Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,274   Posts: 1,660,853   Online: 926
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area (Albany, California)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,163
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by MDR View Post
    I agree with Thomas and what is it with the anti grain movement that seems to have reached APUG. Grain is our friend it gives the photo a human touch and organic feel as opposed to a overly perfect look without soul.
    I'm not against grain but that film, overexposed, and in that developer is gonna get a whole buncha' very evident grain.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  2. #12

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    US
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,060
    You don't have to be a "pixel peeper" to see the grain from Rodinal. That stuff makes a grainy mess of everything. I hate to think of what it will do to the OP's film. It'll ruin it.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Prospect Heights, IL
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    50
    I mostly shoot Acros 100 and Rodinal seems to work good for that.

  4. #14
    baachitraka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Bremen, Germany.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,774
    Images
    12
    I was developing Fomapan 400 with Rodinal 1+50 for 15 mins, 3 inversions @every 5th minute. Grain is unique and beautiful.

  5. #15
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,805
    Images
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom1956 View Post
    You don't have to be a "pixel peeper" to see the grain from Rodinal. That stuff makes a grainy mess of everything. I hate to think of what it will do to the OP's film. It'll ruin it.
    You are just determined to force your wildly misguiding information on everybody that wants to use Rodinal, aren't you?!

    Ralph Gibson might not agree with you, for example.

    Grain is not everything.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,224
    I use Rodinal at 1:50 with APX100 and it doesn't produce rough grain at all, in fact it is barely visible even in 135 on a 40cm print. The developer changes it's behaviour markedly with dilution, agitation and temperature giving useful flexibility in changing the results from any specific film. Clearly some films are heavier in grain structure than others, but you can still modify your results using this developer in different ways.

    When I've used Ilford Pan400 (only a five roll pack, but I'm making a wild guess that it is similar to the Kentmere) the development has been in ID11 at 1:1. The grain and contrast reminded me strongly of TriX in the same developer. Many people like the effect of Rodinal with that film - it can be a pleasing result. Don't agitate as hard as you would with ID11 and do let us know how it turns out. Remember too that a darkroom print usually does not look as rough as a scan might do.
    Last edited by MartinP; 09-12-2013 at 05:05 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: launched the text before finishing, dohhh

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    US
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    You are just determined to force your wildly misguiding information on everybody that wants to use Rodinal, aren't you?!

    Ralph Gibson might not agree with you, for example.

    Grain is not everything.
    Sorry if I annoyed. I guess some things in this world totally escape me as to how they managed to become so popular. Rodinal is one, and the sushi craze totally defies the mind. It's RAW fish, for pete's sake--full of parasites, worms, and an almost certain night of making a home of the toilet bowl. Yet, people eat it. It's just crazy. I like beef and I like it cooked, with a little Microdol sauce, maybe.

  8. #18
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,805
    Images
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom1956 View Post
    Sorry if I annoyed. I guess some things in this world totally escape me as to how they managed to become so popular. Rodinal is one, and the sushi craze totally defies the mind. It's RAW fish, for pete's sake--full of parasites, worms, and an almost certain night of making a home of the toilet bowl. Yet, people eat it. It's just crazy. I like beef and I like it cooked, with a little Microdol sauce, maybe.
    Have you ever considered that maybe you are the crazy one? Have you seen how long people live in Japan? I'm joking, but they live a lot longer than Americans.

    I try not to get personal, but if you want to give someone advice that is useful, focus on the question they want answered, instead of pushing your personal distaste for something on them. If you want credibility.
    What does Rodinal do besides being slightly grainier than D76? Tonality, shadow detail, curve shape? What happens when you change agitation? Etc etc etc. that is useful information.

    In the case of developing negatives, the goal must be to make negatives of contrast and tones that make a good print, no?
    So, if normal contrast is recorded normal developing time should be used.
    If the neg turns put a little grainy, so what?! A low contrast neg has to be bumped in contrast anyway, and there's your grain again.

    That's why I recommend normal development for normal contrast, irrespective of how the film was exposed (not including push processing).
    Low contrast lighting benefits from less exposure and more development, and high contrast lighting benefits from more exposure and a bit less development.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  9. #19

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    506
    Thomas,
    I couldn't agree more! I have used some really good fine-grain developers to try to make large prints from Tri-X and found, as good as Tri-X was, it just didn't cut it. Now if I used HC110 dil. B, ID11 and didn't over-agitate I had prints I liked much better. Not grain free, but not mush either. I even went on a bender with Edwals FG7 for about a year or so. You could make your stock with just water or add 15% sulfite to it for "so called" fine grain. As many times as I tried I could never get prints I really liked with the 15% sulfite addition. Back then I never used Rodinal, much for the same reason Tom1956 talks about. Of course I never tried it then and only went by hearsay. Now, I love the stuff and it's one of my favorites with Acros 120 and even Tmax 100. The nicest thing about Rodinal is it is VERSATILE and the next best thing is that it lasts forever. I think if a person played with agitation, time and dilution you could develop almost any film to your liking. I used to be a grain sniffer, but not anymore. Of course I don't shoot much 35mm and that makes a lot of difference as far as noticeable grain goes. Just my 2 cents worth.

  10. #20
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,805
    Images
    300

    developing Kentmere 400 in Rodinal

    In July I hung three prints in a small local group show. They were 8x18" prints from 35mm Tri-X negatives, developed in Rodinal. Cropped negs, even. Rodinal 1+25.

    Quite a few people attended the show, and one of them was Sid Kaplan, who printed stuff for Weegee, Cartier-Bresson, and others. He told me that the prints looked really good, we had a great conversation, and he did stop by them for a pretty long time. I thought that was a nice compliment from one of the best printers to walk the earth.

    Do you think he mentioned grain? If you stare yourself too blind on grain, you miss all the good stuff. In the end it doesn't even matter much, and mostly it's just paranoid photographers that care.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1379037658.186304.jpg 
Views:	44 
Size:	64.5 KB 
ID:	74285
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin