Tri-X Test: Rodinal and D76

[Stephanie Brim]

Bugger it all. I'm going to try explaining this again.

This is going to be a real world test of Tri-X in regards to the contrast and grain sharpness in various real world situations using 2 different developers. Those two developers will be used twice, each with different dilutions. I will be using the developers as follows:

Rodinal 1:50
Rodinal 1:100
D76 stock
D76 1:1

I will be developing the negatives for approximately the same times listed on the Massive Development Chart at Digital Truth (http://digitaltruth.com).

My shots will be as follows:

Outside, around noon, on a cloudy day.
Inside in normal day room light.
Outside, downtown at night.

I will take these shots at the normal film speed (400) on 3 new rolls of Tri-X (I can get them at the store, then I won't have to worry about expired film), one for each type of shot, then take the same shot at one stop over and one step under normal exposure just for the sake of comparing over and under exposure among the different films as well. I will then cut the rolls into four pieces (yes, I know how hard that is going to be, but it's the best way to do it due to the three types of shots) and develop in each developer.

The results will be taken as follows: Rodinal 1:50 and 1:100 will be compared, D76 stock and D76 1:1 will be compared, and D76 will be compared to Rodinal overall. Comparisons will be made based on differences in grain sharpness and contrast.

Whew. Now then. I will not pass this as a scientific test. It's a test for fun to see what happens in each developer. My original test was just going to be between Rodinal 1:100 and Rodinal 1:50 to discover for myself which I liked more for my own use for Tri-X film. It evolved into this.

A couple of notes: everyone's opinion on the results of this test is going to be different. And, to tell you the truth, no one is more right than another on this one. We all like our film to have a different look...so what I like isn't going to be what you like. The one other thing is this: I've decided that Rodinal is going to be my go-to developer for both the films that I'm using a ton of: Tri-X and TMax 100. I am not changing developers. I am putting D76 here because I have some to burn and because someone asked about it.

That should about do it.

[Stephanie Brim]

No one has any other input? I find that odd...this *is* RFF. :p

[kaiyen]

Well, the key thing about agitation is to be consistent. So if it's worked for you, then great. However, you won't see any real benefit either way with the only-mildly decreased agitation. You won't get noticeable sharpness-increasing edge effects, nor will you get compensation. I would recommend going to at least agitation once every _3_ minutes to get any of that.

But, if it works, then stick to it.

My main concern is that your exposure/metering methods won't tell you much that will be very meaningful. If you expose at 400 and 200 and discover that you don't have enough exposure at 400, you're going to err on the side of 200. However, what if 200 isn't the right speed? What if it's supposed to be 320? Or 250? You'll be overexposing by 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop. Overexposure increases grain. That's no good.

So if you can find a way to expose in 1/2 or 1/3 stop increments, then do it.

allan

[Stephanie Brim]

Before I run this, I'm going to do a test roll to see what I should shoot this batch at...so I should have no worries. All the Tri-X I have is the same emulsion. I'll shoot it at various speeds, develop it as though for 400, and see how things turn out. It *is* expired, but it was said to be kept in cold storage so there should be no ill effects.

[kaiyen]

If you're going to run a batch to find out your film speed, why are you exposing at 200, 400, and 800 for the development test? That doesn't make sense...

allan

ps - re: cold storage - it depends on how long it's been in there. You might lose a whole stop of speed to increased fog.

[Stephanie Brim]

Hold on. I'm going to rewrite the post since I had some other ideas.

[Trius]

I'm with Alan on the agitation, at least in Rodinal. Since you've been satisfied with agitation every minute, it makes sense. But with Rodinal less is often more, so every 3 minutes or even every 5 might yield good results.

What you have here, though, is a lot of variables. Are you trying to compare the differences between the two Rodinal dilutions and D76 with everything else constant? If so, I understand that. But if you are trying to make some observations about D76 and Rodinal in general, it's maybe not a valid test. The nature of Rodinal and how it behaves with different agitation regiments means you may not be able to draw any conclusions based on this one test.

What are you really after? If it just seems like an interesting exercise to explore, then that's valid in its own right.

[Stephanie Brim]

Well the ORIGINAL idea was to compare Rodinal 1:50 with Rodinal 1:100 in the areas of contrast and grain sharpness. At least that was *my* original idea. Then someone said that it would be interesting to see the differences between Tri-X in D76 stock VS 1:1...so I said that I had some D76 and that I could do that. So this is pretty much going to be two different experiments. I think the end result, though, will be us comparing the look of Rodinal in general with the look of D76 in general in addition to the separate tests.

[Wayne R. Scott]

Steph,

Some times your posts give me a headache and I groan out loud.

Here is what I would do for testing my film.

1. I would make a tone cube which is a card board box covered on two adjacent sides with a black textured material, two adjacent sides covered with an 18% gray material and two adjacent sides covered with a white material. I would make this tone cube about 18" to a side.

2. Place this tone cube in open shade with a grey, a black and a white side visible from camera position. Shoot 5 shots of it with the first shot 2 stops under your meter exposure reading, 2nd shot 1 stop under, third stop at the meter's suggested settings, 4th shot 1 stop over the suggested setting and the 5th shot 2 stops over. Cover your lens and shoot 2 blank shots then place the tone cube in bright sunlight and repeat with 5 shots. Shoot 2 blank shots and then go back into the shade and repeat the first series and the second series.

3. When you have cut your film in half for developing, you will have essentially two films that can be developed in different developers. Repeat the shots with your second roll of film.

4. When you develop your negatives you will be looking for the first exposure that gives detail in the black portion of the tone cube. (Expose for the shadows develop for the high lights.) You will have a grey and a white highlight to compare with the shadow detail.

I assume you will have written notes of the exposures to remember what it is that you did.

This is not all, but it should get you started toward something.

Wayne

[Trius]

Thanks, Steph. That clears it up. Once you confirm Rodinal is superior to D76, you can then proceed with agitation experiments. Hows 'bout 1:200 stand development for oh, say, 60 minutes? :D

[Stephanie Brim]

Okay, rewritten for your viewing pleasure. I hope no one has any problems with what I've written. Questions can be asked, though...I don't know how clear I've been on some things.

[kaiyen]

Stephanie,
First off - I hope you haven't taken any of my comments/criticisms out of context. You asked for feedback, and I gave it. I think it's great that you want to just try this and see what happens. And I understand what you mean by "real world." But it's important that _everyone_ realize that your tests simply aren't that structured. And while I truly do applaud your willingness to try this and that, we all should take your results with a grain of salt.

Having said that, good luck. I look forward to seeing what you get.

allan

[Stephanie Brim]

Right. That's what I mean by the bit at the end there. I'm not trying to do the be-all and end-all of tests...just a personal test. I figured sharing the results may help some other people, that's all.

Also, I think I'll just post the results on my photography blog and link to them here. It'll be easier to have them in one place.

[DxPhoto]

I have been using D-76 1+1 and I would like to know something about tri-x in rodinal. Have you done the rest yet? And what is the result? Thanks.

[kaiyen]

Stephanie seems to have dropped off the face of the earth lately.

What EI are you shooting TXT at? I'll run the tests, daggum it.

allan

[kaiyen]

Here's what I can do, now that I think of it. I prefer to do more systematic testing than Stephanie.

I already have some test shots I did of some films, but I don't think TXT. My general regimen as applied to TXT would be:

-shoot it at 200, 250, 320, 400, 560 and maybe 640. I pick a standard scene with a nice zone III area and meter accordingly.
-cut the roll into 3 parts (this fits nicely on a 36 exposure roll, by the way)

I'd then develop it in ID-11 1+0, 1+1 and 1+3. I can then do a second roll like that and do Rodinal 1+25, 1+50 and if I'm patient 1+100.

Maybe I'll do a test in Microphen as well sicne I have 10 liters worth sitting there.

I might have already done some of these tests, by the way. I'll check when I'm home.

allan

[DxPhoto]

Stephanie seems to have dropped off the face of the earth lately.

What EI are you shooting TXT at? I'll run the tests, daggum it.

allan

I need the speed so I shoot at 400. Thanks.
I usually run it thru D76(1+1). I shoot street/documentary most the time.

[kaiyen]

You won't get 400 out of Rodinal, and it's not even quite there in D76 1+1. So I can answer that question right there :-).

I'll post some results after the weekend. Lots of developing this weekend.

allan

[DxPhoto]

You won't get 400 out of Rodinal, and it's not even quite there in D76 1+1. So I can answer that question right there :-).

I'll post some results after the weekend. Lots of developing this weekend.

allan

how about shoot as 320 and dev as 400 in D76(1+1). Or shoot as 400 and dev longer (like add 10% of 400 time) -- that's what I do now days.

[kiev4a]

Rodinal will give you a more apparent grain that D-76 which gives the appearence of sharpness until you step up close to a print. Rodinal is quite similar to HC-110 in what it does to the emulsion.

[kaiyen]

how about shoot as 320 and dev as 400 in D76(1+1). Or shoot as 400 and dev longer (like add 10% of 400 time) -- that's what I do now days.

Well, then you're doing somethign different, and I don't think a test would be useful.

My test might indicate that TXT in rodinal gives you a "true" speed of 250, and in D76 1+1 of 320, let's say. That's the speed for getting adequate shadow detail.

The second you choose to shoot at 400 and then overdevelop, then you're pushing the film. Once you start talking about pushing, then testing is thrown out the window. At least the type of testing _I_ was going to do.

However...if you're question is what the grain and shadow detail looks like in these two scenarios, for instance:

TXT shot @ 320 in D76 1+1, developed appropriately
TXT shot @ 400 in D76 1+1, developed appropriately (which would be a bit more than the above, technically, but maybe only 15 seconds)

and a similar test against Rodinal, that might be interesting. But perhaps not worth my time, to be honest :-).

You'll only lose a tiny bit of shadow detail going to 400 from a real speed of 320, and you probably won't notice the grain other than large enlargements. Rodinal would be different - not only are you going from 250ish to 400, but Rodinal's mild acutance characteristics make for a grainier print, too.

allan

[kaiyen]

Dan,
Of course you make a number of great points. I'm a film-speed-test guy, and I used the term "real speed" based on my own approach to things. I do believe that there is a certain amount of shadow detail that one should expect if metered properly. But I also believe that the EI at which the film should be rated to achieve that density is different per person.

If it works for you (not "you" specifically, I mean the "general" you), then keep at it, definitely.

The only thing that developer tests will show is that there are (or are not) differences based on that tester's approach. One guy on PN found that if you aimed for a particular contrast curve, you got results from like 15 different developers that were nearly identical. But...he did find a major change in speed from developer to developer.

At the same time, Roger Hicks on PN made the very valid argument that we shouldn't always assume that Kodak and Ilford and etc are wrong about their ISOs. I personally don't stick to them very often, but there is a reason TXT is rated at ISO 400, etc.

allan

[titrisol]

If you are shooting 35mm is pretty safe to use the box speed.
However if you deisre to place your shadows in zone 4 like John Sexton suggests then you have to overexpose the whole scene by 1/3 -1 stop thus the "personal speed" is 1/3 to 1 stop less.



Dan,
Of course you make a number of great points. I'm a film-speed-test guy, and I used the term "real speed" based on my own approach to things. I do believe that there is a certain amount of shadow detail that one should expect if metered properly. But I also believe that the EI at which the film should be rated to achieve that density is different per person.

If it works for you (not "you" specifically, I mean the "general" you), then keep at it, definitely.

The only thing that developer tests will show is that there are (or are not) differences based on that tester's approach. One guy on PN found that if you aimed for a particular contrast curve, you got results from like 15 different developers that were nearly identical. But...he did find a major change in speed from developer to developer.

At the same time, Roger Hicks on PN made the very valid argument that we shouldn't always assume that Kodak and Ilford and etc are wrong about their ISOs. I personally don't stick to them very often, but there is a reason TXT is rated at ISO 400, etc.

allan

[luketrash]

Stephanie, I'm in this same phase in my photographical journey. I haven't used D76 though. I have been messing with Rodinal this past month, and what I find in stand development is that I'd been exhausting the developer. So just as a side note, make sure you have 10ml or so of Rodinal per 36exp roll of film. The negs SCAN great, but they look thin.

I've read and read and read stuff on the internet about development times and have tried combos I thought would be amazing, only to be disappointed :) I'm finding that the details boil down to agitation and what process the users vary on how they scan their negatives or prints.

In fact, my favorite negatives under a loupe usually scan like ***-***.

I find myself still really appreciating Diafine ;) I know what's gonna happen every time I put film in it. And it gives me the best scans so far, regardless of over/under exposure. Just my experience with my development style and my particular workflow with the computer/scanner though.

It's all so variable, which is why I enjoy trying new things at home and whittling away bad decisions as I go.

[titrisol]

How do your negatives look like in an enlarger?
scanning silver-film is a gamble and IMHO is not representative of what you have


In fact, my favorite negatives under a loupe usually scan like ***-***.
.

[kaiyen]

The methods through which one can judge a good vs. bad negative for wet printing don't apply all that well for negatives that are to be scanned. For instance, as you've noted, thinner negatives scan better. Well, they look thin and not as good under a loupe. But if you take a neg that looks great under the loupe, it'll probably be too contrasty to scan well.

So...again, as I say over and over, it's about calibrating your system. You need to have a method that results in negatives designed for scanning. This can mean changes in EI, developer choices/preferences, techniques, etc.

allan

[luketrash]

I'm hoping that the future holds technology where scanners and enlargers expect the same negatives for the peak results ;)

I can live with bad scans today, knowing that tomorrow may hold a better answer.