A few questions about Rodinal/Adonal

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by newtorf, Aug 19, 2013.

  1. newtorf

    newtorf Member

    Messages:
    77
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Location:
    SF bay
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Hi,

    I have been exclusively using HC-110 in the past. But recently I'd like to try Rodinal/Adonal for my Agfa APX 100 films. I have several questions about this developer:

    . What is the minimal amount of Rodinal for a 135 36exp roll of film? I found online some number like 3ml. Would like to confirm the number.

    . Has anyone tried non-standard (1:25, 1:50, 1:100) dilutions? Specifically I'd like to use 1:63 (similar to HC-110 Dil H because my measure cup has 7.5ml mark and my stainless steel tank is 480ml). But I do not know how much time would be needed for this dilution.

    . What is the impact of temperature? Specifically how much time is needed for 21 C - 24 C?

    Thanks for any information!

    Jimmy
     
  2. Ken Nadvornick

    Ken Nadvornick Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,781
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Location:
    Monroe, WA,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I believe the original Agfa recommendation for Rodinal was 10ml per 135-36 roll (or about 80 square inches). A large number of users seem to do just fine at 5ml/80sqi. And some have whittled that down to 3ml/80sqi.

    Keep in mind that those minimums must exist in a volume of water as a dilution ratio that works for your processing needs and equipment.

    Worth noting as well is that at the current Freestyle price of US$13.99 for a 500ml bottle, using the Agfa recommendation results in a cost per roll for 135-36 of only 28 cents each. Some will try to economize by using less, but for the life of me I can't see why.

    Ken
     
  3. Dr Croubie

    Dr Croubie Member

    Messages:
    1,956
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Location:
    rAdelaide
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Straight from here, minimum is 5ml per roll.

    I've only ever used rodinal at 1+100 stand (or semistand, max 3 agitations in an hour.), so far on APX100 and PanF50, but mostly on Rollei Retro 100 (I scored a 100' roll cheap). So that's only 3+300ml per 135, and 5+500 per 120 roll, never had any problems with it becoming 'globally exhausted', but then that's the point of 1-hour stand, in that it becomes 'locally exhausted' and doesn't blow your highlights.
    Of course, even using proper agitate-every-minute, it'll depend on how much of each frame is light or dark as to how much it gets used up.

    5ml/roll sounds a bit like a 'best before' date on food: it's there to protect the manufacturer from whingeing customers, not to protect the consumer, so it's probably very conservative.

    How much film have you got? As always, start by following the manufacturer's recommendations and then you can play around. You can get away with using less, but it's probably the cheapest thing out there so there's no point in saving money with less dilutions, only do it to change the effect on the photos.
     
  4. semi-ambivalent

    semi-ambivalent Subscriber

    Messages:
    700
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2011
    Shooter:
    35mm
  5. Ken Nadvornick

    Ken Nadvornick Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,781
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Location:
    Monroe, WA,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Yes, I am aware of that. But I believe the original Agfa minimum recommendation was 10ml/80sqi. That may have indeed been conservative. But at only 28 cents per roll I'm not going to quibble over 14 additional cents.

    Ken
     
  6. newtorf

    newtorf Member

    Messages:
    77
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Location:
    SF bay
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Thanks for all the info! I will try 10 ml for 2 roll then (1:50 dilution means 500ml, almost perfect fit for my stainless steel tank).
     
  7. NB23

    NB23 Member

    Messages:
    1,070
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Pleeeeeeese, don't buy the "stand development" hype.
     
  8. semi-ambivalent

    semi-ambivalent Subscriber

    Messages:
    700
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2011
    Shooter:
    35mm
    About what hype, precisely, are you speaking?

    s-a
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 20, 2013
  9. NB23

    NB23 Member

    Messages:
    1,070
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Shooter:
    35mm

    Maybe the hype is over but not long ago, many newbies "discovered" that stand development enabled them to use their film at any ISO during shooting and Stand development would "even it all out magically". "Just let it sit for an hour without touching it".

    And "Oh yes, streaking? Never noticed any streaking. But you can use the semi-stand method. Just gently make one inversion at the 30 minute mark".

    The BS above was quite standard and spread out really fast on many forums.
     
  10. AgX

    AgX Member

    Messages:
    11,164
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Location:
    Germany
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It was 10ml Rodinal concentrate per type 136-36.


    But the rule should be to follow the intruction of the very package. (Concentration of conctrate may have changed etc.)
     
  11. Ken Nadvornick

    Ken Nadvornick Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,781
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Location:
    Monroe, WA,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks AgX. I thought that's what I remembered. Adox maintains that Adonal is exactly the same as the final Rodinal version in every respect. And it does seem that 5ml works just fine for the vast majority of those who try it.

    :smile:

    Ken
     
  12. R.Gould

    R.Gould Member

    Messages:
    586
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Location:
    Jersey Chann
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I use rodinal at 1/50 and my tank (Patterson) takes 300 ml per 35mm film, so 6ml rodinal to 294 water works fine, for 120 10ml of rodinal to 490 of water works fine,
    Richard
     
  13. martinhughesireland

    martinhughesireland Member

    Messages:
    278
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Location:
    Ireland
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    +1
     
  14. TheFlyingCamera

    TheFlyingCamera Membership Council

    Messages:
    9,179
    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    "stand development hype" is saying that stand development will save any and all negatives no matter how poorly over or under exposed they might be. That's the hype - the truth is that the process will help control higlights relative to shadows, IF the original exposure is there to begin with. No matter the development technique, you can't put back in what isn't there to begin with. But just as you beg folks to not buy in to "hype", I beg you not to slam a technique you don't like, practice or understand for that reason alone.
     
  15. Gerald C Koch

    Gerald C Koch Member

    Messages:
    5,437
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Southern USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Books on the zone system will usually discuss when stand or semi-stand development is appropriate. However it should not be used as a general developing technique.
     
  16. James1

    James1 Member

    Messages:
    43
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Location:
    United Kingd
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I tried stand development a few times, and never succeeded, usually got horrible over-development. *For me*, it didn't work at varying temperatures and only one or no agitation.

    I went back to basics, and now use original Orwo R09 at 1+40. In my Paterson tank, I use 350ml of solution (8.75 ml of concentrate). Original R09 is about 20% less concentrated than Rodinal, so that equates to 7ml of Rodinal in my tank.

    I use more solution than the minimum, and my negatives are far, far better, and more important, are now of consistant quality.
     
  17. pdeeh

    pdeeh Member

    Messages:
    2,981
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    For people whose negatives will never see the inside of a darkroom (i.e. their negatives will only ever be scanned), it is however probably perfectly good as a general-purpose technique (assuming one can avoid bromide drag and whatnot); and some of course who do "print wet" will find it produces negatives that print well for them
     
  18. john_s

    john_s Member

    Messages:
    1,094
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2002
    Location:
    Melbourne, A
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    From Agfa's instructions (pdf file, 2003)

    Yield
    One-shot developer: with 500 ml concentrate about fifty films
    (135-36 or 120 roll-film) can be developed.

    Although one can get away with less, and I'm sure there are variables, such as how much contrast you need, 10mL per unit of film isn't extravagant. I've always wondered what the difference is between attaining a certain contrast level by exhausting very dilute developer, such as 3mL to 5mL per film, and attaining the same overall contrast with more developer by limiting the dev time (same concentration, more volume).

    Incidentally, Agfa's own dev times were for pretty robust contrast (gamma=0.65).
     
  19. damonff

    damonff Member

    Messages:
    131
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Location:
    Washington,
    Shooter:
    35mm
    . What is the minimal amount of Rodinal for a 135 36exp roll of film? I found online some number like 3ml. Would like to confirm the number.

    Hey, I have been experimenting with Rodinal. I have been using 1ml of Rodinal per 300ml of water and have been amazed at the results. If you want my process, email me: damonff@gmail.com. I have used TMAX 400 and Tech Pan so far and have achieved beautiful results.
     
  20. Truzi

    Truzi Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,603
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I don't know much about it, but have been playing with Rodinal (Adonal) a bit. Recently I tried semi-stand for about an hour with 3ml per 36exp roll (Tri-X 400) in a two roll stainless tank. That's 6ml + about 480ml water (I wanted 1:100, but decided on 3ml per roll instead). They came out too dense. It's been a long time since I've been in a darkroom, but I think they'll be printable, albeit with long exposures.

    Yes, I know the comments I may get from this, and yes, I read the Massive Dev Chart. I'm just playing around and experimenting, so there is no loss. I did it on purpose; this is how I learn.
     
  21. TheFlyingCamera

    TheFlyingCamera Membership Council

    Messages:
    9,179
    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Truzi-

    next time try 30 minutes, with agitation every 10 mins. I think you'll be much happier with the results.
     
  22. Truzi

    Truzi Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,603
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanx, I'll try that. The test rolls were exposed (and not underexposed) in a forest without large bright areas. It seems that 3ml is okay, though.
    For important pictures I use something I'm more familiar with (D-76), and do it by the book. I'm just getting the hang of rodinal, TMax, & HC-110. I'm almost there with the TMax developer.