Tri-x and Rodinal = Underdeveloped Negatives
Old 04-29-2015   #1
grouchos_tash
Registered User
 
grouchos_tash's Avatar
 
grouchos_tash is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NE England
Posts: 522
Tri-x and Rodinal = Underdeveloped Negatives

I have posted a question on flickr about some problems I've been having with Adonal. I hope so of you good people here could offer some suggestions?

https://www.flickr.com/groups/rodina...7652171204346/



If you don't have flickr...


''Hi everyone,

I have recently been using Adox Adonal (normally use Ilford ID11). Every roll so far has been under exposed, Fomapan 400 and Trix. At first I though it was my thermometer and bought a new one but no luck! I'm really disappointed at ruining so much film!

I've just been following the massive dev chart times and they are the same as the Adox website. For trix I used 12ml in 300ml of water (1:25) at 20 degrees for 7mins with agitation for the first 30secs and 3 inversions every minute after that.

Thanks for the help!''

So far I have ruled out exhausted fix and underexposure (underdeveloped recess).


Thanks again,

Gary
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #2
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,604
I suggest getting a packet of D-76/ID-11 and using a standard developer as test.
I found with Rodinal and more so, with Blazinol, I added about 2' to developer.
The developer was not consistent, for me..
Or you can buy a bottle of Kodak HC-110.
I have moved to Kodak HC-110.
I have never been happier.
I used Rodinal for close to 40+ years!
Blazinol, Amidol are close but not "original" Rodinal.
Mine, Blazinol seemed to age, quite soon..
I prefer clean, non film base fog of HC-110.
No! Not prefer but love.
My latest batch of Kentmere 400, indicates, the film is improved.
Finer grain, less film faults.
My thermometer is a cheap one in steel housing.
It may not be accurate..but it's one i always have used.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #3
Sid836
Registered User
 
Sid836 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,132
Films usually do not get their box speed in various developers. HP5+ for example in Rodinal yields something more like EI 320 and with the suggested times by Ilford you get a rather thin negative.
You need to test a roll of the film you like and then adjust the development style to suit your taste.
Rodinal is nice but not very body likes its grain. D-76 is my favorite.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #4
mfogiel
Registered User
 
mfogiel's Avatar
 
mfogiel is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Monaco
Posts: 4,658
I have had lately problems with "old" Rodinal, because it crystalized inside the bottle, and lost much of it's vigour. This must be due to some modern twist to the formula, because "standard" Rodinal should work even after 50 years in an opened bottle. Anyway, Rodinal implies some loss of speed, so it is always a good idea to run your own ISO test: expose a roll of film repeatedly at EI 32,64,125.250,500,1000,2000,4000 and develop part of it in your standard settings, then see if the developement was OK. If you find that at EI 250 the negs are too thin, increase the time or the concentration, if even at EI 1000 you have some blocked highlights, do the reverse, then run the test on remaining part of the film and compare.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #5
Mablo
Registered User
 
Mablo is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,932
Adox Adonal is equivalent to the late Agfa Rodinal according to the Adox web site. I haven't used Adonal but I've used Rodinal (and very similar R09 One Shot) for years as my main developer. Rodinal doesn't work in a similar way than, let's say D-76 or ID-11.

- Most ISO400 films should be exposed max at ISO200. Including Tri-X and Foma 400.

- One should first try with 1+50 dilution just to get a basic idea of grain and contrast. 1+25 gives you more contrast. 1+100 gives you less contrast but also more grain (and sometimes ugly halos).

- Agitate less than with ID-11. 30 sec initially and twice per minute is a good starting point.

Here is an example what 35mm Tri-X looks in Rodinal (exposed at ISO160):

Late December light by mblomqvist, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #6
AndersG
Registered User
 
AndersG's Avatar
 
AndersG is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Age: 41
Posts: 249
If the very richly exposed film leader come out thin the developer may well be expiring. Is it old?

My Calbe R09 that expired in 2006 or 2007 has this tendency and now (finally) the opened bottle seems to have become inactive to a dangerous level. I'll try my second unopened bottle next.

If your tank has room you can try increasing the total amount of developer. I already did that with my R09 - and then also decreased the dilution to 1+25.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #7
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,775
This is my formula for Rodinal and TriX:

TriX (200 EI)Rodinal 1+50,14minutes,30seconds initial agitation ,3inversions every 3 minutes,68 degrees F

AND I think this film is the same a Fomapan 400:

AristaEDU Ultra 400 (250) Rodinal 1+50, 11 minutes, 30 sec, 3 inversions per 3 minutes, 68 degrees
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #8
johannielscom
Ich bin ein Barnacker
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 7,366
TriX @200 with Rodinal (original) 1:100.

Cold tap water (don't even own a thermometer), shake vigorously for first minute and place in the fridge (7ºC) for 59 minutes. Rinse, fix, rinse, HypoClear, dry, done.

No halos and no excessive grain.


Cropped from a 3200dpi scan of TriX 6x6 negative.
__________________
Gegroet,
Johan Niels

I write vintage gear reviews on www.johanniels.com |

flickr | instagram |
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #9
Fotohuis
Registered User
 
Fotohuis's Avatar
 
Fotohuis is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: the Netherlands, sometimes Ukraine
Posts: 1,807
I would never use any Calbe R09 or Adox APH09 (the same) older then 3 years. I can be inactive then.

Even the original Agfa Rodinal changed a little bit after 4 years old but became not inactive.

From Agfa Rodinal to Agfa Photo Rodinal, then from A&O, later CPP&S and now it seems to be from Tetenal. Under their own brand they are selling it as: Paranol S

http://www.tetenal.com/openerimg.htm...ges/102106.jpg

I think Compard is also doing some refilling under R09/Rodinal 120ml/500ml.
__________________
"De enige beperking in je fotografie ben je zelf"



  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #10
Fotohuis
Registered User
 
Fotohuis's Avatar
 
Fotohuis is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: the Netherlands, sometimes Ukraine
Posts: 1,807
Quote:
shake vigorously for first minute and place in the fridge (7ºC) for 59 minutes. Rinse, fix, rinse, HypoClear, dry, done.

No halos and no excessive grain.
You always have a risk of uneven development, a little bit depending of the type of film and stand development gives less sharpness then a high diluted Rodinal development with minimum agitation.

However it is an easy way to go, a minimum of handling procedure. I prefer for my negatives then a 1+100 dilution with first 30s continuous agitation and then every minute just one turn slowly. But I have a Heiland TAS inverse robot so I won't bother for a 25-30 minutes developing time and the robot is doing the rest for me including a warning when the next step is almost there.
__________________
"De enige beperking in je fotografie ben je zelf"



  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #11
grouchos_tash
Registered User
 
grouchos_tash's Avatar
 
grouchos_tash is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NE England
Posts: 522
Thanks for all of the replies! Some good info about over exposing to compensate for Rodinal speed loss.

However, my problem is underdevelopment of the whole negative, this includes a grey KODAK in the recess. This isn't an exposure problem (that may be a secondary issue haha!). BTW the bottle was opened in January this year.

Thanks again,

Gary
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #12
arseniii
Registered User
 
arseniii's Avatar
 
arseniii is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 371
This is the combo I used for many many years. Produces the sweetest grain possible and mind blowing contrast.
I followin instructions on Digitaltruth.com.
I mix it 1+50 and develop for 14min at 22C

Good luck
__________________
More by korshe~ on Flickr and korshe.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #13
grouchos_tash
Registered User
 
grouchos_tash's Avatar
 
grouchos_tash is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NE England
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by arseniii View Post
This is the combo I used for many many years. Produces the sweetest grain possible and mind blowing contrast.
I followin instructions on Digitaltruth.com.
I mix it 1+50 and develop for 14min at 22C

Good luck
I might have to waste a roll of Tri-x and do some experimenting if I want to use this developer (I do have a box of ID11 waiting to be missed though haha!)
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #14
grouchos_tash
Registered User
 
grouchos_tash's Avatar
 
grouchos_tash is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NE England
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by leicapixie View Post
I suggest getting a packet of D-76/ID-11 and using a standard developer as test.
I found with Rodinal and more so, with Blazinol, I added about 2' to developer.
The developer was not consistent, for me..
Or you can buy a bottle of Kodak HC-110.
I have moved to Kodak HC-110.
I have never been happier.
I used Rodinal for close to 40+ years!
Blazinol, Amidol are close but not "original" Rodinal.
Mine, Blazinol seemed to age, quite soon..
I prefer clean, non film base fog of HC-110.
No! Not prefer but love.
My latest batch of Kentmere 400, indicates, the film is improved.
Finer grain, less film faults.
My thermometer is a cheap one in steel housing.
It may not be accurate..but it's one i always have used.
I was considering trying HC-110 but after my depressing failures with Adonal I bought another batch of ID11. At least then I can prove I'm not incompetent when I dev my next roll of Tri-x haha!
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #15
Fotohuis
Registered User
 
Fotohuis's Avatar
 
Fotohuis is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: the Netherlands, sometimes Ukraine
Posts: 1,807
Quote:
However, my problem is underdevelopment of the whole negative, this includes a grey KODAK in the recess. This isn't an exposure problem (that may be a secondary issue haha!).
I can measure it out for you if you want (densitometer). Then your bottle of Adox Adonal is not good.
I would say: Buy a R09/Rodinal Compard version and try about 1+25 and around 7 minutes Tri-X 400 E.I. 250-320 which should be bullet proof.
__________________
"De enige beperking in je fotografie ben je zelf"



  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #16
nightfly
Registered User
 
nightfly is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,912
I usually do Tri-X in Rodinal 1:25 for 7.5 minutes. 30 second initial agitation, then 5 seconds every minute there after. I keep temp around 70F but I'm not too fussy about it as I like grain and contrast (which is why I use this combo).

For Ralph Gibson like contrast, he uses this combo but goes up to 11 minutes.

Maybe try something in between? I've done the Gibson method and it's still very printable with delicious grain and contrast.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #17
grouchos_tash
Registered User
 
grouchos_tash's Avatar
 
grouchos_tash is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NE England
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotohuis View Post
I can measure it out for you if you want (densitometer). Then your bottle of Adox Adonal is not good.
I would say: Buy a R09/Rodinal Compard version and try about 1+25 and around 7 minutes Tri-X 400 E.I. 250-320 which should be bullet proof.
That's quite an offer! Plus I've learned a new word (i.e. densitometer). This is the dilution and time I went for and got the poor results. To be honest when I meter I tend to favour over rather than 'correct' exposure so probably shoot closer to EI320 without thinking about it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #18
Fotohuis
Registered User
 
Fotohuis's Avatar
 
Fotohuis is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: the Netherlands, sometimes Ukraine
Posts: 1,807
Quote:
Plus I've learned a new word (i.e. densitometer).
You're welcome!
__________________
"De enige beperking in je fotografie ben je zelf"



  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #19
John Bragg
Registered User
 
John Bragg's Avatar
 
John Bragg is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Penwithick, Cornwall U.K.
Age: 58
Posts: 1,267
I could not get the "look" I wanted with Tri-X and Rodinal. I now use HC-110 H for everything and haven't looked back. Best of both worlds, Rodinal like economy and longevity, and also similar look to ID-11 1+1. Good luck Gary !
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #20
grouchos_tash
Registered User
 
grouchos_tash's Avatar
 
grouchos_tash is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NE England
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Bragg View Post
I could not get the "look" I wanted with Tri-X and Rodinal. I now use HC-110 H for everything and haven't looked back. Best of both worlds, Rodinal like economy and longevity, and also similar look to ID-11 1+1. Good luck Gary !
Thanks for the suggestion John! I'm interested in trying HC-110 next.

I emailed Adox to see what they might say and their response was super fast (within 20mins!). The guy suggested it was most likely my underexposure or leaving fix in the tank from a previous roll. The email contained the following statement which contradicts pretty much every comment on this thread so far (regarding Rodinal loss of speed)...

''There should not be a noticeable difference in speed compared to other developers and Rodinal plus Tri-X is one of the most common combinations with millions of developed rolls worldwide.
So it does work and you must have done „something“ wrong.''

Nice, eh?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #21
Jerevan
Recycled User
 
Jerevan's Avatar
 
Jerevan is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,120
Do your own speed tests at various iso points and see where that gets you, with your technique and your equipment.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #22
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,364
Rodinal is a nice and very easy to handle developer for slow (by modern standards) film - that is, film at or below ISO 50.

People have successfully used it for dramatic grain on faster film, or (contrast reduction through depletion) pushing stand development - but in either case, you are stretching its limits and many things may go wrong with these special applications.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #23
nightfly
Registered User
 
nightfly is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,912
I would hardly call Tri-X in Rodinal a "special application".

Would venture it is among the most common film/developer combos ever (though I have no way of proving).

Sounds like the OP got a bad batch, underexposed the film or had some unforseen chemical reaction. Simple as that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #24
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightfly View Post
I would hardly call Tri-X in Rodinal a "special application".

Would venture it is among the most common film/developer combos ever (though I have no way of proving).

Sounds like the OP got a bad batch, underexposed the film or had some unforseen chemical reaction. Simple as that.
Only among those who prize wonderful tonality and are prepared to put up with grievous speed losses (around a stop in true ISO terms) and huge grain. I've met very few.

Add in stand development and other fads and (as Sevo says) a lot can go wrong.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #25
Roma
Registered User
 
Roma is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 213
I pull Tri-X to 320 in Rodinal (R09) and have been doing it for years without issues (unless I way underexpose the negative). I develop it in 1:35 (which is about 8cc per roll and in a Paterson tank) for 10 minutes, agitation for the first 30sec and a gentle tilt every 30sec after that. Processing results have been good for printing with about #3 filter in a condenser and #3.5 in a cold head.
Rodinal is gentle on the highlights, so don't worry about blowing them out too much. Just make sure you expose relatively well for the shadows.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #26
Anthony Harvey
Registered User
 
Anthony Harvey's Avatar
 
Anthony Harvey is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 151
I've been following Don Cardwell's advice on the apug forum, of five-minute agitation intervals using Rodinal (Adonal) at 1+50 and Tri-X at 400, and it works perfectly for me. Even the agitation every five minutes is minimal - just two very gentle and slow inversions. 25 minutes at 20C (yes, 25!) The following is an example. It’s a scan of a print, and it’s not the best scan I'm afraid - the print is sharper - but it gives a good idea of the tonal qualities produced by the method.

Anthony

  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2015   #27
grouchos_tash
Registered User
 
grouchos_tash's Avatar
 
grouchos_tash is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NE England
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Harvey View Post
I've been following Don Cardwell's advice on the apug forum, of five-minute agitation intervals using Rodinal (Adonal) at 1+50 and Tri-X at 400, and it works perfectly for me. Even the agitation every five minutes is minimal - just two very gentle and slow inversions. 25 minutes at 20C (yes, 25!) The following is an example. It’s a scan of a print, and it’s not the best scan I'm afraid - the print is sharper - but it gives a good idea of the tonal qualities produced by the method.

Anthony
There's so much variation here how people use Rodinal, it's interesting stuff!

Thanks,

Gary
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #28
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightfly View Post
Would venture it is among the most common film/developer combos ever (though I have no way of proving).
It has grown fashionable in recent (post-digital) years, when people started to get interested in more (rather than less) grain. Up to the nineties, it was considered a developer best suited for low speed film. Even renowned Rodinal advocates like Günter Spitzing explicitly advised against developing 400 film in Rodinal.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2015   #29
grouchos_tash
Registered User
 
grouchos_tash's Avatar
 
grouchos_tash is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NE England
Posts: 522
Just to bring this to a close, I shot a roll of Fomapan 400 yesterday and rated it at 250 and the negs came out MUCH better! Thanks for the advice about over (correct) exposure everyone, I guess the Adox rep wasn't allowed to admit it haha!


Here's a shot from the Fomapan testing out my new (to me) Nokton 50mm f1.5 on the M6

Untitled by Gary Harding, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2015   #30
nightfly
Registered User
 
nightfly is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,912
In my copy of Darkroom published in 1977, two of the thirteen photographers profiled used the Rodinal/Tri-X combo and in the pre-digital age when I started developing my own film, it was widely recommended to me at least as a very common and viable combo which it has turned out to be.

You can go for high contrast/grain using it at high concentrations with lots of agitation and relatively short times or the long times, low concentration stand development type of approach for people looking for a long tonal range.

Doesn't really matter but the wisdom I received was that it was one of the classic combos, but then I have no idea who Gunter Spritzing is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sevo View Post
It has grown fashionable in recent (post-digital) years, when people started to get interested in more (rather than less) grain. Up to the nineties, it was considered a developer best suited for low speed film. Even renowned Rodinal advocates like Günter Spitzing explicitly advised against developing 400 film in Rodinal.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 14:59.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.