[Leica] [lEICA] Rodinal topic

[imxputs <imxputs@knoware.nl>]

Joe wrote:
>Dear Erwin,
>I am shocked to find myself in disagreement with you. I have always regarded
>your comments and advice with awe. They have influenced some of my
>purchases, and I have been pleased to find you were right.

No need to feel shocked if you need to disagree with whomever. No one of us 
will be ever right on all topics. Still the Rodinal issue needs a bit 
elaboration. Presumably we are discussing the characteristics of Rodinal from 
different perspectives.
Rodinal is a high acutance developer, preserving the grain structure in the 
emulsion and enhancing the edge effects by chemical actions, so visually 
pronouncing the grain clumps. At moderate enlargements this effect is fine (up 
to 8 to 10 times of the whole negative). Using APX100, which is a very good 
(if not the best film) at enlargements up to 10 times, and Rodinal gives you 
at 20x25cm (edging to 20x30cm)excellent image quality.And for many subjects it 
will suffice. This is what I said in my earlier message. If your experience 
covers the same criteria, there is no disagreemnt at all (and no reason for 
whatever shock :-)).
But now look. My demands for leica negs are these: at least 20 times 
enlargements where the finest possible details recorded by the lens are 
clearly visible with excellent microcontrast. And I am talking of real life 
objects at a distance of at least 50 meters if not more, where the objects 
have very fine textural details. I target the hasselblad quality as the 
yardstick for Leica performance. 
When doing these comparison tests (long distance, very fine textures, 20 to 30 
times enlargement) with plusx, fp4, d100, tmx, apx100 and a score of 
developers (xtol, d76, rodinal, tmax. fx39)I noted that up to 10 times 
enlargements every combination gave comparable results and the same 
characteristic curve (when suitably develeoped). The rightly famous long tonal 
range of APX is also available with other films. (APX is very good in this 
department, but not superior or inferior to other high class films. The PlusX 
btw is also excellent)
Explanation of the good behavior of older tech films (PlusX, APX, TriX, FP4 
etc? Classical emulsion make-up uses more silver per area and that literally 
shines.
When enlarging to 30 times however some combinations broke up and the grain 
structure gave so much noise that loss of micro details became unavoidable.
When using these exacting standards xtol/fx39 and d100/tmax showed their best.


Upshot: our 'disagreement' might be a difference of quality standards.

Now some luggers propose that a slow film and a tripod is a necessary 
combination and un-Leica-like. May I remind that a slow film (even apx25) in 
normal daylight gives exposure combinations of 1/500 at f/4,0 to 1/125 at f/8. 
If he luminance level drops we have our superior full aperture to cope with 
it. Even in lower level light I prefer apx25 and 1/60 at f/2 to any 400 at 
1/250 at f/4. (for my type of pictures!) 
But for me Kodachrome 64 is the standard film and XP2 super gives me a turbo 
boost.

Erwin