Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,523   Posts: 1,543,813   Online: 805
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11
    titrisol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Rotterdam
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,671
    Images
    8
    Absolutely, Rodinal will give you a "HONEST GRAIN". Whatever the structure of the film is, will be shown.
    The developer agent p-aminophenol will make very sharply defined grain, giving a very clean look. I doubt there is any sulfite or other silver solvent to decrease grain size as in most other developers.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    I *still* say that the idea of a *increased* physical grain size with Rodinal is nothing more than a myth. Rodinal is a decidedly "clean" developer; the grain itself is more clearly defined - and there is a HIGH degree of acutance. I've been using Rodinal 1:50 with Agfapan 400 regularly: I really *LIKE* the look of the - not "large" - but sharply defined grain.

    Amazing, in a way, that there are so many who will not even try Rodinal with fast films ... one thing is sure - there is very little probability of an explosion ....
    Mama took my APX away.....

  2. #12
    FrankB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Northwest UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,147
    Images
    24
    Very many thanks to all contributors, especially those giving their experiences of both developers.

    My current "pending" tray for processing is too important for me to experiment on, but I will get hold of some Rodinal and try it out very soon (especially as in my locale DD-X is currently about as available as rocking-horse pee!).

    Thanks again,

    Frank

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,042
    OK folks I've tried a little test and have posted the results in the technical gallery for comparison. They are only negative scans as I didn't have time to wet print, but I hope they are of some use

  4. #14
    scootermm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,867
    Images
    235
    TPP
    nice job. Thanks for posting the scans really informative.
    Im gonna try some HP5 I have sitting collecting dust in rodinal v. PMK Pyro.

    hugely noticeable difference in you scans.

  5. #15
    FrankB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Northwest UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,147
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by TPPhotog
    OK folks I've tried a little test and have posted the results in the technical gallery for comparison. They are only negative scans as I didn't have time to wet print, but I hope they are of some use
    Tony,

    What can I say?! I posted the question hoping for a little feedback. I certainly didn't expect anyone to go to the trouble of running a test for me!

    I'm very grateful and, honestly, more than a little touched. Thank you very much indeed.

    The differences are clear and stunning.

    I looked at the Rodinal neg first and found the grain very prominent, compared with what I'm used to. Then I looked at the DD-X neg and immediately noticed the apparent lack of sharpness when compared to the first neg.

    I have to say that I prefer the look of the Rodinal neg. Which gives me a problem...

    I have a roll of 35mm Delta 100 to process. It contains some waterfall shots that I yomped 10 kg of kit 5 miles on a hot day in order to take (I still have the bruises and blisters to prove it!). I'm as sure as I can be that I've honestly nailed those waterfalls. So...

    Do I wait until I get some DD-X and go with the tried and trusted? Or (bearing in mind that I want some of these shots on toned 16x12 fibre hanging on my wall) do I go with the brand new bottle of untried (but promising) Rodinal lurking in my briefcase and face the prospect of another 5 mile yomp if it all goes horribly pear-shaped?

    No pressure...!

    Seriously though, many thanks. I really appreciate all the time and trouble.

    All the best,

    Frank

  6. #16
    titrisol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Rotterdam
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,671
    Images
    8
    Go with the tried and trusted for important pics!!!!
    You have to try Rodinal in D100 first, shoot 1 or 2 rolls of not-so-important pics to get a feel of it.

    PS. Check in my gallery for some pics taken with HP5+ and Rodinal 1+50. Shot in a bright day.
    Last edited by titrisol; 08-06-2004 at 07:26 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Mama took my APX away.....

  7. #17
    titrisol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Rotterdam
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,671
    Images
    8
    One of the thigns we haven;t touched here is pushing films with DD-X wth Rondial.

    I think DDX has the upper hand. am I wrong?
    Mama took my APX away.....

  8. #18
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,267
    Images
    148

    Well

    I did all my first Zone System tests with Ilfotec HD and Tmax 100 both then newly released.

    But I switched to Rodinal and Tmax 100, and when i found I could get it AP100 & then APX100. Quality across the formats was indistinguishable between Agfa & Koda,k but the Agfa APX100 was a whole stop faster than Kodak TMX.

    While once I prefered Rodinal - for reasons of economy I switched to X-tol and get comparable results. Rodinal is one-shot not so economic tor 5"x4". I use Xtol on a replenishment basis and its superb.

  9. #19
    david b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    None of your business
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,034
    Images
    30
    i've been using xtol with APX100 and 400TX but lately I have been using rodinal 1+50 with APX 100 and I love the results.

    I've found xtol to be very good with just about everything especially tmax films.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,042
    Quote Originally Posted by FrankB
    ... I have to say that I prefer the look of the Rodinal neg. Which gives me a problem...

    I have a roll of 35mm Delta 100 to process. It contains some waterfall shots that I yomped 10 kg of kit 5 miles on a hot day in order to take (I still have the bruises and blisters to prove it!). I'm as sure as I can be that I've honestly nailed those waterfalls. So...

    Do I wait until I get some DD-X and go with the tried and trusted? Or (bearing in mind that I want some of these shots on toned 16x12 fibre hanging on my wall) do I go with the brand new bottle of untried (but promising) Rodinal lurking in my briefcase and face the prospect of another 5 mile yomp if it all goes horribly pear-shaped?

    No pressure...!Frank
    Frank,
    I think I would point the camera out of the window and shoot off a roll of Delta 100 then develop it in Rodinal 1+50 first. Then you would see the results and decide if you want to change how long you leave it in the soup for a real film ::rolleyes:


    Quote Originally Posted by titrisol
    One of the things we haven;t touched here is pushing films with DD-X with Rodinal.

    I think DDX has the upper hand. am I wrong?
    Well I push HP5+ to 1600 developed in DD-X quite often when working with models and it works very well ... but now I've discovered Rodinal Think when I have the time this will need another test LOL

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