Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film > Film / Developing / Chemistry

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Rodinal 1:100 stand question
Old 06-29-2009   #1
mabelsound
actually a dude
 
mabelsound's Avatar
 
mabelsound is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Age: 43
Posts: 5,403
Rodinal 1:100 stand question

Hey all--tried this for the first time yesterday, and wasn't super happy with the results. I souped a roll of XX for one hour at room temperature, the only agitation at the beginning, for thirty seconds. The film was definitely fully covered, but it was rather "burned" along the bottom. In addition, the roll seemed overdeveloped overall, with very little contrast. What did I do wrong? I was able to salvage almost everything in Lightroom, but I would have preferred better negs right out of the soup...

It definitely isn't my M2--the two rolls from the same week that I developed in the normal way, turned out fine.

Here's a sample of the burn:

__________________
photoblog, flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #2
capitalK
Warrior Poet :P
 
capitalK's Avatar
 
capitalK is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,109
Did you stir the Rodinal in well before transferring to the tank?
__________________
-------------------
Flickr
www.kennetharmstrong.ca
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #3
martin s
Registered User
 
martin s's Avatar
 
martin s is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,020
They're supposed to be low contrast, also I'd agitate a little more. Every 30 minutes is what I was told.

martin
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #4
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 5,867
I've had this happen with Rodinal when using low agitation, and also when I was agitating every 5 minutes. I decided to not use Rodinal, when doing stand, or semi-stand development , or minimal agitation. I have had much better luck with all three when I use HC-110. So Rodinal is on the self unless it is regular agitation. I like Rodinal, but I do find it fussy unless I am using regular agitation and 1+50. In fact I'm not sure the high dilution developers do anything that can't be achieved by minimal agitation (and normal dilutions). Somebody said: expose for the shadows, develop for the midtones, and agitate for the highlights. I'm beginning to agree. I used to think that development dilution with a certain combo of agitation regime gave you your development overall time. I don't have any solid evidence that agitation it so important to highlights, but the guy that changed the expose for........... mantra says he does. I sure can see it with TriX at 250 and minimal agitation ala Ansel Adams (HC-110).

Last edited by charjohncarter : 06-29-2009 at 03:03.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #5
mh2000
Registered User
 
mh2000's Avatar
 
mh2000 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 883
maybe it's just XX... with TMX and TMY is works great.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #6
blazejs
Registered User
 
blazejs's Avatar
 
blazejs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Pszczyna, Poland
Age: 37
Posts: 147
I have tried that a few times - 1 hour, temperature ca. 20°C, agitation continuos for the first 30 sec, then 2 inversions after 30 min. I was very glad with the result, beautiful tones.
__________________
--
Zorki 4, FED 5B, Jupiter 8, Industar 50, 61 L/D, Lubitel & Canon DSLR
Artscape - strony internetowe
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #7
Rhodes
Time Lord
 
Rhodes's Avatar
 
Rhodes is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Figueira da Foz, Portugal
Posts: 490
My try was with XP2 at iso 200, agitation for the first minute, and one hour stand.The resaults were also good/great! I was happy that turn out fine! Now I'll use rodinal for the C-41 B&W films!
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #8
Roger Vadim
Registered User
 
Roger Vadim is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 304
Same happened to me on two rolls in one tank. rather strange, the ones I did before came out well...
I suppose i didn't stir the rodinal well enough, I remembered being a bit sloppy there. My explanation, because as I said, other tests came out fine (low gradation, yes, but thats the whole idea of stand development and high dilution).

So I go the minimal agitation route rather then stand dev, because I don't want to loose valuable pics. 1:80, every 4 minutes 2 soft inversions, still experimenting with the times, but the results are repeatable and the grain and gradation looks good so far.

Good luck next time, don't forget to stir the juice
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #9
mabelsound
actually a dude
 
mabelsound's Avatar
 
mabelsound is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Age: 43
Posts: 5,403
It was stirred! Maybe it is the XX, but I thought Tom had had some luck with this method. XX really seems to like Rodinal with a more conventional every-60-seconds agitation routine.

If I'm going to agitate evey 4 or 15 or 30 minutes anyway, I will just agitate every minute and be finished quickly, as usual. The appeal of stand is not having to think for an hour!
__________________
photoblog, flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #10
BSchall
Registered User
 
BSchall is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 108
I think 1:100 is too hot. My standard mix for Acros in 1:100, 20C, 18 min. w/ std agitation. I've done Acros for 1 hour stand w/one inversion at 30min at 1:200 with great results. I can't imagine doing stand developing for 1 hour at 1:100. It seems that just in the last couple months I've seen more people talking about 1:100 and stand. Before that, I was always 1:150, 1:200 or more.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #11
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 7,841
Someone needs to do some controlled testing with Rodinal at high dilutions.
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
http://weedram.blogspot.com

Last edited by Trius : 06-29-2009 at 23:34. Reason: Clarity
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #12
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
 
ItsReallyDarren's Avatar
 
ItsReallyDarren is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bay Area, Ca
Posts: 1,380
I've had a strange working relationship with rodinal and stand developing. When pushing film to high EIs such as tri-x at 3200 its come out fine. When I try to use it at box speeds with films they come out very contrasty with little to no shadow detail and blown highlights.

I've had a similar uneven development similar to the OP and I contributed it to too little initial agitation.

I switched over to agitating every minute for a shorter amount of time 15-18 minutes depending on film and have had better luck with results that are more to my liking.

Last edited by ItsReallyDarren : 06-29-2009 at 13:16.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #13
Keith
Registered User
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is online now
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 15,463
I disvovered with that burn ...I avoided it by moving the reel a little further up the paterson tank and using more solution so that I knew I had at least a couple of centimeters of solution above the reel and also below it!
__________________
---------------------------
zenfolio

Last edited by Keith : 06-29-2009 at 13:09.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #14
ChrisN
Striving
 
ChrisN's Avatar
 
ChrisN is online now
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 4,251
I had a very similar issue with an early attempt at 1:100 stand dev. After this I decided that a bit of gentle agitation was needed at the half-way point in the process.

Raising the reel in the tank so it sits in the middle of the available developer sounds like a good idea too.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg BW155_07.jpg (95.8 KB, 12 views)
__________________
Chris


"The mission of photography is to explain man to man and each to himself. And that is the most complicated thing on earth."
Edward Steichen


I hardly know her

My Top 10
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #15
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
 
ItsReallyDarren's Avatar
 
ItsReallyDarren is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bay Area, Ca
Posts: 1,380
When I tried stand development in rodinal I used a paterson 3 reel tank. The reel on the bottom was the most likely to receive any kind of negative effect such as streaking. Changing my agitation alleviated the problem quite a bit but still show up. One possible remedy was to place an empty reel on the bottom and develop the top two reels.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #16
Bassism
Registered User
 
Bassism is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ottawa, On, Canada
Age: 25
Posts: 228
I've had good luck using Rodinal stand with Tri-X, fp4, and Delta 400. It's all I use now, no matter whether I'm shooting at box speed or pushing.

I second Keith's suggestion to move the roll up to the middle of the tank. With a Paterson tank I just move the plastic clamp that holds the reel to the bottom of the spindle under the reel and move it up about half way. I also mix the developer by dumping 5ml of solution into a water bottle, topping it with water, then shaking it around for a while. It's quick, easy, and I know that the developer is well mixed.

As far as agitation goes, when shooting at box speed I agitate for about a minute to begin with then don't touch the tank again until I pour it out. For times over an hour I'll agitate a bit every 30-45 minutes.
__________________
Martain Pearson
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #17
wpb
Registered User
 
wpb is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 179
Did you do a water rinse before you added the developer? I always found a drop (and I mean a drop) of LFN or photoflo (to a minimum 16 oz of water) to the rinse water seemed to soften the film emulsion and get it ready for the long development. While you could agitate part of the way through the development, this will take away from the exhausted developer masking the highlights from further development, the main benefit of stand development. Better to add an extra 30 seconds to one minute to the initial agitation instead.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #18
Bassism
Registered User
 
Bassism is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ottawa, On, Canada
Age: 25
Posts: 228
That's a good point I forgot to mention too, wpb. I've had trouble with a few rolls where I've forgotten to do a presoak. I just use regular water for my presoak, but I've found it to be important to getting good results.
__________________
Martain Pearson
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #19
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
 
ItsReallyDarren's Avatar
 
ItsReallyDarren is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bay Area, Ca
Posts: 1,380
Speaking of presoaks. I should mention that my previous attempts did not include a presoak. It seems like an important step to getting better results.

I haven't heard about using photo-flo as a presoak though.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #20
Bassism
Registered User
 
Bassism is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ottawa, On, Canada
Age: 25
Posts: 228
Presoaking always seemed to me like a bunch of jibber jabber until I tried it with stand developing.

I really don't know the science behind it all, but I would have to guess that in normal development with modern films it doesn't make much difference since the emulsion is saturated/swelled/whatever within a minute or so and things continue on from there.

But since in stand development the first minute is very important and where all the agitation occurs, I would guess that by presoaking the film the developer can start work immediately without having to saturate the film first.

But regardless of why, I've found that it works!
__________________
Martain Pearson
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #21
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 5,867
Posts #12 through #19: why bother, there are plenty of other ways to get better results.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #22
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
 
ItsReallyDarren's Avatar
 
ItsReallyDarren is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bay Area, Ca
Posts: 1,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by charjohncarter View Post
Posts #12 through #19: why bother, there are plenty of other ways to get better results.

yes there are other ways.

Plus-x EI 100, Rodinal 1+100, 15 mins. Might edge out xtol as my developer for the film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #23
Bassism
Registered User
 
Bassism is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ottawa, On, Canada
Age: 25
Posts: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by charjohncarter View Post
Posts #12 through #19: why bother, there are plenty of other ways to get better results.
There are other ways, but I've found this to be the easiest way to get consistent results that are far better than I've found with other developers.

For me the primary advantages are not having to accurately measure volumes or temperatures, and not having to stand over the stuff agitating every minute for 10-20 minutes. Once you get to a 60 minute dev time, the stuff is going to be room temperature anyway, and 5 minutes either way doesn't make a difference.

The fact that my results are more pleasing to my eye anywhere from box speed to a 3 stop push is just gravy.
__________________
Martain Pearson
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #24
novum
In Austin for now . . .
 
novum is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisN View Post
I had a very similar issue with an early attempt at 1:100 stand dev. After this I decided that a bit of gentle agitation was needed at the half-way point in the process.
Fits my experience to a T.

The difference pre-soaking makes is fundamental. I use Rodinal about 30% of the time, and almost always 1+100 for one hour with a couple of gentle inversions on the half hour. It can be beautiful. I still like PMK Pyro better for most of what I do, while Diafine is great for pushing Tri-X to EI 1250 "automatically".

Everyone's experience is unique and there's a lot of valid alternatives out there. I wish I could see what some of you are doing in person!

Last edited by novum : 06-29-2009 at 15:39.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2009   #25
Keith
Registered User
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is online now
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 15,463
More about pre-soaking ... I've gone back to it for the older films I use with softer emulsions. Rollei Retro and Adox seem to both prefer it!
__________________
---------------------------
zenfolio
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:49.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.