Rodinal Article with Dev Times for Film, Light Conditions, Dilution and Enlarger

[Richard Jepsen]

Below is a link to a 1979 Popular Photography Article authored by Bob Schwalberg 32 years ago.

http://forum.mflenses.com/1979-pop-p...le-t37502.html

This article was reference in the recent post, How To Get the Most Out of Rodinal.

This classic article gives the photographer a range of options related to light, film, dilution, and enlarger light source. It also gives handy dilution procedures.

I found the suggested developing times for FP4 and Tri-X to be more than a good starting point. My only disagreement concerns box speed. Tri-X at EI 200 and FP-4 at EI 64 or 80 is a better place to start for shadow detail.

Thanks to the fellow who scanned this. This type of information is getting lost.

[sandermarijn]

"Some Europeans use a 1+25 dilution with medium- and high-speed films in available light, but this produces too much grain. Rodinal is for image quality"

Guilty as charged

Thanks for the link. This article on Rodinal was published one year after I was born. I love to see such preservation of culture. Thanks again for the great read.

[jbl]

I did some tests a while back with Tri-X in Rodinal 1+50 and found Zone I to end up with an EI around 320 with 13 minutes of development time. I was surprised at this because I've generally heard ISO 200-250 for Rodinal.

Richard, how long do you end up developing for with TX and FP4+?

-jbl

[srtiwari]

I have been using Rodinal 1:100 Sand development with great success recently. P. Lynn Miller posted this on RFF, and he has had great results. It also seems to work on most films quite well. This is almost the easiest film development method I have seen, second only to Diafine, which you don't even need to mix each time.
Here is the link... http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...6&postcount=47

[pentaxuser]

I have been using Rodinal 1:100 Sand development with great success [/url]

No wonder rodinal is grainy with such a gritty developer

I make such typos all the time but this one just seemed so appropriate given the comments on Rodinal not being a fine grain developer

No offence intended

pentaxuser

[srtiwari]

You're right ! It is so easy to be creative when not trying !

[baachitraka]

I was born on the same year and the month.

Success story

Developer concentration: 1+50

Agitation Scheme: 16 mins and 3 inversions on every five minutes.

Temperature: 20 degree C.

Film: PanF+ @ EI 25. I will test with the box speed soon.

[Richard Jepsen]

JPL

For a starting point use the recommendations in the 1979 article matched for film, dilution, light conditions and enlarger type. I have developed Tri-X, at EI 200, 20 C, 1:75, 4 inv each 60s, 14 min. The negatives print at 3 1/2 for my condenser enlarger and paper. I'm not satisfied with my negatives and need to fine tune for both FP-4 and Tri-X. You may get different results than me.

Here is what the The Film Developing Cookbook mentions about the unique tonal quality of Rodinal. "Rodinal negatives possess a beauty and impact that is recognizable their own. Among commercially available developers Agfa Rodinal offers gradation that cannot be obtained otherwise."

So what does that mean? Google "Rodinal Tonality" and you won't a useful definition. Fine grain is mentioned which is misleading. Rodinal is not fine grain but looks fine with 120 film at an enlargement factor of 8X. Creamy highlights are mentioned and reference to a glow.

Last night I ran into a Mike Johnston article
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...log_index.html
I can't find the specific link but he wrote Rodinal takes a zone 5 tone and pulls it down to zone 4. This is what I see. Rodinal compensates in the high tones and can produce pearly highlights combined with darker mid-tones. That may produce print results where a zone 6 highlight surrounded by a dark area appear to glow. I have prints where I see this affect.

I like a hint of ambiguity in my images. One departure from reality is to alter the tonal balance.

Rodinal is no magic soup. But it has properties like sharpness, highlight compensation, long shelf life, and a tonal departure which are different from a general purpose developer.

[Michael R 1974]

I still say if you are looking for sharpness, highlight compensation and good midtones there are other choices, namely FX2/TFX-2 (Metol/Glycin), and PMK (staining Pyro). Particularly on the sharpness front, both of these choices are significantly sharper than Rodinal which, contrary to popular belief, while very slightly sharper than D76 1+1, is not a true high acutance developer. It is also important to note acutance developers such as FX2 are naturally compensating. You don't need to resort to stand development or even drastically reduced agitation (unless of course you want extreme contractions). Even used at the normal dilution with normal agitation, there is a natural, more gradual highlight roll-off than seen with typical solvent developers. Rodinal lies somewhere in between.

[jbl]

Richard,

I developed a roll of Tri-X in Rodinal 1+49 (I keep going back and forth on proper syntax here, 5 ml Rodinal to 245 ml water). My development time was 12.5 minutes with 30 seconds of initial agitation and 4 inversions at the start of every minute.

I was rather happy with this shot that I just scanned. I'm not sure if this is just composition itself, but I do like the tonality in it and maybe I'm seeing the "glow" people seem to refer to.

-jbl