</p> <p>Making a list is a great idea and and present (off the top of my head) what I need is:<br> 1. Full frame sensor<br> 2. Fast & accurate focussing (especially in low light)<br> 3. Good high ISO performance 6400 - 12,800</p> <p>What I'd also like (but not essential):<br> 1. Reasonable dynamic range<br> 2. flip & twist screen<br> 3. 2 x memory card slots</p> <p>What I don't need is:<br> 1. a gazillion focussing points<br> 2. high burst rate<br> 3. GPS<br> 4. WiFi<br> 5. touch screen</p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi,</p> <p>Been racking my brain for a while now about which full-frame camera to go for next year.<br> Bit of background: I'm currently shooting with a 700D and although it's a great little camera and I love it, I'm getting the feeling that I need to go to full frame. The reason for this is multifold. Firstly noise performance. I do shoot some indoor events and I'm up at around ISO800 - 3200, sometimes 6400 and the 700D is strugging there. I also shoot portraiture, classic vehicles, a little motorsport, the odd wedding, etc. I'm also finding the focussing is ok but not great on the 700D, so I'd like to improve that (I generally use the centre point). I also love the 'look' of the full frame images as I also shoot film (35mm and 120) and love the 'look'.</p> <p>When I first bought the 700D I had the 18-135mm IS USM kit lens which was fine for a while, and I added the EF-S 10-18 which is a great lens. Then I started thinking about full frame and I decided that I would not buy any more EF-S lenses which only fit the crop sensor cameras but go for the EF lenses. <br> Since then I have aquired the Canon 50mm f/1.4,<br> Canon 40mm f/2.8<br> Canon 85mm f/1.8<br> Canon 24-70mm f/4 IS (my go to lens)<br> Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS<br> Tamron 150-600mm</p> <p>So, around April/May next year I will be looking for a full frame body. I was thinking of getting the 6D which should meet my needs, but what's bugging me is that it's 2012 technology and by the time of purchase it will already be 5 years old... perhaps I would be better waiting for the replacement model? I know it's only rumours but if the past is anything to go by the 6D was released around 6 months after the 5D MK3, so perhaps the 6D replacement will be announced around Feb/March 2017? Sounds like a plan BUT the other thing that's bugging me is do I NEED a better camera than the 6D? Is the image quality likely to be THAT much better than the 6D? also will the focussing be that much better?</p> <p>It's driving me nuts! and I know I won't be purchasing the full frame body until next year, but I like to have a plan!</p> <p>Opinions would be very welcome. Thanks.</p>

<p>Thanks for the info! I guess I'll stop being cheap now. lol.<br> Thanks again.</p>

<p>Hi all,</p> <p>Just a thought.<br> I was going to get some anti-oxidising spray (http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/tetenal-protectan-spray-1247-p.asp) to put in the top of my developer bottles when I next placed an order for some film, but having read that some people use nitrogen, I just wondered if CO2 would have the same effect?<br> I have lots of CO2 available as I'm into classic cars and have a MIG welder with a huge bottle of CO2. Just as a price comparison, the small aerosol of protectan spray is £17.49 whereas I can get a 5 foot tall cylinder of CO2 refilled for £15!<br> Any opinions on this? any chemists out there?</p> <p>Thanks. :-)</p>

<p>Thanks for all the information you guys. Brilliant! Lots to think about there. </p>

<p>Right, ok. That's good to know. For heating, how about one of these: http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/novatronic-heaterthermostat-2545-p.asp</p>

<p>Thanks Stephen & Peter. I'll use my B&W and make sure everything is clean. I usually clean and dry everything properly before I pack it all away so it should be ok then.</p> <p>Hi again Bill, don't worry! I'm not doing C-41 yet, I still have SO much to do with my B&W processing, but I do intend to have a go at it eventually and it got me wondering about how much additional equipment I would need. I'm assuming the C-41 chemistry is more prone to oxidising than the B&W. I have had a look at this: http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/tetenal-protectan-spray-1247-p.asp<br> I wonder if you think it would be worthwhile getting some when I start C-41? As usual, thank you for your advice. :-)</p>

<p>Hi Bill,<br> I will certainly give all of the above a go although it might take me a little while to go through all the permutations I have in my head at the moment! Also, I'm not developing for a particular medium, i.e. wet printing or scanning. I intend to wet print some frames and scan some, so I want to eventually end up with the best possible negative so I can do both and do as little post processing / contrast adjustments in the darkroom as possible. In fact while experimenting, I'll scan the negatives in and note on average how much contrast / exposure tweaking I have to do to get the desired result and try to apply those corrections to the development and see if I can bring things closer to the results I am after. That may take me some time and film but it's all good fun isn't it?<br> I have three patterson film reels, so I can load one and put an empty one on top to fill the gap in the 120 tank. The only downside I can see is that I'll have to use double the amount of fixer, but I can re-use that so it's not the end of the world. Again, thanks for all the advice. :-)</p> <p>David, I was aware of the high acutance nature of Rodinal, which is really what's attracting me to it, but I was not aware of the fact that it does not give full emulsion speed! Thank you for pointing this out. Given that fact, it makes sense that folks use stand or semi-stand to reduce the contrast. I have no experience of D76 but it seems on the face of it to be in the 'middle' of DD-X and Rodinal. Maybe when I run out of my current bottle of DD-X I should try some and see what results I get. I was looking to run two developers - fine grain and high acutance and use them depending on what results I am looking for but a compromise between the two is interesting. Thanks for the suggestion. </p> <p>Wouter, Hmmm. ok, reducing the agitation reduces the grain, but how does that affect the acutance and contrast? presumably reduces both? have I understood that properly?<br> Seems to be that I can use the Rodinal with 'normal' development for a light grain film but use either DD-X or Rodinal with stand or semi-stand for a grainy film, unless of course I'm after a very grainy, gritty scene. I hope I have understood that correctly! Thank you.</p> <p>Thank you all for your comments and advice, it's certainly given me lots to think about and lots to experiment with. It might take me some time, but I'll have fun in the process!<br> Cheers!</p>

<p>Just a quick question.<br> I have not done any C-41 processing myself yet, but is it best to buy separate developing tanks for the C-41 rather than using my B&W tanks?<br> Thanks.</p>

<p>Hi Stephen thanks for the reply and the link! Brilliant! I love the explanation of the darks 'catching up' in semi-stand development leading to a more even tone. Makes total sense. I had read about stand developing before, but I was a bit wary of the results, but it seems plenty of people have had good results from it. I guess if I tried 'standard' developing and the tonal range was too contrasty (too many darks and highlights) then semi-stand is a good way to even things out. That's really good to know, so thanks for that. <br> Also very interesting in the link, that the speed the film is shot at and the ISO rating does not seem to matter??? Mind blowing stuff. <br> <br />I have shot some different rolls recently, but if I could pick two fims at the moment that stand out for me it would be FP4+ for bright sunny days and Tri-X for dim overcast days or indoor. Also, although I'm used to using DD-X, sometimes I want more sharpness from the FP4+, so I think Rodinal might be a good match for that. Perhaps use the DD-X mostly for the Tri-X? where the grain will be lessened slightly. Unless of course I have shot some Tri-X and I want it as sharp as I can, then I think Rodinal and stand develop to avoid too much contrast? Have I got that right?</p> <p>Bill, thank for the reply. I have got a single roll paterson tank (300ml) which I use for 35mm and a twin roll paterson tank (600ml) which I use for 120. I guess I could use the 120 tank. 3.5ml per roll! I'll remember that!</p> <p>Thanks again guys. Very helpful.</p>

<p>Hi all,<br> <br />Sorry for the newbie question, but I have recently bought some Rodinal at the recommendation of a friend and I've never used it before. I usually use DD-X.</p> <p>I have two rolls of 35mm I recently shot on a bright sunny day. One roll is Delta 400 and the other TMAX 400. I shot both of them at ISO 200. The reason for choosing these films is they were what I had left in my box and I needed to go to an event! I would normally have used FP4+ or PAN F</p> <p>I was going to develop them as normal in DD-X, but my friend suggested Rodinal, so I got some. My questions are:<br> Will the Rodinal at 1:25 possibly give too much contrast with these films even though I'm pulling them a stop? Would I be better with 1:50 or would you recommend I stick to the DD-X?<br> This is also the first time I have shot Delta 400 so I'm not sure how it compares to TMAX 400 as they are both T-grain. I usually just experiment by changing one variable at a time, but I have changed a few here so I just wondered what you knowledgeable people thought.<br> <br />Does not matter massively if they don't come out perfect as they are not mission critical. I do like a scene with a nice even contrast spread though, not just lots of mid tones and also not mostly black with completely blown highlights if you get what I mean.<br> Thanks in advance.</p>