Any first-time advice on using Rodinal?

[Ken Bingham]

And when the stock goes black , fret not! It's still good.

I wouldn't have expected that! Thanks, Andrew.

 

[removedacct1]

Dont be tempted, no matter what you read, to think stand development will solve all your problems. I have had more developer disasters doing stand development than all other developer disasters combined. try if you must, but dont expect magic. stick to 1+50 and be happy. keep it simple!

I second this sentiment.
I would also add: don’t be seduced by the popular mythology that is cultivated around Rodinal. For the most part it is just another developer. It will, however, amplify grain effects in fast films, and this becomes more apparent with smaller formats, like 35mm. Some people find this is a look they like, others find it harsh and distracting. Only you can decide what’s right for you.
In my own work, I have found that Rodinal is very poor at rendering subtle gradations and details in highlight values. This also becomes more conspicuous with faster films, and especially so if you make big enlargements (for example, making 11x14 prints from 35mm negs of Tri-X). I used to use Rodinal with Rollei IR400 until I did a comparison with Xtol: the differences in highlight information was far better in the Xtol negs.

Rodinal is a fine choice, but it does influence the results somewhat. I no longer use it to develop negatives smaller than 4x5 for the aforementioned reasons.

 

[Ken Bingham]

Thanks to everyone who responded to this thread with advice. Fed-Ex will be delivering my first bottle of Rodinal this afternoon, and I've got a roll of Ilford Pan-F+ ISO 50 to try out with it.

 

[removedacct1]

Thanks to everyone who responded to this thread with advice. Fed-Ex will be delivering my first bottle of Rodinal this afternoon, and I've got a roll of Ilford Pan-F+ ISO 50 to try out with it.

Be aware that Pan F is a difficult film to expose/develop well. It is contrasty and its difficult to get good shadow detail without sacrificing upper values. Rodinal will only make the task of crafting a balanced negative more challenging. I attempted this combination years ago and quickly abandoned it as unsatisfactory. But hey, you might be looking for a result that this combo might deliver, so don't let my remarks deter you. Find out for yourself and see if you like what you get.

 

[Ken Bingham]

Be aware that Pan F is a difficult film to expose/develop well. It is contrasty and its difficult to get good shadow detail without sacrificing upper values. Rodinal will only make the task of crafting a balanced negative more challenging. I attempted this combination years ago and quickly abandoned it as unsatisfactory. But hey, you might be looking for a result that this combo might deliver, so don't let my remarks deter you. Find out for yourself and see if you like what you get.

Thanks, Paul. Actually, I've got two rolls to try out today: the aforementioned Ilford, and one last remaining roll of Ultrafine Extreme. I got the Pan F for the Mamiya because I tried a 35mm roll and liked it. I guess I'll find out. It's the journey, right, not the destination?

 

[jim appleyard]

Ken, you may want to dilute the Rodinal 1+100 and soup the Pan-F for about 14 min. giving a 30 sec. inversion at the beginning and 1-2 inversions every minute. EI 25. This is my replacement for APX 25, no longer made. Works well for me. YMMV.

 

[Ken Bingham]

Ken, you may want to dilute the Rodinal 1+100 and soup the Pan-F for about 14 min. giving a 30 sec. inversion at the beginning and 1-2 inversions every minute. EI 25. This is my replacement for APX 25, no longer made. Works well for me. YMMV.

Jim, I appreciate the advice, but since this is my first time with it, I'll probably play it straight. Actually, I'll do the Ultrafine first and see what that looks like. Then I'll figure out what to try with the Pan-F.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Play it straight, is good advice. Honestly, Pan-F+ is prone to being contrasty but I shot a lot of it a few years back, used Rodinal exclusively for it and it printed quite well.

I could see it blocking up a bit in the highlights, possibly, although it never did for me...but if it's a worry for you just try metering/developing accordingly. It's a great film and from what I saw, a great combination.

 

[John51]

Might be best to use the first roll for a full test. Tedious but worthwhile imo.

Same scene on every roll. Include shadow and highlight detail, black and white clothing will do. I have a b+w stuffed fur toy for testing. Set to your preferred shutter speed and assuming 6x6 take 3 sets of 4 shots, asa from 16 to 64, take notes. Try to minimise duplicate asa settings.

It's Pan F so no delay in processing. Cut a third off the film and process at N-1. Re-roll the film if you don't have a 2nd tank to store it in. Then a third at N and the remainder at N+1.

Then make a contact print at the minimum enlarger time (x secs) that gives an acceptable black. Repeat with times of 2x and x/2.

For one roll and 3 sheets of paper, you'll have 36 pics showing how the variables mingle in the real world. Whichever pic you like the best, that's your asa, developing time and exposure time from now on.

Until you change either the film, camera or developer/dilution.

 

[Ken Bingham]

I was going to post these sooner, but life intervened in some dismaying ways lately. A violent thunderstorm tore down our back fence, the washing machine quit, and the weekend mass shootings all caused various forms of financial and emotional hardship. Regardless, here are two images using Rodinal as the developer. The first is 120 Ultrafine ISO 100, developed at 1:50. I exposed for the shadows in the shack, by the way. The second is 120 Pan-F+ 50, the film that provoked so much discussion here. I used Rodinal 1:50 for it too. I used the standard times listed in the Digitaltruth Massive Dev Chart. Except for cropping away the negative edges picked up by my scanner and downsizing them to the allowed site limits, both are unretouched. Zooming may cause pixelization: the shack is 96 ppi, I think, and the weird thing is 150. What is that thing, anyway?

 

[removedacct1]

Ken,
In the larger photo on the right I seem to be seeing a lot of small white dots in the sky areas. Is that on the negative?

 

[Ken Bingham]

Ken,
In the larger photo on the right I seem to be seeing a lot of small white dots in the sky areas. Is that on the negative?

I think it's dust, Paul. Sometimes, no matter how careful I am, dust shows up in my scans. It might also be the result of downsizing the scan, because I didn't notice the dots when I looked at the scan in PS. Once I get through dealing with fences and washing machines, I'll take another look at it.