Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/07/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Marty, In awe for your knowledge. I just jumped in this thread, and it took me a long time to go through all this (and to try to understand it), but if I'd still be doing B&W analog, I'd know what combination to go for now. One of my big frustrations in the era where there was only one possibility to get a photo print was a two times sequence of development: develop film, project, develop paper. Infinite combinations possible. And I never found the right one: it was impossible for me to get the tonal and print quality that I saw on photo exhibits. At least digital and PS made that part of photography a lot easier: I'm very happy that now I only have to (try and) concentrate to catch the right moment in the right light. That alone might become a life's queeste. '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 analog, please don't worry about defending your preference - I can see why you like it. I just don't (any more :-) Philippe Op 27-jul-07, om 20:20 heeft pmcc het volgende geschreven: > 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 formula is unpublished but can be replicated 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >