Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,698   Posts: 1,549,101   Online: 1121
      
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 72
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    680
    Agfa's Rodinal development recommendations produce contrasty negatives. The results remind me of European images in the photo magazines from the 60s.

    Agfa used a different contrast scale than Kodak's CI index. Agfa's development times provide brilliance if shooting in gloomy overcast light conditions.
    RJ

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Jepsen View Post
    My developers are XTOL/D76 paired with Tri-X and FP-4.
    The image qualities I'm looking for are sharpness, ability to separate highlights, increased brilliance vs a general purpose developer. Increased developer shelf life is a positive.
    This might throw things off a bit, but based on your list of preferred criteria, and your reference to printing on graded paper, may I suggest a Pyro developer such as PMK? It works beautifully with FP4 and most other films. It is sharper than Rodinal (with any film), and produces excellent highlight detail/separations. For more brilliance/contrast you might want to try Wimberley's WD2H+ which is a more vigourous Pyro formula and produces a stain color with more printing density than that of PMK.

    Michael

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    680
    I re-shot the landscape and tweaked development. Lowered HP-5 EI to 120 vs 160. Used the same development/agitation as stated above but increased development by 60s to 15 min total...last two min without agitation. The negatives look better but I don't see the mid-tone brilliance and the sky will still print a little dark. Next time I would develop HP-5 at 1:50 or 1:75 at 16min. I'm returning to Tri-X. My perception is Tri-X has more mid tone separation than HP-5. FP-4 may be the best choice with Rodinal and my Rollei TLR whose lens is not as contrasty as my RF645 optics.

    I am aware of Pyro coupled with graded paper. However, I try to keep it simple using two developers and a few papers. Most of my images are not challenged by bright highlights so I have not explored Pyro.
    RJ

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    680
    For instance, if the light is good, but there are unavoidable bright highlights on the face, I use an XTOL curve (second graph below) whose shoulder compresses the bright highlights.

    If the light is normal, which for me is slightly flat and soft, with no direct light on the faces, I use the 10 tone, normal curve; Edwal 12.

    If the light is completely overcast and flat, I use Rodinal to build an 8 tone scale.
    DF Cardwell

    This link http://www.apug.org/forums/forum216/...-negative.html
    is interesting. I think of dilution as the first tool to control contrast with agitation as a little tweak. The comment in quotes about Rodinal and an 8 tone scale seem to indicate Rodinal will not produce as long a scale as XTOL. I'm I interpreting this correctly?
    RJ

  5. #15
    piu58's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Leipzig, Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    597
    Less agitation has a similar effect like low temperature: Because the total time is increased the devlopper has mor time to reach an develop deep layers of the emulsion.

    I prefer lower temeratures and normal agitation because this gives more hive gray in the sky.
    ---
    Uwe Pilz

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    680
    I did a Google search on Rodinal and also looked at older prints from Rodinal developered negatives. The Film Developing Cookbook mentions unique Rodinal tonality and glowing highlights. Review of older prints from Rodinal negatives the mid/low tones print lower on the tonal scale and show some compression. A highlight projecting from a somewhat darker background has a glow effect. The reduced shadow separation is a common Google search comment.

    A common suggestion on this post is to alter agitation in conjunction with semi/stand development. Perhaps the better answer to avoid compressed midtones sagging down the tonal scale is to change to a shorter toe film; FP-4 vs HP-5. I tried to derate HP-5 to raise low tones up the scale but the slope may still be flatter than a short toe film resulting in my disappointment. Below is a link to another way to get the most out of Rodinal from a film choice direction. The films mentioned are not normally available but the concept is still sound. I like the idea of a short toe film for low tone separation and high speed film for high tone separation. I use Tri-X rated at an EI of 200 to keep my TLR off a tripod. Hand holding is a challenge at f/11/16, yellow filter, and EI 200. If I want to use Rodinal the best choice may be FP-4 and a tripod.

    Film Choice to control Curve

    http://kcbx.net/~mhd/2photo/film/choice/pers.htm
    Last edited by Richard Jepsen; 11-18-2011 at 11:01 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    RJ

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,775
    Don't take this negatively, but it seems to me you need to take a step back before going further. You're confusing all sorts of film/developer properties and making direct connections between things like film speed and curve shape, which do not exist. You are also trying to manage too many variables at once.

    Note that the current versions of most of these medium to medium high speed films (FP4, Tri-X, HP5, TMX/TMY, Delta 100/400) show remarkably little difference in curve shape. They are all essentially short toe, flexible, straight line films. So to assume HP5 gives better highlight separation than FP4, is wrong.

    Also please note in reference to the 1979 article, current Tri-X, HP5, FP4 etc are not the same versions of the films Schwalberg was using.

    If you want stronger low to middle value contrast with any of these films, you are better off sticking with XTOL. If not, first ask yourself what properties you want that XTOL is not giving you. Make a change based on those answers. If you are intent on switching to Rodinal, choose one film, any of the ones I listed, and practice with Rodinal. Try it first at 1:50, and use it with different film speeds and different development times. Make prints of the negatives. If you are not satisfied try altering variables one at a time, for example try extending development time but reducing agitation.

    If you don't approach it methodically you'll go in circles and get nowhere. I'm still not clear on what made you want to standardize on Rodinal to begin with.

    Michael
    Last edited by Michael R 1974; 11-18-2011 at 01:33 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    680
    The range of development times in Schwalberg's article remain good starting points for the new versions of FP4 Plus and Tri-X.
    Last edited by Richard Jepsen; 11-19-2011 at 12:51 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    RJ

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    680
    Michael

    Increased acutance is what I'm looking for for landscape images. I understood shooting film at a lower box speed moves shadows up the characteristic curve (H&D) curve). Tri-X/HP5 is normally thought of as having a longer toe than T-Max or FP4. Rodinal is a developer that falls just short of producing full emulsion speed. My experience tells me lowering the film box speed will improved shadow separation and will raise zone 4 tones higher on the scale towards zone 5.

    Agitation and dilution affect the shape of the film contrast curve in highlights and perhaps in the mid tones. One intent of my post was to confirm with others if they saw tonal compression in zone 4 and what to do about it. My take-a-way is to try semi stand development. If I want strong mid-tone separation my experience says FP4 with its steeper contrast curve is a better choice than HP5.

    I like the idea of a short toe film for low tone separation and high speed film for high tone separation. After some thought a tab grain film with a longer straight line generally records more high tones than a conventional film with a shoulder such as Tri-X. On the other hand the films recorded higher tones may not be recorded on your paper (un-manipulated). If I could edit that post I would remove this statement.
    Last edited by Richard Jepsen; 11-20-2011 at 08:39 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    RJ

  10. #20
    garysamson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    220
    Images
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Don't take this negatively, but it seems to me you need to take a step back before going further. You're confusing all sorts of film/developer properties and making direct connections between things like film speed and curve shape, which do not exist. You are also trying to manage too many variables at once.

    Note that the current versions of most of these medium to medium high speed films (FP4, Tri-X, HP5, TMX/TMY, Delta 100/400) show remarkably little difference in curve shape. They are all essentially short toe, flexible, straight line films. So to assume HP5 gives better highlight separation than FP4, is wrong.

    Also please note in reference to the 1979 article, current Tri-X, HP5, FP4 etc are not the same versions of the films Schwalberg was using.

    If you want stronger low to middle value contrast with any of these films, you are better off sticking with XTOL. If not, first ask yourself what properties you want that XTOL is not giving you. Make a change based on those answers. If you are intent on switching to Rodinal, choose one film, any of the ones I listed, and practice with Rodinal. Try it first at 1:50, and use it with different film speeds and different development times. Make prints of the negatives. If you are not satisfied try altering variables one at a time, for example try extending development time but reducing agitation.

    If you don't approach it methodically you'll go in circles and get nowhere. I'm still not clear on what made you want to standardize on Rodinal to begin with.

    Michael
    +1

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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