[Leica] was: XTOL rant now Rodinal rant

[pmcc_2000 at yahoo.com (pmcc)]

Hi Marty,

Both of your recent rants -- first on Xtol, now on
Rodinal -- have been extraordinarily useful and
interesting reading for me.  Thanks, and keep ranting.

Peter.
SF, CA


--- Marty Deveney <freakscene@weirdness.com> wrote:

> Rodinal is an AGFA proprietary name for a highly
> concentrated developer that uses para-aminophenol
> (p-aminophenol) as its primary developing agent and
> potassium hydroxide as its activator (alkali).  The
> formula is unpublished but can be replicated
> relatively easily.  Fomadon R09 is similar;
> Photographer?s Formulary makes a version,
> Fotoimpex has Adolux APH09 and Calbe R09 is another.
>  There are others and you can mix your own.  I
> haven?t followed the 'what has happened to
> Rodinal since AGFA collapsed' story ? maybe
> someone else can fill this in for us.
> 
> Richard asked:
> >I was reading over the XTOL rant and wondered how
> does XTOL relate to  
> >Rodinal. I have heard that Rodinal is a
> compensating developer.  So  
> >how similar are they.  Rodinal is a much older
> formula I know.  
> 
> Xtol and Rodinal are not related chemically at all. 
> There are some interesting formulae you can try that
> combine both p-aminophenol and ascorbate, which I
> have included below.  Rodinal is a compensating
> developer, but only because it works well at very
> dilute concentrations.  Development by-products that
> are released by the film include bromides, which are
> development restrainers.  With most developers, the
> amount of developer around the film completely
> negates these bromides, but because p-aminophenol
> develops effectively at very low concentrations, the
> bromide restraint works effectively to
> proportionally diminish development.  The pH of
> Rodinal is very high (very alkaline) and this is
> part of the reason for its activity at high
> concentrations and the graininess of films developed
> in it.  Rodinal has a reputation for sharpness (more
> on this below).
> 
> >Another question is Rodinal suitability for
> processing T-Max and  
> >Delta films.  So what say you all.
> 
> Rodinal will develop any film.  But tonality, an
> important component of B&W photography, is
> influenced heavily both by film and developer and
> the paper (or post processing if you print digitally
> from negatives).  Rodinal has one tonal
> characteristic that limits its usefulness for me; it
> tends to lower midtones.  With films like Tri-X this
> gives a beautiful ?dark? look that can
> work very well.  It also works(ed?) well with the
> APX films.  With flat-grain (T-Max) and epitaxial
> (Delta) monosize emulsions, Rodinal tends to
> apparently lower the midtones more (I say apparently
> because I haven?t measured it, but it looks
> like a proportionally greater effect to me), making
> tonality odd and generally less than optimal. 
> Printers and scanner/photoshoppers of considerable
> skill can get around this (Ansel Adams produced
> beautiful work from HP5 or Tri-X in HC110 dilution
> B, or so he said, whereas both are poor F&D
> combinations that produce ?soot and
> chalk? t!
>  ones even at normal CIs) but for most of us it just
> makes life tough.  Rodinal is a particularly poor
> match for T-Max 100 (TMX).  T-Max P3200 (TMZ) at EI
> 1000 or 1600 developed in Rodinal 1+50, on the other
> hand, is quite striking if you like HUGE grain, but
> again, the midtones can be a little problematic.  I
> think most films that look good in Rodinal look
> better in dilute D23 (except Tri-X which I think
> needs a little hydroquinone with its metol and looks
> better in dilute D76).  They all look better to me
> in Xtol.
> 
> The other often overlooked factor associated with
> Rodinal is that it isn?t as *relatively* sharp
> as it is often made out to be.  Anchell rates it
> slightly as having slightly higher acutance than
> dilute solvent developers, but I think that results
> from D76 1+2 are equivalently sharp and Xtol 1+2 or
> 1+3 looks sharper to me.  Amusingly, D76 has no
> reputation for sharpness at all.  When Anchell wrote
> about dilute solvent developers, I don?t know
> if he?d experimented with low-sulfite
> developers using ascorbates.  I'm working from
> memory here.  Beutlers, some of the Crawley formulae
> and some pyrocatechin developers are also MUCH
> sharper (Anchell?s book discusses this at some
> length and it was summarised by Mark Rabiner here:
> http://leica-users.org/v21/msg10232.html).  Neither
> dilute D76 or Xtol will produce the loss of emulsion
> speed that highly dilute (1+75 and above) Rodinal
> will typically display.  Remember that very high
> sharpness developers often don&#!
>  8217;t have the best tonality.
> 
> >Rodinal makes no attempt to hide grain. It actually
> gives grain sharp  
> >edges and increases the contrast of the negative.
> X-Tol seems to  
> >increase contrast as well while minimizing grain. 
> 
> I?m trying to be explanatory rather than
> contradictory here; contrast in B&W film is
> controlled by exposure and development.  While some
> developers are inherently more contrasty than
> others, with modified exposure and development time,
> almost any developer (and certainly any standard
> developer) can be used to develop film to a given
> contrast index (CI).  How it looks will change,
> however, because the F&D combination will have a
> different shape curve (after all, the CI is just the
> average slope of the density curve).  What you see
> with both dilute Xtol and Rodinal are adjacency
> effects ? they look contrasty because of their
> acutance, which tends to produce highly defined
> lines where widely spaced tones meet in photos.
> 
> >I use X-Tol for most of my 35mm to give me the
> finest grain.
> 
> I recommend this strongly.  Xtol has the best
> combination of film speed, sharpness, and grain
> structure of any developer I?ve seen.  For
> 35mm films, the only reason to use anything else is
> a lack of ability or willingess to use distilled
> water.  It works remarkably well with almost all
> films.
> 
> >The other advantage to using Rodinal is the
> convenience of having a  
> >super long lasting concentrate always handy without
> the worry of an  
> >expired, powder developer when I haven't developed
> film in awhile. It  
> >works just fine with any film I've ever used, even
> the Ilfords you  
> >mentioned although I now prefer the Fuji films to
> just about anything.
> 
> If what you really want is an everlasting
> concentrate, Rodinal is very good.  My first samples
> of JB9 (see the Xtol rant) show no sign of oxidation
> or loss of potency after ~2 years and might be a
> good substitute for those who want an
> ?everlasting? concentrate with the
> advantages of ascorbates.  PC-TEA is also pretty
> much indestructible.
> 
> Classic Rodinal formula
> Solution A 
> Water, 125F/52C 750 ml 
> p-Aminophenol Hydrochloride 100 g 
> Potassium Metabisulfite 300 g 
> Cold water to make 1L 
> 
> Solution B 
> Cold Water 300 ml 
> Sodium Hydroxide 200 g 
> Cold water to make 1L
> 
> Mixing instructions: Add chemicals in specified
> sequence. Always use cold water when mixing sodium
> hydroxide due to risk of heat reaction. Unlike many
> other two part developers, you must mix both parts
> together to make the concentrated solution. In The
> Film Developing Cookbook, Troop and Anchell suggest
> the following sequence for making the concentrated
> developer: Allow Solution A to cool until a
> precipitate forms. Mix Solution A in an iced water
> bath at this stage, then slowly mix in Solution B
> while constantly stirring, first adding 280ml of
> solution B, and then adding the remainder until the
> solution suddenly turns dark. Follow this by adding
> the last drops of Solution B very slowly. Always
> wear gloves and protective goggles when mixing
> sodium hydroxide. 
> Dilution: 1+25, 1+50, 1+75, 1+100 and others.
> 
> It?s interesting that hydroxide + bisulfite
> produces sulfite and that a litre of 1:25 strength
> Rodinal probably has about 14g of Potassium Sulfite
> in it.  This provides about as many sulfite ions as
> 10 grams of Sodium Sulfite.
> 
> Rodinal variations
> 
> Some photographers dissolve 25-100g of sulfite in
> the diluting water prior to adding the Rodinal. 
> This seems like a completely counterproductive move
> to me.
> 
> 4g/L sodium ascorbate makes Rodinal more active,
> finer grained and partly addresses some of the tonal
> issues.  Don?t use ascorbic acid ? it
> will decrease the pH enough to kill the developer. 
> If all you can get is ascorbic acid, mix 2 parts
> ascorbic acid with 1 part sodium bicarbonate
> (bicarbonate of soda) in some water and wait until
> the fizzing stops to convert it to ascorbate.  Pat
> Gainer says that adding ascorbate sometimes causes
> significant fog ? this figures since the pH of
> Rodinal is high enough to allow the ascorbate to
> initiate development on its own (rather than acting
> in synergy with p-aminophenol).  If you experience
> fogging, Pat Gainer says that 1g/L borax buffers the
> pH enough to prevent fogging.  He goes on to add
> that 1g/L borax in plain Rodinal decreases grain and
> fog.  Plenty to try here.
> 
> Patrick Gainer?s PCK
> 10 grams p-aminophenol.HCl
> 20 grams ascorbic acid
> 30 grams sodium sulfite
> 10 grams sodium hydroxide
> 1L water
> Mix in order.  As soon as you stir in the sulfite,
> you will see the same sort of precipitate that you
> see when mixing Formulary Rodinal.  Add the 10 grams
> of hydroxide.  Use diluted 1+9.  I haven?t
> tested this, but it should work well.
> 
> Sam Elkind?s insane Xtol/Rodinal hybrid
> Xtol = 100 mL
> water = 400 mL
> Rodinal = 4 to 5 mL
>  
> Sam says 9 minutes works well for Tri-X @200 @ 24C.
> 
> I?ve only read this; I haven?t tried it.
>  People will try anything after all.  It should
> work, but it would be costly and probably
> isn?t any significantly better than PCK.
> 
> Again, I hope this is informative and useful.  Much
> of this is derived from tests, but much of it is
> also just my opinion.  If you have a long-lasting,
> almost physical love for Rodinal, please don't worry
> about defending your developer of choice - I can see
> why you like it.  I just don't.
> 
> Marty



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated 
for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow