Rodinal 1:100 [Archive] - Rangefinderforum.com

David William White

07-21-2008, 19:31

I think it makes some sense because at that dilution, there is very little developer per roll and it will certainly exhaust in under 10 minutes. It hinges on this: That very small amount of developer can only develop so much silver. I can see that he may well end up with some uniformity in negative density, regardless (mostly) of film type.

We normally develop with a distinct excess of developer and therefore with the real danger of overdevelopment if we don't watch the time carefully. Develop less aggressively with just enough developer so that it will exhaust, and the difference between 5 minutes and 10 minutes will be negligible.

Kodak, Agfa, or Ilford would never recommend this, especially for commercial work, but hey...

D.

AshenLight

07-21-2008, 19:48

Thanks David. I think I'll give this a try on some Plus-X and/or FP-4 and see how it works out. I'll post the results when available.

Ash

David William White

07-21-2008, 20:17

If you wish to pursue this -- just for the heck of it, I imagine -- you might run a few rolls at the same weak dilution just to determine when the point of exhaustion is reached. Like, one roll developed for 5 minutes, one for 6, one for 7, etc. Most modern films have pretty thin and precise emulsion coatings, so they should exhaust developer in roughly the same times.

I once developed a roll in 1+100 overnight, and the negs were fine, but truth be told, development probably maxed out within 10 minutes or so, but I've nothing to back that up.

It's walking the tightrope a bit, chancing underdevelopment due to premature exhaustion, but I for one prefer thinner negatives to thicker when it comes to printing the damn things.

Back in the olden days, when Rodinal was a kid, before spot-meters and such, and when emulsions were thicker and more forgiving, photographers tended toward overexposure and underdevelopment, if anything, and mostly ended up with survivable and printable negatives.

palec

07-21-2008, 22:16

10 minutes is usually not enough even for 1+50 dillution. So I'd agree the overexposure is needed to balance the underdevelopment. I checked the gallery for results and to me the pictures have no detail in shadows and contrast is boosted massively to fit both ends of histogram spectrum (scanner auto-adjust). While it suits the holga-style shots, it's not an all-round solution.

Pal

titrisol

07-21-2008, 22:40

1+100 for 10 minutes seems OK for EFKE25 and low speed films.

IMHO for other films 20-30 minutes will be more on the mark and even more if you decide not to agitate /semi-stand

jan normandale

07-21-2008, 22:44

venchka

07-23-2008, 08:50

I use 1/100 for stand developing single rolls of 120 or 135 BW having an ISO <200 . Very simple. Inversions for 10-12secs for the first 4-5 minutes, go watch a tv show for 30. Come back and one 10 - 12 sec inversion and then go watch another 30 min of TV (or whatever) Come back, drain rinse, etc

Works fine for me.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3124/2682744452_ee2832e816.jpg

Ash: The total volume of solution is also somewhat important. AGFA says 10ml per roll minimum. Many folks on the internet say that they use anywhere from 3ml to 6ml without difficulty. I'm oldfahioned and would start with the 10ml according to AGFA.

Jan: This is good news. Your sample is as good as anyone could hope for. I have a ton of Efke 25, APX 25, Tmax 100 & Delta 100 in all 3 formats. I just got a bottle of Rodinal as well.

Let me see if I have this correct:
10-12 sec. inversions each minute for the first 4-5 minutes.
Stand for 30 minutes.
10-12 sec. inversions.
Stand 30 minutes.
Drain
Stop
Fix
Wash

Does temperature seem to be critical at all? How much dilute solution do you use per roll? Or does it seem to matter?

This could be better than "one developer at any temperature fits all film" Diafine.

jan normandale

07-23-2008, 09:12

Ash: The total volume of solution is also somewhat important. AGFA says 10ml per roll minimum. Many folks on the internet say that they use anywhere from 3ml to 6ml without difficulty. I'm oldfahioned and would start with the 10ml according to AGFA.

Jan: This is good news. Your sample is as good as anyone could hope for. I have a ton of Efke 25, Tmax 100 & Delta 100 in all 3 formats. I just got a bottle of Rodinal as well.

Let me see if I have this correct:
10-12 sec. inversions each minute for the first 4-5 minutes.
Stand for 30 minutes.
10-12 sec. inversions.
Stand 30 minutes.
Drain
Stop
Fix
Wash

Does temperature seem to be critical at all? How much dilute solution do you use per roll? Or does it seem to matter?

This could be better than "one developer at any temperature fits all film" Diafine.

Wayne, email me and I'll send you the 'sheet' as a word doc attachment. Cheers Jan

venchka

07-23-2008, 10:17

Jan,

Done!

JTK

07-23-2008, 11:25

At 1+100 development continues significantly for about an hour at 68f-ish.
At 1+200 development continues significantly for perhaps 90 minutes.

Note that it's not 1:100 it's 1-plus-100, which is actually entirely inconsequential.

Pros do use this kind of dilution sometimes and Agfa has suggested it occasionally.

These dilutions are used with "stand processing," which means you do zero agitation after the first minute or two (sometimes we weaken and invert once or twice, gently, half way through). DO NOT AGITATE, just gently invert a few times if you feel you must.

The goal is to get extremely long tonal scale and to avoid disturbing the interesting "edge effect" , which is lost with any sort of conventional agitation.

I use these dilutions with Fuji Neopan 400, rated at 1000. I have not yet figured out Acros, nearly as well, with anything.

When I've run 4 rolls at once in a Nikor tank, the bottom rolls suffered.
However, 2 rolls in 500cc are fine.

I've done this very successfully at roughly 1+200 in a 250cc Nikor tank: I used 1.5 cc of Rodinal. A small graduate or your neighbor's son's hypodermic needle is necessary.

Temp isn't critical if you stay within a few degrees of 20c/68f

It's criminal to compare this with Diafine: Rodinal users worship sharpness.

venchka

07-23-2008, 12:12

...
It's criminal to compare this with Diafine: Rodinal users worship sharpness.

I know that. I knew that way back in the Land Before Time. Worms. Germany. Circa Ought 69.

I was merely comparing the "do all film at any temperature" procedure with the similar way Diafine works. However, I have seen some very sharp negatives come out of Diafine. But that's a discussion for another day.

dreilly

07-23-2008, 13:19

Thanks for this thread. I've just started experimenting with Rodinal and Neopan 400 and Pan F, and thus far, I really like it. See the sample below. I'll have to try this stand developing some time. Jan, could you email me your sheet, too?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3240/2651182021_1963bda242.jpg?v=0

venchka

07-23-2008, 14:48

Is the sample Neopan 400 or Pan F?

dreilly

07-23-2008, 14:51

That's Pan F (50 asa). I was interested to see how that very fine grain film did in rodinal, and I was pleased. I believe this was a time-temp controlled developing at 1:50.

dng88

07-23-2008, 15:46

I use 1/100 for stand developing single rolls of 120 or 135 BW having an ISO <200 . Very simple. Inversions for 10-12secs for the first 4-5 minutes, go watch a tv show for 30. Come back and one 10 - 12 sec inversion and then go watch another 30 min of TV (or whatever) Come back, drain rinse, etc

Works fine for me.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3124/2682744452_ee2832e816.jpg

Very nice picture. Your picture once again has a kind of feel that seems from time to time pop up with this developer. It is very dark tone, detail and somehow just striking to me. May I ask whether there is any secret? Is it underexposed? On top of the above development time, any other use of chemicals? Also, is any setting of the scanner and photoshop involved? Sorry to ask so many questions. My Rodinal is now in the air and I am very eager to try it. Any hint for a starting point?

charjohncarter

07-23-2008, 16:54

I'm with Jan, although I don't like this method ALL the time. I generally use 1+50 with a specific time, temp, agitation. But here is one hour Rodinal 1+100, 30 seconds to start and then 2-3 inversion at 30 minutes and one hour:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2208/2263146653_9b8a953bbc.jpg?v=0

jan normandale

07-23-2008, 18:01

Dennis, that's Acros 100 ISO / 120 shot at 100. The light was very stark, hence the contrast.
Carter that's basically what I'm doing so that's a great link for everyone here
Doug, the email is being forwarded to Wayne, pm me your email. I've lost it somehow.

Trius

07-23-2008, 19:37

APX100 @ 100, Rodinal 1:100, 20 minutes, 30sec. agitation then 3 inversions every 3 minutes.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2313/1574197748_648c12e999.jpg?v=0

jan normandale

07-23-2008, 23:31

Trius, that's just a wonderful image and resolution.

maddoc

07-24-2008, 00:19

APX100 @ 100, Rodinal 1:100, 20 minutes, 30sec. agitation then 3 inversions every 3 minutes.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2313/1574197748_648c12e999.jpg?v=0

This photo has very good contrast and fine details (judging from my small monitor) I will give your method a try, still have 2 rolls of APX100 and Rodinal :)

Pherdinand

07-24-2008, 00:57

That sounds quite stupid, because, e.g. plus-x and tmax100 need 13 minutes in rodinal in the 1+50 dilution, otherwise it gets underdeveloped.

On the other hands, you've read it on TOYCAMERAS dot com. Everything is possible in toycamera world, and mistakes/imperfections are called artistic approach.

nuada

07-24-2008, 01:13

I have tested this development method with Ilford PAN 400. I exposed consecutive film frames at EI 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400 and developed it in Rodinal 1+200 for 3h. Every frame was scannable, but EI 50 and 100 were bit too soft (due too heavy overexposure), EI 6400 was bit dark and contrasty.

I use this method when taking photos in "difficult" lightning conditions or when shooting high contrast scenes.

I have also developed like this old unknown film, which I found 16 years after it was exposed (Rodinal 1+200 for 1h, after developing it I found out this was Svema 64).

naruto

07-24-2008, 01:33

APX100 @ 100, Rodinal 1:100, 20 minutes, 30sec. agitation then 3 inversions every 3 minutes.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2313/1574197748_648c12e999.jpg?v=0

That's very nice. I usually develop it in 1+50 for 14 mins@20degC. There is a 100ft roll of APX100 coming my way, I must try this then. Thanks. :)

Trius

07-24-2008, 09:42

Trius, that's just a wonderful image and resolution.
Jan: Thanks ... it's at Eastman House, I'll take you sometime when you're here. Your Blad's large, square neg would be a good choice for that scene.

maddoc & naruto: A yellow-green filter was used, which changed the tonal rendition, of course. It's a good combination. Under flat lighting, 1:100 can produce negs with low contrast, but I prefer that to the opposite. It's easier to increase contrast in PS or in the darkroom, in my experience.

The key with Rodinal is to dial way back on agitation compared to other developers and the "standard" (who made it a standard, and when, anyway?) of agitating every 60 or 30 seconds.

dreilly

07-24-2008, 09:49

Trius,
Would you recommend "dialing back" the agitation with Rodinal in both stand or time/temp developing?
thanks
doug

venchka

08-04-2008, 08:53

Last Friday night I did something new.

I had a sheet of 4x5 Ilford HP5+ that I knew was underexposed by at least 2 stops.

I had a new bottle of Rodinal developer. I had used Rodinal at the normal dilutions and times and liked it a lot. Earlier in the week Jan sent instructions for using Rodinal: 1+100 dilution and semi-stand (minimum agitation) developing for 1 hour.

I figured, "What the heck?" So I loaded the sheet of film and mixed up some Rodinal at 1+100. Following Jan's instructions, I agitated 10 seconds per minute for the first 5 minutes. Let stand 25 minutes. Two inversions and let stand for 30 miuntes. 1 hour total. Stop-Fix-Wash as normal.

I pulled the negative out of tank. It was underexposed worse than I thought. The highlights & mid-tones were there but nothing in the deeper shadows. When the negative dried I tried scanning to see what was there. Rodinal had produced it's usual sharp image. And something else: GRAIN! Lots of it. That's not a bad thing in the right place. What totally blew me away was the presence of nice, tight grain from a 4x5 negative. My other negatives using the same film and either D-76 or Xtol had been virtually grain free. This negative was a pleasant surprise for those times when you gotta have grain.

By the way, Jan cautions that using slow film gives the best results. I'm sure he's right. However, finding a way to get gritty gorgeous grain from a 4x5 negative is something I plan to put to good use. Hopefully. Operator skills permitting. YMMV.

Thanks Jan!

When I can get the negatives into a proper scanner I'll post samples of the same exposure in Rodinal for an hour and Xtol 1:3 for 15:30 minutes.

Cheers!

MichaelM7

08-04-2008, 10:04

Last Friday night I did something new.

I had a sheet of 4x5 Ilford HP5+ that I knew was underexposed by at least 2 stops.

[...]

Rodinal had produced it's usual sharp image. And something else: GRAIN! Lots of it.

Hi venchka,

it's a known fact that Rodinal is producing enormous grain with HP5+. The reason for this can be seen e.g. here

http://www.photography-forums.com/showpost.php?p=664377&postcount=4

Greetings,

Michael M7

venchka

08-04-2008, 11:03

Aye, in 35mm for sure. At least with stand development. Back in the late 60s I used Agfa B&W film and Rodinal 1:50 and didn't find the grain to to be obtrusive.

But 4x5? Who knew?

John Robertson

08-05-2008, 06:26

Tried Jans "Stand" processing with Rodinal 1+100, results show promise, especially as the film I tried was Rollei100 Retro which is not particularly fine grained. I am pleased with the results.:cool:
see blow.
Foca Standard 35mm Oplar lens.
http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l28/JohnRobertson/GourdonHarbour.jpg

lewis44

08-05-2008, 09:26

I had to try this myself. Shot a roll of Ilford XP2 and I developed in Rodinal 1:100. Here is a 100% section of the scan w/o any processing. Scanned @ 4000 dpi with a Nikon LS-5000, no Ice, sharpening, etc. Not to bad.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3276/2735192801_6505edca70.jpg

venchka

08-05-2008, 09:39

John Robertson

08-05-2008, 11:11

One word of warning!! Be prepared for a surprise when you pour away the developer, mine was DARK grey, I thought the emulsion had dissolved!!! Also use a water rinse instead of stop bath, as it would probably be unuseable afterwards!

jja

08-05-2008, 11:33

Venchka, can you confirm that you paid no heed to the water temperature when you tried this method? Water taps flow at 80ºF in Austin, and I'm sure it's pretty warm where you live!

John Robertson

08-05-2008, 11:35

I would stick a couple of ice cubes in and bring temp down to around 70° F

jja

08-05-2008, 11:42

I would stick a couple of ice cubes in and bring temp down to around 70° F

Yeah, I'll probably do just that and then not worry about a constant temperature thereafter. I'm curious at what point it gets too warm.

lewis44

08-05-2008, 11:51

That's an understatement. Is this 35mm XP2?

Venchka,
Yep 35mm. I also paid no attention to temperature. Mixed the Rodinal and let it sit for awhile and get to room temp. Probably 68-70 or there abouts. I did not have much hope so just grabbed a roll and shot in the backyard.

Also found, even though it (XP2) is a C-41, if you try and use Digital Ice on it with your scanner, it comes out a mess.

venchka

08-05-2008, 14:32

Venchka, can you confirm that you paid no heed to the water temperature when you tried this method? Water taps flow at 80ºF in Austin, and I'm sure it's pretty warm where you live!

I very carefully and laboriously got the temps of all solutions down to 68F. Actually, I may have started with 67°F developer and it rose a bit during the hour. Ambient temp. in my apartment is 82°F & tap water is 84°F. For Xtol 1:3 I compromised on 75°F solutions. I think the developer may have been 76°F by the time I drained it. I hope this helps!

Cheers!

venchka

08-05-2008, 14:34

Venchka,
Yep 35mm. I also paid no attention to temperature. Mixed the Rodinal and let it sit for awhile and get to room temp. Probably 68-70 or there abouts. I did not have much hope so just grabbed a roll and shot in the backyard.

Also found, even though it (XP2) is a C-41, if you try and use Digital Ice on it with your scanner, it comes out a mess.

XP2 Super doesn't have the orange base that ICE is looking for. The good news is that it prints better in an enlarger than Kodak BW400CN. Good news & Bad news I guess.

dng88

08-06-2008, 02:05

This is the second time I heard that a film not supposed to be using B&W chemical but successful get something out of it. Someone has tried Velvia and this time XP2. What a surprise!?

myyra_ug

08-06-2008, 03:39

This is the second time I heard that a film not supposed to be using B&W chemical but successful get something out of it. Someone has tried Velvia and this time XP2. What a surprise!?

I have developed several C41 and E6 films in Rodinal. I've been using 1+200 and 2h stand development. Water temperature measured by hand (about 20 degrees centigrade).

Here's couple of examples.

Expired Extrafilm 200 (with Kiev 4)
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1174/1360698250_07a7cad505.jpg

Expired Elitechrome 100:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1202/1360699072_085fa496e5.jpg

dng88

08-06-2008, 06:25

Very nice.

I do a search and whilst just cover only E6, I think the concept that there are silver and also the first step of E6 is to develop the film as Black and White is mentioned here:

http://www.lightcatchers.org/gcarlson/e6processing/insidee6.htm

Now in E6 film, we have 3 different layer being exposed. The result should be a bit different (but all B&W film seems a bit different). In other words, we have more B&W film type. Cheers!

AshenLight

08-07-2008, 06:39

I finally got the plumbing installed in my new darkroom so I can start doing some tests. Does anyone have suggestions for a testing protocol that would yield meaningful or at least useful data assuming that the parameters are:

1. "New" Rodinal diluted 1:100
2. Any temperature (between 18 & 24 degrees to make it a little easier)
3. Any film (I have Tri-X, Plus-X and Acros 100, but any other suggestions are welcome)

Thanks,

Ash

venchka

08-07-2008, 09:02

OK, here's what I did last weekend:

Film: Ilford HP5+ 4x5 sheet film loaded in a Jobo 25xx tank with stopper lid.

Totally new Rodinal with the A&O label fresh from Freestyle. Mix 1:100.

Temperature: 68°F at the start. Possibly rising to 69°F by the end.

5 360° inversions/minute for the first 5 minutes. Sit for 25 minutes. 2 360° inversions. Sit for 30 minutes. Drain. Stop. Fix. Wash. Dry.

Results: The negative was WAY underexposed. My fault. I did get an image of the highlight areas. The shadows were gone. This is to be expected with underexposure. I also got nice gritty grain. That's to be expected with HP5+.

Good luck!

venchka

11-07-2008, 11:39

I developed a roll of Pan F this week. 800ml water + 8ml Rodinal. 5 minute pre-wash, 3-4 triple inversions during the first 5 minutes, stand until 30 minutes total elapsed, 3 inversions, stand for the balance of the hour, dump, water stop, fix, wash, dry.

4 frames at E.I. 50 were overexposed (operator error). Dense negatives, but still ok. I think they will print better than they scan. 6 frames were exposed at E.I. 25 with much more careful metering. Very flat light. In fact I was in deep shade in the woods. These negatives look very nice. In fact, I think I got some contrast that I wasn't expecting given the very flat lighting. When I get those scanned I'll share.

I like this combination. When I do the next roll, I'm going to cut back on the initial agitation. Something like: Fill, 3 inversions, 10 taps to dislodge bubbles, repeat at 3 minutes, repeat at 30 miuntes, dump at 1 hour.

Trius

11-07-2008, 19:15

Wayne: I used to tap to dislodge bubbles, but don't do it now, and I've still had no bubbles. :D I guess it doesn't hurt to do it, and once you're in the habit it's hard to stop. Just a thought.

Oh, and ... samples?

P. Lynn Miller

11-07-2008, 21:23

I stumbled onto Rodinal 1:100 stand development about a month ago, and after 40? rolls of film I have had only one film that was less then optimal.

The list of films I have developed -

Plus-X
Tri-X
Tri-X EI 6400
Rollei Retro 100
Rollei Retro 400
Pan F
Efke KB25
Efke R25
Efke KB100
Efke KB100 EI 200
Efke KB400
Efke KB 400 EI 3200
Ektapress 1600
Kodak Gold 100
Konica Centuria 100
Agfapan 25

The best emulsions for Rodinal 1:100 stand development are the Efke film with the Efke 25 simply mind-blowing...

Welder | Lakes Entrance | Victoria, Austrlia 2008
http://plynnmiller.com/rrf/2008_09_001_026_700e.jpg
Bessa R2 | Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 90mm f3.5 | Efke KB25 | Rodinal 1:100 Stand | View Larger (http://chris101.nikongear.com/2008/11/06/efke-kb25-rodinal-1100-stand/)

Plus-X and Tri-X work very well and Tri-X in Rodinal 1:100 produces the finest grained high-speed film I have ever seen, far better than Delta 3200 or TMax 3200...

Snug | Sydney, Australia 2008
http://plynnmiller.com/rrf/2008_10_010_013_800.jpg
Bessa R2 | Voigtländer Nokton 50mm f1.5 | Tri-X EI 6400 | Rodinal 1:100 Stand

Plus-X is no slouch... albeit a with bit more grain.

Broken | Sydney, Australia 2008
http://plynnmiller.com/rrf/The%20Artist.jpg
Bessa R2 | Voigtländer Nokton 50mm f1.5 | Plus-X | Rodinal 1:100 Stand

Even 20 year-old Ektapress 1600 can come to play...

Hoodie | Sydney, Australia
http://plynnmiller.com/rrf/2008_10_011_034_800.jpg
Bessa R2 | Voigtländer Nokton 50mm f1.5 | Kodak Ektapress 1600 | Rodinal 1:100 Stand

Check my Flickr Photostream (http://flickr.com/photos/24706160@N06/) or Photo Gallery (http://plynnmiller.com/exhibit/index.php), for more examples. Check 'tags' or 'Technical Details' for development info.

Here is what you want to know, how I do it...

Films that are shot at speed - 35mm -

Several minute water bath
Rodinal 1:100 - disregard temperature unless extreme heat or cold
1 minute of slow inversions, maybe 20 in 60 secs
3 really hard thumps to dislodge air bubbles, very important
DO NOT TOUCH for 59 minutes, a couple minutes extra will not harm anything(the DO NOT TOUCH is very, very important)
3 water baths then fix and rinse

For medium format, I change the dilution to 1:125 and be sure to use 500mm of solution per roll. Everything else the same.

Pushed film, such Tri-X EI 6400 or Efke KB400 EI 3200...

Several minute water bath
Rodinal 1:100 - disregard temperature unless extreme heat or cold
1 minute of slow inversions, maybe 20 in 60 secs
Every 30 minutes swirl the tank, like you would a glass of wine, for 15 seconds. Do not invert!
Total time - 120 minutes
3 water baths then fix and rinse

That is it.

Some notes...

Expose for the highlights, you will have no trouble with shadow details. Very important to not over-expose as you can quickly lose highlights, if in doubt under-expose a bit.

Negatives will come out of the tank quite 'flat', even when shooting a very high contrast scene. Add contrast when printing or scanning.

I will often put 5 rolls of different brands and speeds into a Jobo 3500 tank and all come out fine. I normally use the 2 roll Jobo 1500 tank with 2 reels.

How easy is that...

sherm

11-07-2008, 21:48

P. Lynn,

The welder shot is indeed quite striking. A question that comes to mind is Efke 25 is quite a slow film. Pardon my asking, but was this shot "lit" at all?? or done with a tri-pod? The resolution amazes me if this was accomplished by hand holding. I would think due to lighting conditions and Efke 25 that the shutter speed would be a bit on the "long side" ?

Thanks,

Scott

P. Lynn Miller

11-07-2008, 23:54

Scott,

Thanks.

No, the welder shot was not lit. It was hand-held, and this is the best of about 6 frames. If you look close you can see that the welder is in full sunlight, so exposure would have been 'Sunny f16' then opened up 2 stops for an orange filter, so exposure would have been 1/125 at f4 or f5.6. I am suspecting I may under-exposed by about 1 stop to ensure that I held the high-lights around the arc. That final image is pretty much full-frame, so I was quite close, so the depth of field is slim.

Here is another shot from the same roll of film...

'Cuppa' | Lakes Entrance | Victoria, Australia 2008
http://plynnmiller.com/rrf/2008_09_001_035_700e.jpg
Bessa R2 | Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 90mm f3.5 | Efke KB25 | Rodinal 1:100 Stand | View Larger (http://plynnmiller.com/rrf/2008_09_001_035_1000e.jpg)

Here is Efke KB50...

Sparks | Sydney, Australia 2008
http://plynnmiller.com/rrf/2008_08_016_016_700e.jpg
Bessa R2 | Voigtländer Ultron 28mm f2.0 | Efke KB50 | Rodinal 1:100 | View Larger (http://plynnmiller.com/rrf/2008_08_016_016_1200.jpg)

While Efke KB25 is slow, it is my preferred film for all my shooting except when I really need speed than I push Tri-X or Efke KB400. The Efke emulsions with their high-silver content are just luscious.

ChrisN

11-08-2008, 02:42

P. Lynn - from me also a hearty thanks for sharing your great work! Nice pics, too!

benlees

11-08-2008, 07:22

Another thanks to P.Lynn! Really helpful and great shots! Very nice scans as well.

Pherdinand

11-08-2008, 10:54

woa, that efke25 looks great. Not to talk about the far pushed tri-x!
thanks for the details. very useful.

jan normandale

11-08-2008, 11:03

this is turning into an amazing thread. I should clarify one point. There was mention of my "stand development" it's actually about a third generation modification passed on to me by a friend. What I'm suspecting in this stand process is there is far more latitude than one expects.

Wayne's comment that he will modify the process further makes sense. I'm certain that it will work. I still prefer using this with film ISO's of less than 200. Greater than 200 and grain is a factor. If you are looking for that then you know what to expect...

sherm

11-08-2008, 11:57

Acouple fo years ago after I purchased my 40/1.4 Nokton SC I had asked Tom Abrahamson about achieving the "vintage look" of B&W films from the 40's and 50's. Now I realize that the "vintage look" is subjective but he reccomended I give Buetler a try with Efke film and man was this combination great as well.... I develped it using the more standard approach of inversions every 60-75 seconds but maybe someone has tried this formula with the stand development process??

Just a thought

bidnez

11-08-2008, 12:22

What happened to emulsion swelling? This is all very interesting indeed! (Trius; that picture is just lovely!). To my mind, however comes a question, related to what was the going dogma in the late 70s (or thereabout): If you want fine grain and sharpness, don´t keep the film in fluids longer than strictly necessary. This to keep emulsion from swelling; giving grain-like clots to deal with. In this school of film-development some people argued much in the direction of "shaken not stirred". This is quite the opposite - and seems to work well.

Was that just foolery, then - about emulsion swelling? Or am I missing something?

le

P. Lynn Miller

11-08-2008, 13:22

I still prefer using this with film ISO's of less than 200. Greater than 200 and grain is a factor. If you are looking for that then you know what to expect...

Larger grain...

I found that it varies from brand to brand of film. Efke KB100 even when pushed to EI 200 has less grain than Plus-X at speed. Rollei Retro emulsions seem to be more clumpy, but Tri-X can be incredibly smooth. The Efke emulsions are the best that I have found for stand development using Rodinal.

Also the increase in grain is directly related to agitation. With Rodinal and stand development less agitation is definitely more. When I first started stand development, I used 2 minutes of inversions at beginning with a set of inversions at 30 minutes. The grain was very apparent.

About the same time I started experimenting with stand development, a discussion on stand development with Rodinal started over at APUG(Analog Photography Users Group) (http://www.apug.org/forums/home.php) , and some of the members of APUG have incredible technical knowledge of film, developing and chemistry. After mining through many pages of discussing bromide drag, silver migration and chemistry 101, I came to the conclusion that the increase in grain was a result of over-agitation and the secret was to find just the right amount.

The method that I posted in my previous post was the result of experimenting with time, dilution and agitation.

I was I had a good scanner as Tri-X pushed to 6400 is amazingly fine grained, in fact under the loupe there is little more grain than when shot at speed and developed in D76 Stock.

I use stand development, primarily because I am lazy. While the time in the tank is long, an hour to 2 hours, that actual time spent developing film is less. You have a few minutes, mixing and filling the tank and a minute of inversions, then you leave and go do something else for an hour, like have a coffee, scan some negatives, take more photos, whatever. I find long development time with regular inversion very tedious and boring, plus you have to keep an eye on the temperature, etc, etc.

With stand development, I get consistent results with the least amount of effort. I told you I was lazy!

ChrisN

11-08-2008, 15:21

I gather that one of the principles of stand development is that the very dilute developer has only sufficient active developing agent to develop the film and will become exhausted before over-development occurs. Is it possible to determine precisely how much Rodinal syrup is needed for a single 36-exposure roll of 35mm film?

What I'm thinking is that 300ml of 1+100 has less of the active agents than 500ml of 1+100. Surely the volume of the dilute developer must be considered alongside the concentration. So how much Rodinal syrup do I need for a 36-exposure roll; for a 24-exp roll; for a 120 roll?

P. Lynn Miller

11-08-2008, 20:45

Chris,

Remember the, 'I am lazy bit'? I tend to avoid complications if at all possible.

For 1 or 2 rolls of 35mm film(24 or 36 exposures makes no difference in my experience), I use 500ml of solution in the Jobo 1520, always 500ml never less. With only 5ml of Rodinal required, there is not sense of economy in using less. I have no discernible differences in 1 or 2 rolls in the tank as long as you DO NOT TOUCH the tank after the initial 1 minute of inversions. When I say 'DO NOT TOUCH', I mean DO NOT TOUCH! After 1 minutes of slow inversions and 3 hearty thumps to dislodge the air bubbles, the tank is not moved, vibrated, pushed, it is not touched, especially if you only have one roll in the tank!

Why... because apparently Rodinal in high dilutions will develop to exhaustion and not over-develop as long as there is no new developer introduced to the emulsion. So whether you have 1 or 2 roll in the tank, if the tank is not touched or moved in way for the 60 minutes, the developer can be exhausted on the film even though there may be fresh developer elsewhere in the tank. So it is vitally important to keep the solution still, and I could always see a slight difference in the negatives if the tank was bumped or somehow moved so the developer flowed slightly in the tank.

I also use 500ml of 1:125 Rodinal with 1 roll of 120 or 220 in the Jobo 1520 tank. If I have lots of rolls of film to develop, I will use my Jobo tank that holds 5 rolls of 35mm or 3 rolls of 120/220 in 2 litres of solution.

One other thing I have found that while temperature is relatively unimportant, within reason, it is important to have the solution at ambient temperature including the water baths. I found that by starting out with lower temperature than ambient, as the solution rises in temperature while standing, this causes the solution to circulate around the tank which is natural result of convection.

I do not know the technical reason that stand development does or does not work, nor do I really care. I am only reporting on my experience after more than 50 rolls of film over the past 2 months.

I will let the photographs do the talking...

visiondr

11-08-2008, 21:04

Fuji Acros 100 @ 100 ISO, Rodinal 1+100, 18 min, 20º C, 4 inversions/min

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3006/2450620273_8a1acff66d_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2289/2450620211_400836f694_o.jpg

mh2000

11-08-2008, 21:22

this is wrong, XP2 Super works fine with Digital ICE when developed in C41 chems.

>>XP2 Super doesn't have the orange base that ICE is looking for. The good news is that it prints better in an enlarger than Kodak BW400CN. Good news & Bad news I guess.

ChrisN

11-08-2008, 22:09

Chris,

Remember the, 'I am lazy bit'? I tend to avoid complications if at all possible.

For 1 or 2 rolls of 35mm film(24 or 36 exposures makes no difference in my experience), I use 500ml of solution in the Jobo 1520, always 500ml never less. With only 5ml of Rodinal required, there is not sense of economy in using less. I have no discernible differences in 1 or 2 rolls in the tank as long as you DO NOT TOUCH the tank after the initial 1 minute of inversions. When I say 'DO NOT TOUCH', I mean DO NOT TOUCH! After 1 minutes of slow in inversions and 3 hearty thumps to dislodge the air bubbles, the tank is not moved, vibrated, pushed, it is not touched, especially if you only have one roll in the tank!

Why... because apparently Rodinal in high dilutions will develop to exhaustion and not over-develop as long as there is no new developer introduced to the emulsion. So whether you have 1 or 2 roll in the tank, if the tank is not touched or moved in way for the 60 minutes, the developed exhausted on the film even though there may be fresh developer elsewhere in the tank. So it is vitally important to keep the solution still, and I could always see a slight difference in the negatives if the tank was bumped or somehow moved so the developer flowed slightly in the tank.

I also use 500ml of 1:125 Rodinal with 1 roll of 120 or 220 in the Jobo 1520 tank. If I have lots of rolls of film to develop, I will use my Jobo tank that holds 5 rolls of 35mm or 3 rolls of 120/220 in 2 litres of solution.

One other thing I have found that while temperature is relatively unimportant, within reason, it is important to have the solution at ambient temperature including the water baths. I found that by starting out with lower temperature than ambient, as the solution rises in temperature while standing, this causes the solution to circulate around the tank which is natural result of convection.

I do not know the technical reason that stand development does or does not work, nor do I really care. I am only reporting on my experience after more than 50 rolls of film over the past 2 months.

I will let the photographs do the talking...

Got it! 5ml in 500ml of water. I'll try that tonight with a roll of expired Kodak Hawkeye surveillance film I shot today. If it comes out I'll post the results!

P. Lynn Miller

11-08-2008, 22:34

Chris,

Looking forward to seeing your photographs, hope it works out well for you.

This is Efke KB400 at 3200... using the 120 minute method

Kent | Sydney, Australia 2008
http://plynnmiller.com/rrf/kentcrop_800.jpg
Leica M5 | Jupiter-9 8.5cm f2.0 | Efke KB400 EI 3200 | Rodinal 1:100 Stand

jan normandale

11-09-2008, 05:49

Lynn, I agree about agitation correlating to grain. Lots of stuff here and elsewhere on that. I usually use four BW films, TriX/320, Acros/100, HP5 and Delta/3200.

I use HC110 in place of Rodinal for the +200 ISO's of HP5, Tri X, and Delta. I've used Rodinal with these films and find grain. I'll have to check to see if the film shows the results you state using your process. It appears you don't use a 'mid point' agitation. The reason for the mid point is to deal with the exhausted developer that drops to the bottom of the tank, the mid point agitation is enough to 'mix' the remaining developer to ensure a consistent development. I believe this method helps offset the bromide drag that causes streaking, something that can occur with stand development practice.

BTW; Nice portrait of Kent, he's a very good photographer

tomasis

11-09-2008, 06:44

PL Miller, such interesting technique and images.

I wonder if your Efke is same as Adox CHS 25,50,100? Or former Agfapan, HP5?

I must say Im surprised how clean iso 3200 and 6400 pictures look. Have you tried to push Retro 100,400?

I wonder how Jobo 3500 tank looks like? I only know 1500 and 2500 for 35mm, hmm.

P. Lynn Miller

11-09-2008, 12:14

Jan,

Thanks, Kent is close friend and we work together quite abit.

According to the experts over at APUG, bromide drag is not possible with Rodinal. Do not know the technicals, but it can and does occur with HC-110 and other developers. I must say that in the 50 plus rolls I have developed in the past few months, I have had no streaking.

Since bromide drag is not possible with Rodinal and the amount of agitation determines the grain, I worked out my method of stand development on these conclusions. So I do not use a mid-point agitation, except when pushing film, then I use 120 minutes and agitation very 30 minutes.

As for exhausted developer dropping in the tank, that is news to me. But I have not seen any adverse effects when developing 5 rolls of 35mm in the big Jobo. Hmmm...

As I mentioned before, the results vary from brand to brand. I just souped some Fuji Neopan SS last night and it came out very grainy. So your results will vary with your choice of film. The Efke emulsions are the best I have found followed by Plus-X and Tri-X.

tomasis,

Efke makes the Adox emulsions and are identical as far as I know. It seems that the quality control is more rigid with the Adox film and variations are less from batch to batch.

No, I have not tried to push Retro 100 & 400.

The tank I have may be a 2500, all I know is it takes the big reels and holds 2litres of solution.

Thanks,

jan normandale

11-09-2008, 20:39

Lynn, looks like I should check out the Efke in due course.

BTW: I read your almost identical post showing the 'chop saw' using Efke KB50 on APUG from 08 24 08

P. Lynn Miller

11-09-2008, 21:39

BTW: I read your almost identical post showing the 'chop saw' using Efke KB50 on APUG from 08 24 08

Is that a good thing or bad thing?! I knew had posted to the thread at APUG, but I did not know it was identical. Well, hopefully not too many people will be too bored by seeing the same thing twice.

I have to check my notes, but the 'chopsaw' was from one of my early rolls using Rodinal 1:100 Stand, so I may have still been using 2 minutes of inversions at the beginning. But I found that by cutting back to 1 minute, I did not have trouble with blown highlights.

Put it another way, with 2 minutes of inversion at the beginning, I was getting a speed increase of about 1 stop, so any over-exposure resulted in blown high-lights. With 1 minute of inversions at the beginning, the film can be exposed at rated speed with little fear of losing the highlights.

I have 2 rolls of TMaz 3200 that are due be developed tonight, I am still debating whether I should fall back to the tried and true since these rolls must turn out or whether to commit them to Rodinal 1:100 stand since I yet to develop any T-grain films with this method.

ChrisN

11-10-2008, 00:48

Well my results were certainly not as good as P. Lynn's, but I only have myself to blame!

First, I was using some expired Kodak 2485 (Traffic Surveillance) film, which is nominally rated at 400iso. I exposed it at 200iso. Second, I got distracted while waiting for the one hour dev time to conclude, and my film actually sat in the developer for one hour 25 minutes! The negs are all very dense, with the first eight or so frames showing greater density on one edge. And I certainly have some blown highlights. But I was able to save a few usable images from the roll, with careful scanning and some massive adjustments in Lightroom. It looks like this is a very forgiving technique! I'll try it with a few more rolls, and this time pay more attention to the timing!

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=65059&d=1226306903

titrisol

11-10-2008, 03:10

Efke 25 = Adox 25
but it is not Agfapan 25.

Retro 100 and 400 are AGFA APX100 and 400 (remnatns of new/old stock)
The 400 is no good for pushing
the 100 can be pushed slightly

Now, to PLynn, your method is very useful for basketball season!

PL Miller, such interesting technique and images.

I wonder if your Efke is same as Adox CHS 25,50,100? Or former Agfapan, HP5?

I must say Im surprised how clean iso 3200 and 6400 pictures look. Have you tried to push Retro 100,400?

I wonder how Jobo 3500 tank looks like? I only know 1500 and 2500 for 35mm, hmm.

P. Lynn Miller

11-10-2008, 04:37

Chris,

Yes, you did make life hard for yourself!

Pulling film is a no-no with stand development because in my experience stand development actually can give you a speed gain of up to 1 stop, especially if you increase the beginning inversions to 2 minutes.

In some ways, exposing for stand development is counter-intuitive, as I was taught to always error on the side of over-exposure with B&W negative film and many people actually will rate and shoot B&W film up to a stop slower than normal. So learning to error on the side of under-exposure just seems to go against convention. But for best results, I always expose for the highlights since the shadows will work themselves out in the development.

As for time, over-development and dense negatives, I have found movement of the tank has a greater effect than a reasonable time error. While I try to hold to 60 minutes, I have found that you have a leeway of about 5 minutes before you really need to worry. I once left a tank sit for 70 minutes with no discernible adverse effects, but I try to keep close the 60 minutes. I have never pulled a tank more than maybe a minute early, so do not what results would be at say 55 minutes.

I was discussing stand development with a fellow photographer, Kent(his candid portrait is posted in a previous post), the other day. He spent quite a few years in the darkroom developing film. He was telling me that they had a big drum of D76 that they used to do the same thing with in a dip and dunk style method. The films were dropped in and you came back 'after while' and got them out and they always came out perfect. No agitation or anything. Another old photographer over at APUG was telling everyone how he used to have a barrel of D19 and they dropped all the films of the day into the barrel before they left for the day and came back the next morning and pulled them. So stand development is not a new concept whatsoever.

Anyway, half the fun of film photography is experimenting. So have fun...

imush

11-10-2008, 09:30

Here are some of my Efke films in Rodinal 1:100, similar method, shot on a very sunny day.

KB25:
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_cqmogKolC7w/SMS8uVqLopI/AAAAAAAAA0o/zwreokg7aNY/s800/scan023.jpg

KB50:
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_cqmogKolC7w/SMTA2PAMzTI/AAAAAAAAA2M/lksVVCeF35M/s800/scan048-0.jpg
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/-c6foBkrtprNcYT06XYAuA

venchka

11-10-2008, 11:15

P. Lynn Miller, a million thanks!

Where were you last week before I semi-ruined my first two rolls ever of 120 Pan F+? I concur with everything you said:
1. Don't overexpose
2. This process "makes" contrast in very flat deep shade lighting.
3. Box speed or more: Right on. See #1.
4. Bracket. Bracket. Don't forget to bracket.
5. I used 8ml of Rodinal in 800ml water in a Paterson clone tank for a single roll of film. More than enough obviously. I think 700ml will cover the reel. I'll measure carefully next time.
6. After the first roll was quite dense, I reduced the temp. from 68F to 66F. Reduced agitation to 3 inversions/5 drops from 1" to get rid of bubbles, repeat at 3 minutes and 30 minutes. Still dense. Next time I'll follow your method.
7. I agree 100%! Put it down. Walk away. Fugetaboutit until the GraLab sounds off.
8. I am curious why you deviate for 120 film? I'll follow your method. I have about 15-16 rolls of Efke R25. I think I've found the way to develop them.

EDIT: Sorry. I misread. You only change the dilution. I concur with that. And it will save me a bit of Rodinal.

9. I developed one sheet of HP5+ that I know for a fact was underexposed by 2 stops. I ran out of shutter speeds on my Speed Graphic. I used the agitate once/minute for 5 minutes & again at 30 minutes. That negative is beautiful. It was taken in a church with very soft light. Here it is...

http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/138979-2/Side+Altar+Wes-1.jpg

10. Scanners can dig information out of seemingly blank negatives. RFF member wclavey has some negatives to prove it. To look at them, they appear unexposed. However, the scanner renders a perfectly good file and print. Overexposure is the opposite. When a negative reaches a certain density, the scanner gives up. Hopefully my once-in-a-lifetime overly dense negatives will print better with the enlarger.

Thanks!

venchka

11-10-2008, 11:23

P. Lynn Miller,

When you say, "expose for the highlights" (which I fully appreciate based on my results so far), tell us how you do that. I can think of a couple different ways to do that. What method do you use?

P. Lynn Miller

11-10-2008, 13:04

Wayne,

Thanks for the compliments and for posting your experiences. I am not an expert and really have no idea how or why this method does or does not work. I am just posting what I do that seems to work for me in hopes it will help someone else.

As for exposing for highlights... I will explain that in a later post when I have abit more time.

Thanks,

Disaster_Area

11-10-2008, 19:30

well I after reading this thread I just souped a roll of the Arista II 400 in 1:100 for an hour, no agitation after the first minute. I was initially concerned, usually when I soup in rodinal I get a very dark purple developer coming out of the tank but when I poured the dev out after an hour it was almost clear... I was really afraid I botched it, but the negs seem to be fine. I'll have to see how they scan :)

titrisol

11-11-2008, 00:01

Efke/ADOX 25 can be developed in Rodinal 1+100 for 10-11 minutes using normal procedure
No need for stand development

John Robertson

11-11-2008, 02:13

ChrisN

11-11-2008, 04:10

Chris,

Yes, you did make life hard for yourself!

...

Anyway, half the fun of film photography is experimenting. So have fun...

It certainly is! And I have a couple of hundred feet of old film to experiment with!

I'll do the next roll tomorrow night - ERA 100 exposed at 100 in the same bright contrasty conditions.

venchka

11-11-2008, 06:06

...

10. Scanners can dig information out of seemingly blank negatives. RFF member wclavey has some negatives to prove it. To look at them, they appear unexposed. However, the scanner renders a perfectly good file and print.

Monday Night Football was less than interesting. It had been raining all day. I had dropped my scanner budget at the Volvo dealer. Again. I had loaded some Pan F+ from a roll purchased here at RFF the night before.

What's a fellow to do? Go play in the rain! After my experience earlier in the week with 120 Pan F+, I was eager to try the method outlined by P. Lynn Miller. I set my tripod up in my driveway under cover. It was pouring whem I started and had eased up by the time I finished. I already knew what happend with overexposure. This time I went for extreme underexposure. The negatives were so thin that I couldn't find the blank space between frames to cut the negatives apart. It ain't art. I do think I advanced my craft a wee bit.

The particulars:

Leica M5 | 28mm M-Hexanon | Ilford Pan F+ | E.I. 50 | Rodinal 1:100 - 5ml Rodinal + 500ml water | 1 hour

Agitation: Fill, 15 inversions, 10 raps on the counter top, let go & walk away. Total elapsed time of agitation: 50 seconds. Total time from fill to dump: 60 minutes. Ambient temperature: 77°F.

One benefit was using tap water which has come down to about 74°F. I didn't have to muck about tempering water.

#1: Raining hard.

http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/142312-2/Villas+Hard+Rain+2-1.jpg

#2: Rain stopped.

http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/142315-2/Villas+Rain-1.jpg

I metered on the nearest flood light with my 10° spot meter which said f/8.0 @ 1/2 second. I bracketed in two stop increments from f/4.0 to f/16. I reckon these samples were shot at f/4.0 or f.5.6. The whole scene had values for lighted areas ranging from f/1.0 (Noctilux territory) to f/8.0.

I hope this helps advance the knowledge base.

Cheers!

Wayne
Proving yet agian that Konica lenses don't flare!

maddoc

11-11-2008, 06:18

I have to try this !! These look great !!

#1: Raining hard.

http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/142312-2/Villas+Hard+Rain+2-1.jpg

#2: Rain stopped.

http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/142315-2/Villas+Rain-1.jpg

Cheers!

Wayne
Proving yet agian that Konica lenses don't flare!

venchka

11-11-2008, 06:31

Thank you!

ChrisN

11-11-2008, 12:20

Ah - that great Pan-F tonality! Very nice!

What tank used? Plastic or steel reels? Inquiring minds, you know.

venchka

11-11-2008, 12:35

It's an ancient Paterson clone made in Europe. Sold in the USA under the Beseler name. Similar/identical reels as the Paterson reels. In fact, they are interchangeable. Double 35mm, single 120/220 reel size. 500ml isplenty to cover a single 35mm reel and 800ml for 120/220.

Major gripe! Ilford, if you're listening/reading, I want Pan-F+ in sheets and I want it NOW!

BTW: The photos above are straight out of my crap ancient HP scanner. Scanned as 48 bit color slides at 2,400 DPI, inverted, saved as TIFF files. Opened in Lightroom, clicked the Greyscale button and exported at web size. That's all folks.

Slightly larger versions are on the last page of my Houston gallery at the Leica Users Group. Click the My Gallery link in my signature.

ChrisN

11-13-2008, 00:06

Thanks Wayne.

Did another roll, ERA 100. 1+100. One hour exactly, inversions for the first minute then didn't touch the tank for the hour. Very contrasty result, but even development this time. I'd like to get low contrast in the negs - should I dilute the developer further or cut the time?

titrisol

11-13-2008, 00:50

you can try 1+200 or 1+150
in stand development the end point needs to be determined but it should give equal results after a certain time

Thanks Wayne.

Did another roll, ERA 100. 1+100. One hour exactly, inversions for the first minute then didn't touch the tank for the hour. Very contrasty result, but even development this time. I'd like to get low contrast in the negs - should I dilute the developer further or cut the time?

P. Lynn Miller

11-13-2008, 01:07

When you say, "expose for the highlights" (which I fully appreciate based on my results so far), tell us how you do that. I can think of a couple different ways to do that. What method do you use?

Wayne,

First, I am a very lazy photographer, I do not keep notes and mostly make decisions based on gut instinct. But I will give you a few examples...

When street shooting using the 'Sunny f16' rule, I do not open up a stop for the shadow side, since the old rule of thumb was to open up 1 stop when the subject is back-lit. I don't.

When metering the scene, such as inside a café, I will meter the subject, and then kinda look at the surrounding light and decide what I want to be the brightest part of the photograph, so where I want the cut-off of the highlights, and open or close down accordingly.

That is about as precise as I can be, as I said, I just kinda know what I want and what I have to do to get it. Mostly from trial and error, I suppose...

When I use my incident meter, I always close down at least 2 full stops, sometimes three. If the scene is mostly dark colors and in full shade, I will close down 1 stop or bit more, if the light is dappled, definitely 2 stops or bit more. If the subject is light colored add a stop, if it is white maybe another half-stop. Again those are just random rules of thumb, but I probably do something different each time...

One funny thing that I do alot is use my incident meter both ways, meter the light falling on the subject and the light reflecting back. The difference can be 4 or 5 stops at times, so I will give that some thought as I consider my exposure.

I sort of figure film is cheap, so what I often do is make the first frame according to my instincts and then the next frame one way or the other, whichever side of the exposure I want error on.

Truth be told I am pretty slack...

P. Lynn Miller

11-13-2008, 01:22

Did another roll, ERA 100. 1+100. One hour exactly, inversions for the first minute then didn't touch the tank for the hour. Very contrasty result, but even development this time. I'd like to get low contrast in the negs - should I dilute the developer further or cut the time?

Chris,

I have shot a lot of ERA100 but never developed it with the stand method, preferred D76 Stock. In fact, never liked using Rodinal with this film when developed normally. Maybe ERA100 does not work with stand development, I am sure this method has to fail somewhere along the line.

Not sure what to tell you. I gauge my development, over or under, by the imprints on the side of the film strip. I like the imprint to be black and sharp while the film base is clean and clear. I adjust me development accordingly. Then I figure it is up to me to ensure I get the film exposed properly for the amount of contrast I want.

At least that is what I do...

venchka

11-13-2008, 05:10

You asked for samples. You get samples.

Guadelupe River above Gruene, TX.

Pentax 6x7 | Takumar SMC 105mm 2.5 | Polarizer + red filter

Ilford Pan-F+ | E.I. 50 | f-11 @ 30 seconds (Should have been 10 seconds)

Rodinal 1:100 (8:800)

10 seconds inversion/minute for first 5 minutes, 3 inversions after 30 minutes, 1 hour total.

Thanks for looking.

http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/142717-2/Gruene+Texas+_4+of+8_.jpg

P. Lynn Miller: Thanks!

charjohncarter

11-13-2008, 07:00

venchka, these two last images are both great.

venchka

11-13-2008, 08:53

Thank you. I really appreciate that.

P. Lynn Miller

11-13-2008, 12:02

Wayne,

Thanks for sharing your experience and photographs. Beautiful work. It really boils down to finding what works for you.

ChrisN

11-13-2008, 12:36

What other developers can be used for stand development, and at what dilutions? I have easiest access to Ilford chemicals in my part of the world. At the moment it seems to be impossible to find Rodinal here, and my little bottle is dwindling fast.

Disaster_Area

11-13-2008, 12:48

P. Lynn Miller

11-13-2008, 12:55

Chris,

The other common developer that is used for stand development is Kodak HC-110. The was a big discussion on Nikon Café about 18 months ago that discussed using HC-110 as a stand developer quite at length. The infamous Noctilux master and banned RFF member, Ned aka NB23, used HC-110 as a stand developer almost exclusively. He would be happy to fill you on the details, I know RFF member Chris101 still is in regular contact with Ned.

I am not a fan of HC-110 since it seems to 'smudge' the grain losing quite of bit of detail. Just my opinion...

I am sure there are other developers to use as stand developers, a search over at APUG should reveal a treasure trove of information.

As for finding Rodinal, contact VanBar - <vanbar.com.au> - they usually have plenty in stock at about $20 for a 500ml bottle. If not, I know of several local shops with Rodinal on the shelf, I can pick a few spare bottles for you.

jan normandale

11-13-2008, 14:00

I've never tried it but I believe HC110 can be used for stand development as well. It should work on the same principle: 6ml minimum developer to develop one 35mm roll, if you should be able to leave it for an hour with no agitation for good shadows, and it shouldn't over develop as all the active developer will exhaust.

I haven't discussed this here at RFF because I felt "one was enough" ie Rodinal. I do use HC 110 and follow the very same process I do for Rodinal. The sole difference being I do two inversions of the tank at the 30 minute mark of the hour stand process. I'm not sure the inversions are any benefit after looking at the 'straight stand' from others as well as here at RFF.

I use the Rodinal for film of ISO's < 200 and HC 110 for film ISO's > 200

Disaster_Area

11-13-2008, 14:50

what dilution of HC110 did you use for stand developement?

charjohncarter

11-13-2008, 16:17

I've used Ansel's Semi-Stand development with Trix;easy and it works. It is in his Book 'the Negative.'

ChrisN

11-14-2008, 00:05

titrisol

11-14-2008, 00:12

True, check the covingtoninnovation page on HC110.
I think a 1+100 or 1+150 dilution is used.

However, I have heard that bromine drag could be a problem with HC110, but is not a problem with p-amino-phenol.

Chris,

The other common developer that is used for stand development is Kodak HC-110. The was a big discussion on Nikon Café about 18 months ago that discussed using HC-110 as a stand developer quite at length. The infamous Noctilux master and banned RFF member, Ned aka NB23, used HC-110 as a stand developer almost exclusively. He would be happy to fill you on the details, I know RFF member Chris101 still is in regular contact with Ned.

I am not a fan of HC-110 since it seems to 'smudge' the grain losing quite of bit of detail. Just my opinion...

I am sure there are other developers to use as stand developers, a search over at APUG should reveal a treasure trove of information.

As for finding Rodinal, contact VanBar - <vanbar.com.au> - they usually have plenty in stock at about $20 for a 500ml bottle. If not, I know of several local shops with Rodinal on the shelf, I can pick a few spare bottles for you.

charjohncarter

11-14-2008, 12:18

Rodinal stand is no stranger to Bromide drag:

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=ArK8GzWePN1aM85D6ab3wUmmN3wV?p=rodinal +bromide+drag&fr=att-portal&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8

ChrisN

11-15-2008, 20:38

Tried a roll of GP3 film in the roll-film back on the 4x5 Speed Graphic. Rodinal 1+200, 1 min continuous inversions, 1 hour stand development with a gentle swirling for 15 seconds at the half-way mark. The negs came out as I wanted; low contrast with even development. Nice.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3179/3033199631_ac8d2e3a30_o.jpg

venchka

11-15-2008, 21:06

Good show Chris!

I'm including this one because the exposure was was normal. Very little adjustment needed in Lightroom. No blown highlights! Hurray! :cool:

http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/142720-2/Gruene+Texas+_8+of+8_.jpg

Thanks for looking!

Disaster_Area

11-17-2008, 18:19

I just souped some Arista II (APX 400 I think) in 1:100 for 2 hours. I exposed half the roll at 800 and half at 1600, here's the results:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66354

I LOVE this combo, nice grain with good sharpness and a lot better tonality than I expected.

itf

11-17-2008, 23:49

I've done this but only a couple of times. Once I agitated very gently every 15 minutes for an hour, the other time I just left it stand for an hour. I didn't get any drag but I don't understand why not and this keeps me from doing it much. Some people have examples of drag with this method. What's the deal? I'd really like to know because I'd do it more if I knew it was reliable.

Oh, I did it with fomapan 400, lucky shd 400, and apx 400 the time I agitated.

Rayt

11-18-2008, 07:28

Excuse me for asking a dumb questions but isn't a 1:200 or even 1:50 ratio difficult to measure accurately? How do you know you are not getting 1:240 or 1:170?

alinCiortea

11-18-2008, 07:34

It probably matters less... Besides, theoretically there's a bit of a difference between 1+25 and 1:25 although I don't think you'll notice it in practice. I think :P

Disaster_Area

11-18-2008, 07:38

it's not that hard to measure because you need roughly 4-6mls minimum for each roll of film. So I use 5mls Rodinal and 500mls water to develop one roll. In order to measure out the 5mls of rodinal I use a 10ml syringe I bought at the drugstore. The sell them to measure out childrens medication. The nice thing about long development times is that the longer the dev time, the less effect small variations have on the final result. so even if you did end up using 1:170 or 1:230 by accident you shouldnt see much difference in your negs, same thing if you end up developing for 110 or 130 minutes.

Rayt

11-18-2008, 07:49

A syringe! i understand now. Thanks.

alinCiortea

11-18-2008, 08:23

I use a 12ml syringe (graded in 0.5 increments) and a 2ml one (graded in 0.1 increments) if I want to really go by the book (rarely tough). For the water I have a graded glass bottle for measuring liquids for infants (250ml total, 10ml increments), though I haven't checked the increments with the syringes. For measuring temperature, I have an aquarium alcohol thermometer that has the glass dome over the alcohol reservoir broken (by mistake - but measures a lot faster now) - so +-0.5° is probably very common with little to no effect over the results (there's most certainly a bigger difference in temperature building up over the developing time). As others have stated before, there are other aspects a lot more critical in the developing process, especially stand developing that I'm about to try this week (once the mighty chemistry arrives)

Pherdinand

11-18-2008, 09:28

i have a pipette that has gradations of 0.2 ml and a max of 2 ml. Not that hard to do it with it.
But i agree, it might bve not so important after all.

kxl

11-18-2008, 11:11

From a roll of APX100 that I had accidentally exposed at 400 -- wanted to try Rodinal 1+100 stand development. I did 10 slow inversions at the beginning and then let it sit for an hour. Water rinse, fix, etc...

Here's the result.... Yeah, I know, I missed the focus a bit, but I'm pleasantly surprised with the result.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3005/3041766514_e9cdca4b6b.jpg

alinCiortea

11-21-2008, 12:41

any ideas whether 'R09 NEW' does the same job at stand developing as the original rodinal?

LE: in fact it's the R09 from rollei, so it's the old rodinal formula, I guess...

alinCiortea

11-24-2008, 15:49

fuji acros 100 @200
rodinal 1+125 1 hour stand (the P. Lynn Miller method :P)

any thoughts? looks ok but not brilliant to me (scanned on canoscan 8800f)

Trius

11-24-2008, 17:38

alin: That looks good to me. The lighting is pretty soft and it's a fairly low contrast scene, so the dilution and stand development certainly weren't going to result in any more "pop".

Trius

11-24-2008, 17:39

alinCiortea

11-24-2008, 17:52

fuji acros 100 @200
rodinal 1+125 1 hour stand (the P. Lynn Miller method :P)

any thoughts? looks ok but not brilliant to me (scanned on canoscan 8800f)

i thought about that too, but it will be a while until i have the chance to try this on more challenging lighting situations :)

titrisol

11-24-2008, 23:09

Dilution ratios are different for R09
Rodinal is more concentrated, so that
Rodinal R09
1+25 1+20
1+50 1+40
1+100 1+80
1+200 1+150

Other than that it should be the same

any ideas whether 'R09 NEW' does the same job at stand developing as the original rodinal?

LE: in fact it's the R09 from rollei, so it's the old rodinal formula, I guess...

alinCiortea

11-25-2008, 02:49

times are quite different for corresponding dilutions, too, so there's probably some difference between them. i've developed films in r09 using rodinal dilutions and times and they all worked ok.
the reason i was asking about it is that i've tried a semi-stand 1+100 r09 development some time ago and the neg turned out very weird (fogged maybe?) with even the markings along the sides of the film doubled (as if they had a very distinct thin and strong shadow). it's true, the bottle was left in direct summer sun for a whole day, but using normal dilutions it worked ok. i lack a lot of chemistry knowledge and perhaps there's a very simple explanation to this :)

venchka

11-25-2008, 07:06

Wayne, that is LUSCIOUS! I love it .... Talk about open shadows!

Thank you Earl. Something of a fortunate accident. I metered as usual
and bracketed + & - 1 stop. I only scanned the negative I thought looked best. I plan to scan the other two as well to see if there is any improvement or difference.

The full size scan at 2,400 DPI from the Epson 4990 is really amazing.

I hope I can reproduce this result in the future using Rodinal 1:100 and letting it stand for 1 hour.

P. Lynn Miller

11-29-2008, 05:59

The fun with Rodinal stand development never ends...

So I am trying find the absolute limit of Tri-X when stand developing with Rodinal 1:100. So I loaded a roll of Tri-X 120 in the Norita 66 the other day, set my light meter to ASA 6400 and under-exposed another 2 stops, so I effectively rated this roll of Tri-X at 25,600. I had just bought this 3kg hunk of glass and brass called a Meyer Optik Orestegor 300mm f4.0 for the Norita 66 (http://flickr.com/groups/noritacouncil/discuss/72157610281319653/) and figured some low-light, wide-open, hand-held shooting would be a bit of fun. Well, at least I got a sore arm!

Well the results are in...

Reading | Sydney, Australia 2008
http://plynnmiller.com/rrf/2008_11_006_005_700e.jpg
Norita 66 | Meyer Optik Orestegor 300mm f4.0 (http://flickr.com/groups/noritacouncil/discuss/72157610281319653/) | Tri-X EI 25,600 | Rodinal 1:100 Stand

The Daily Telegraph | Sydney, Australia 2008
http://plynnmiller.com/rrf/2008_11_006_011_700e.jpg
Norita 66 | Meyer Optik Orestegor 300mm f4.0 (http://flickr.com/groups/noritacouncil/discuss/72157610281319653/) | Tri-X EI 25,600 | Rodinal 1:100 Stand

Exposure would have been around 1/250 at f4.0.

I used 500ml of Rodinal 1:100 for 150 minutes. Started with one minute of slow inversions and then a 15 second swirl at 45 minutes, 90 minutes and 120 minutes. As you can see I ended up with uneven vertical development and the negatives were under-developed. I reckon that I could have given the film another 30 minutes in the tank.This is the first time I have had uneven development when using stand developing. Also the negatives were under-developed, so I need more time and touch more agitation next time.

This combination has potential and I think the negatives would have printed better than they scanned. I am already formulating a new and improved method to get Tri-X to 25,600 with a decent result.

Wonder how far I can push this...

navilluspm

11-29-2008, 06:11

P. Lynn,

I noticed that you tried this stand devoloping with Kodak Gold 100. What is your experience with that film? (I have a lot of expired Goold in the freezer).

Regards,
Michael

venchka

11-29-2008, 17:33

P. Lynn,

You may want to add a bit more Rodinal. Use the same 1:100 dilution, but increase the total to something like 600ml-800ml. The underdevelopment may be exhausted Rodinal.

P. Lynn Miller

11-29-2008, 18:14

Michael,

I have done several rolls of both Gold 100 and 200 with good success. In fact, color negative film developed in Rodinal 1:100 is very nice indeed. Very fine grained with good tonal range. And it prints just as well as it scans. I do not have any Kodak Gold scanned and on-line, but here are a few from a roll of Agfa HDC Plus 100 which are equally good as Gold 100...

Jug | Sydney, Australia 2008
http://plynnmiller.com/rrf/2008_11_005_020crop_700.jpg
Yashica Lynx 14 | Agfa HDC Plus 100 | Rodinal 1:100 Stand

Framed | Sydney, Australia 2008
http://plynnmiller.com/rrf/2008_11_005_036_700.jpg
Yashica Lynx 14 | Agfa HDC Plus 100 | Rodinal 1:100 Stand

Stop the press... I found a Kodak Gold 100!

Waiting | Sydney, Australia 2008
http://plynnmiller.com/rrf/2008_10_018_011_800.jpg
Asahi Pentax Spotmatic ES | Helios 44-2 58mm f2.0 | Kodak Gold 100 | Rodinal 1:100 Stand

Both films were expired by a year or so.

Wayne,

The next roll of Tri-X that I push to 25,600 will be developed 750ml of developer and I am making serious modifications to my agitation method and cycle. I plan to do a roll tonight if I have the time...

venchka

11-29-2008, 18:26

Standing by..............

Sounds like I may know something afterall.

navilluspm

11-29-2008, 18:42

P. Lynn,

Thank you. I have one more question (while my negatives dry). When I tried the Gold 100, I fixed them in fresh fixer for 3 minutes. Was that long enough, because they look rather dense, or is that normal? (The initial blank frame on the roll is not as clear as if I had processed them the regular c41 way. Is this normal, or did I do something wrong.)

BTW - your pictures look great.

P. Lynn Miller

11-29-2008, 18:55

Michael,

The negative will look very dense since the film base of C-41 film usually has an orange or brown mask color to it.

Here is a raw scan of the Gold 100 negative...

http://plynnmiller.com/rrf/2008_10_018_011raw.jpg

This straight off the scanner before any exposure adjustment or inversion to positive has happened.

I have found that rinsing your negatives is really important since C-41 film has lots of dye layers and anti-halation dyes and when stand processing for 60 minutes these dyes seem to stain the film base. I rinse my negatives thoroughly and then drop them in a white bucket, 5 litre ice cream bucket works perfect, and you can see the dyes bleeding out of the film. I usually let my negatives soak for 20 to 30 minutes during which I occasionally stir the water. This helps clear the negatives.

I also pre-wash and pre-rinse my negative until the rinse comes out of the tank clear before dumping the developer...

Hope that helps.

navilluspm

11-29-2008, 19:04

Thank you. I think I see my mistake: I did not rinse the negatives long enough.

P. Lynn Miller

11-30-2008, 19:42

Well...

Here is the latest result from the 'Tri-X EI 25,600 Project'

Sums | Sydney, Australia
http://plynnmiller.com/rrf/2008_11_008_009_700e.jpg
Norita 66 | Meyer Optik Orestegor 300mm f4.0 (http://flickr.com/groups/noritacouncil/discuss/72157610281319653/) | Tri-X EI 25,600 | Rodinal 1:100 Stand

Exposure - 1/500 sec at f4.0 - Hand-held

There is still a hint of uneven development along the bottom of the photograph and the negatives could use a bit more time in the developer... seems 210 minutes is not quite enough.

Here is what I did...

I use a Jobo 1520 tank... so some of the steps may make more sense if you know this.

Position reel of film on the tank center tube so it is in the middle of the tank...

Pre-wash film until rinse dumps from tank clear and without any stain or dyes...

Mix 8ml of Rodinal with 800ml of room temperature water...

Fill tank completely to the top, full and running over...

Put on lid with center portion raised...

Thump tank heartily 5 times to ensure all air bubbles are removed...

Push center of lid down until developer starts to leak from under lid to ensure there is no air in the tank...

Invert slowly 10 times...

Thump to dislodge any possible air bubbles...

Tape around the lid of the tank to ensure it will not leak, black electrical tape works perfect...

Every 30 minutes turn tank upside down and thump to dislodge any possible air bubbles...

So tank spends 30 minutes right side up and 30 minutes upside down...

Do not swirl, agitate, or do a full inversion, this help ensure even development...

Dump developer at 210 minutes...

Water bath, stop, and rinse.

navilluspm

11-30-2008, 20:20

I am very impressed. I am scanning my gold negatives as we speak. They are a bit grainier than I expected (but this is expired film) however I really like the tonality of the scans. They are very usable.

Thanks for all your experimenting. Have you tried stand developing with HP5+?

navilluspm

12-01-2008, 06:19

One last question: if I were shooting Tri-X at 1600, would I use the stand developing time as if I were shooting it at 400. (In other words can I process two rolls shot a two different speeds at the same time)?

ChrisN

12-04-2008, 19:13

I finally got around to developing the roll of expired Pan-F that I shot to try in Rodinal. This was dev'd in Rodinal 1+200 (2.5ml Rodinal plus 500ml tap water) for one hour with 15 seconds of gentle swirling at the 30-minute point. Very pleased with this. These are straight scans with no adjustments apart from a little dust removal.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3195/3083942898_3d068e8b64_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3043/3083942416_43f88f7c2a_o.jpg

The third shot is a bit silly - under the bonnet of the car when I was doing some work on it. But the tones are just gorgeous!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3104/3083942660_abbb182095_o.jpg

venchka

12-05-2008, 06:59

Chris,

Splendid! I have about 100' of recently expired PanF+ myself. What E.I. did you use? Did you do anything special in the way of metering? The photos of the colonade is exactly what I'm looking for with respect to tonality. The shadows are so open. Help a brother out!

EDIT:

In my previous attempt, I mixed 8ml of Rodinal per 800ml of water for 1:100 with a single roll of 120 Pan F+. I think I shall be brave and try 4ml of rodinal per 800ml of water and a single roll of 35mm Pan F+. On second thought, 2.5/500 will work with 35mm film.

ChrisN

12-05-2008, 14:09

Hi Wayne

This roll of Pan-F was exposed in an OM2 with the meter set at 50 iso, using the automatic exposure (aperture priority) metering. (I know I should use the M4 for these tests but it is loaded with HP5, and I have a couple of OM2s which are perfect for these quick tests.) Lens was the OM 50/1.4. Considering the columns were in full sun and the floor and wall in deep shadow, I was pretty pleased with the detail. And of course the scanner is a digital device and doesn't pick up all the detail available in the negatives. In the second shot I love the glow on the low wall from each little pool of sunlight.