|
|
|
-
Talk to me about Rodinal and toy cameras...
I have been giving a lot of thought about processing my own film, it's something I have experience in, but something I haven't done in a good 17 years or so.
I have only used Kodak developers, D-76 and Tmax, but have hearing a lot about Rodinal and the "Rodinal like" developers that are available today.
So I was wondering what your experiences are with it.
What dilution do you use and why? I understand the dilution use can affect the sharpness is that true?
How does it affect the sharpness of your Holga images?
Do you let it stand or do you agitate it at all?
Anything else you can add would be great.
Thanks!
Brian
-
Hi Brian, many times with holga cameras since there is only one shutter speed you are underexposing the film frequently. Rodinal may not be the best developer to use with holga cameras for that reason. Many people use Diafine, Xtol or DD-X to salvage as much shadow detail as possible. However rodinal does sharpen up the slightly soft holga image and produce a look no other developer can. When I do use rodinal I use it 1:25 or 1:50. Dilution does influence both contrast and grain. The lower the dilution (1:25) the grainier and also the more contrasty it performs. Opposite at the other end. As far as agitation, many agitate once every two or three minutes to help shadow detail. I personally agitate every min. I wouldn't recommend agitating anymore than once a minute. Rodinal tends to not like alot of agitation. For most of my holga work however I like good old ID-11 1:1.
-
for me it's the easiest and best standard developer you can buy. I use 1:25 at 20° c which I found gives best results in minimum of time. move slowly but steadily the first 30 seconds and then 2 times each 30 seconds. ilford times: 6 min. for pan-f, 8 min for fp-4 and hp-5. I don't own a holga, but contrast and sharpness are at their best.
kind regards
reinhard
-
As fine as it is I personally wouldn't use Rodinal for developing the dodgy exposures inherent to toy cameras, I'd use something that was a lot more forgiving. That will be 2 cents please.
-
 Originally Posted by JBrunner
As fine as it is I personally wouldn't use Rodinal for developing the dodgy exposures inherent to toy cameras, I'd use something that was a lot more forgiving. That will be 2 cents please.
Two cents? I don't even know you!
How the heck are you JB? Long time no see.
Then what would you recommend Jason?
Brian
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Switching from home-brew Xtol to hc110 made a big difference in my Holga and other toy camera images. They seem sharper, even though Xtol is touted as producing sharper negatives, and it gets the contrast up to the point I rarely have to use filters with the enlarger (toy cameras often produce negs that are contrast-challenged). I use the hc110 as a one-shot, diluted 1:63 and minimal agitation (5-8 secs every two or three minutes, depending upon how badly my mind is wandering). For development times I find out what the suggested time is for a particular film in hc110 dilution B, then double it - that gets me into a pretty forgiving ballpark. The higher dilution combined with minimal agitation is rumored to produce more acutance, which then will hopefully translate into more perceived sharpness. Anyway, I'm pretty happy with it. The rolls that come out of my Holgas usually contain images from an assortment of lighting conditions, and the hc110 handles them all well. One caveat from personal experience though: if shadow detail is of supreme importance to you, you will either have to do some tests with times/dilutions involving the hc110, or perhaps try the Xtol; in my experience the Xtol was giving me negs with better shadow detail but with the contrast deficit I mentioned before (I tried increasing development time by as much as 30 percent, but contrast did not budge perceptibly). I'm just too lazy to do a bunch of testing to pursue the potential of either developer - the hc110 gets me closest to what I want without a lot of fuss. And trying to test film/developer combos with the fun vagaries of a toy camera would demand more humor and patience than that of which I am probably capable.
Joe
Latent Images
"Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive and go do that, because what the world needs is people who have come alive" - Howard Thurman
-
Hello Brian- With toy cameras I try to shoot a roll in a single lighting condition, meter carefully and develop accordingly. If I end up with a roll where the EV was all over the board, I turn to Rodinal 1:100, 1 hr stand. If I have drastically underexposed, I use 1:100 semi-stand for an hour or two. A few months ago I took an old Brillant out after midnight. I loaded Tri-X, left the meter at home and counted off exposures in my head. Developed semi-stand 1:100 2 hours. After I saw the negatives I went back with a good light meter. I figure it was a 6 stop push:
-
D-23 is very forgiving of exposure variations and you can "push" underexposed film with less chance of the highlights blocking up.
John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA
-
I just shot a roll of Fomapan 100 and developed it with their R09, which is supposively Rodinal, but it seems to be a bit more diluted than Afga's. I didn't meter, but it was an a sunny day, probably around an f/11 with the sunny 16 rule. Developed 1:50 for 14 minutes at 20C and the negs were printable without filters.
-
|
|
Adv Reply
