Rodinal stand development and push processing.

Sid836

Well-known
Local time
6:34 PM
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
1,128
I have tried stand development with 1:100 Rodinal for 1 hour and my negatives came out like underexposed. I have used HP5+ (I know, it does not get along with Rodinal well) shot at 800. Should I prolong the development time when the film has been shot at a higher sensitivity? Should I increase the developer?
 
I converted to stand development seven years ago and according to very nice results I've got, I mainly use this method with stoichiometry correction.
Regarding the technique, I proceed in this way: if I expose the film at is nominal speed (example TX400 @ 400iso) the recipe is Rodinal 1:100 (300ml. water + 3ml. Rodinal), temperature around 20°C, 2 minutes film prewash in water then soup standing for one hour with, just during the first minute, 20 very gentle inversion; upon one hour time expiretion, 30 second in fresh water to stop then fixing&wash as usual.
If I expose the film to a lower speed (example TX400 @ 200iso) the recipe is Rodinal 1:150 (300ml. water + 2ml. Rodinal), same method&time.
If I expose the film to a higher speed (example TX400 @800iso @1600iso @3200iso @6400iso) the recipe is - respectively - 300ml. water + 4ml. or 5ml. or 6ml. or 7,5ml. for 6400iso.
When I develop cromogenic film like XP2 400 Plus I soup it in Rodinal 1:100 but for two hours, with the same technique independently of the speed I've exposed the film (from 200 to 1000iso); I obtain quite "crispy" and contrast negative that I usually wet print with 2 or 2,5 contrast grade paper.
 
I do something like sniki when using true stand development; increases in developer with increases in push (all starting with 1+100 dilution, and increasing from there). I've had more luck for both wet printing and scanning using agitation (semi-stand development with 1+100); for higher degrees of push, I use agitation (after a 3 minute presoak) for 30 seconds, followed by every minute for 10 seconds very gently for 5 minutes, then at 20 minutes and 40 minutes with total development time of an hour. That seems to increase my contrast, at least for pushing up to 1600. At box speed, usually I just do a 30 second agitation at the beginning, 10 seconds at 30 minutes, for a total of 60 minutes. However, I realize you're using HP5, which has significant grain; the agitation may exacerbate this, so it might be better to avoid the agitation technique and stick with adding more developer, unless you use a finer grain film, like a TMAX400. YMMV. Hope this helps with your experimentation.
 
So, increasing the agitation and the amount of developer would give more contrast. Is it the same extending the development time say 1 more hour for the same amount of developer?
 
1 hour is for box speed and overexposure mostly. I don't have experience with HP5+ but have done it with Tri-X, pushing several stops.

It was Rodinal 1+100, 2 hours, semi-stand, initial agitation, 2 gentle inversions at 40 minutes, and 2 more gentle inversions at 1 hour 20 minutes.
 
So, increasing the agitation and the amount of developer would give more contrast. Is it the same extending the development time say 1 more hour for the same amount of developer?

Not exactly so: if you are pushing your film, just increasing to 2 hours the souping time doesn't reach the goal: agitation will help a little bit but increasing the grain also. The only way, using standing technique, is to increase the bite effect of developer, increasing accordingly its concentration.
 
I've done Tri-X at 1600 with 2 hour stand. 6ml in a two reel tank with 600ml water. First minute, agitate. Let it sit for an hour. One inversion and then another hour. Results were great.
 
Not exactly so: if you are pushing your film, just increasing to 2 hours the souping time doesn't reach the goal: agitation will help a little bit but increasing the grain also. The only way, using standing technique, is to increase the bite effect of developer, increasing accordingly its concentration.

I will definitely try a higher concentrate of developer next time. For sure my negative looks more like underdeveloped than underexposed. In my tank I had used 3.5 ml of developer. If I double that to say 7 or 10 ml, would impose possibly a seriously overdeveloped negative?
 
I will definitely try a higher concentrate of developer next time. For sure my negative looks more like underdeveloped than underexposed. In my tank I had used 3.5 ml of developer. If I double that to say 7 or 10 ml, would impose possibly a seriously overdeveloped negative?

As first approach try these diluitions:
When expose the film to a higher speed (example TX400 @800iso @1600iso @3200iso @6400iso) the recipe is - respectively - 300ml. water + 4ml. or 5ml. or 6ml. or 7,5ml. for 6400iso.
 
^^^ this.

Stand development is based on developer exhaustion. So increasing the time will not change the result much. The right way to push is adding developer or increasing the temperature (the latter is difficult, obviously).

Used to develop with Rodinal and stand a lot. I stopped after getting streaks, that suddenly starting occuring (not sure why - developer age ?).

Roland.
 
Thank you!!! I have increased the developer "dose" as stated above. Used 5-6ml in 300 ml of water and the results are impressive!

Reading of streaks, what are these? Are there any sample photos demonstrating this?

(sorry to ask, these are my first steps in self developing films. there may be lots of to find in the internet, but I have no idea what to look for and where)
 
The streaks are from bromide, a chemical released during development which retards the development process.
They are more noticeable in the areas of higher density, normally sky etc.
 
Rodinal is a very active developer where development time does not correspond very well with time. It also is very good at adjusting the contrast of the negative, is still very active with high dilutions-1:100 to 1:200. With "Stand development" you encounter the phenomen increased edge acutance, as fresh developer carries over from dark areas to a better lit area, thus increasing the feeling of sharpness ( like unsharp mask in photoshop)
The older emulsions swell while in developer, but newer delta/cube grain don`t so the Rodinal stand development is better with films like TMax, Ildord Delta, Rollei 400 and 80 and so on.
 
Thank you!!! I have increased the developer "dose" as stated above. Used 5-6ml in 300 ml of water and the results are impressive!

Reading of streaks, what are these? Are there any sample photos demonstrating this?

(sorry to ask, these are my first steps in self developing films. there may be lots of to find in the internet, but I have no idea what to look for and where)

Great that you were able to get impressive results! Congrats! For the streaks, it's been noted the cause; if you do a search on stand development here on RFF, you'll find examples (as well as strong opinions for/against use of this technique!). I have good results with stand development as described for low light situations using TMAX400 pushed to 1600; for me, it produces excellent shadow detail for both wet and dry printing. Hence, at least in my hands, it works for pushed, box speed, and various other situations. Experimenting with more Rodinal and/or more time will get you data on your technique, as you've already discovered. One thing suggested to me in the past, which helped me understand this better, was to expose different shots in a single roll at various speeds - box speed, pushed one and two stops, and overexposed by one and two stops, and then developing it at the same Rodinal concentration and time, thus learning what this technique could do.
Again, glad your newest results have been satisfactory!
 
One more note: if you can, also do a comparison with "normal" timed Rodinal development.

Once I switched from 1:100 stand to timed Rodinal 1:50, not only are the results more predictable, but I also like them better. Even the grain is more controlled. These days I use either Rodinal 1:50 or HC110(B). In terms of technique, developer life time, etc., two very similar developers, and I love the results of using both. Hard to understand these days why I took the risk of stand development with some rolls very important to me.
 
^^^ this.

Stand development is based on developer exhaustion. So increasing the time will not change the result much. The right way to push is adding developer or increasing the temperature (the latter is difficult, obviously).

Used to develop with Rodinal and stand a lot. I stopped after getting streaks, that suddenly starting occuring (not sure why - developer age ?).

Roland.


Density limited due to exhaustion is your the point of your idea there.

However, insufficient development (low density) = less silver halide reduced to silver = less developer oxidised.
 
How long does it take for Rodinal efficiency to "expire"? I have used R09 1+100 for like 20 rolls, but I realized that my rolls are underdevelopped since a few months. I first thought it was an issue with my scanner and almost forgot to look at the actual negatives, silly me.

I don't understand the exact issue. I use the same dilutions as before, same timings, same process, same films, but the results are not satisfactory anymore. I wonder whether this could be my R09 being too old or badly conserved, or perhaps something else, see below.

The dilution I use is 4+400 when I develop only one 135 roll, or 7+700 when developping two rolls or a 120 roll, so that it can be fully immersed. Stoechiometrically-speaking, it means that when I develop two 135 rolls, they have less developper available per unit of surface, as compared to a single 135 roll or a single 120 roll (approximately the same total area of film). And indeed, the last two 135 rolls I got underdevelopped where developped together in the same process, while a few weeks before I developped a 120 film and it came out quite normal. Should I just increase the dilution to 8+700 when I develop two 135 rolls (I can't pour 800 mL in my canister)? More than that, and forget the 1+100? Should I avoid double rolls in stand dev*?

* : I did open the canister in the black at 30 min to put the bottom roll on top and vice versa, to avoid discrepancies.
 
How long does it take for Rodinal efficiency to "expire"? I have used R09 1+100 for like 20 rolls, but I realized that my rolls are underdevelopped since a few months. I first thought it was an issue with my scanner and almost forgot to look at the actual negatives, silly me.

I don't understand the exact issue. I use the same dilutions as before, same timings, same process, same films, but the results are not satisfactory anymore. I wonder whether this could be my R09 being too old or badly conserved, or perhaps something else, see below.

The dilution I use is 4+400 when I develop only one 135 roll, or 7+700 when developping two rolls or a 120 roll, so that it can be fully immersed. Stoechiometrically-speaking, it means that when I develop two 135 rolls, they have less developper available per unit of surface, as compared to a single 135 roll or a single 120 roll (approximately the same total area of film). And indeed, the last two 135 rolls I got underdevelopped where developped together in the same process, while a few weeks before I developped a 120 film and it came out quite normal. Should I just increase the dilution to 8+700 when I develop two 135 rolls (I can't pour 800 mL in my canister)? More than that, and forget the 1+100? Should I avoid double rolls in stand dev*?

* : I did open the canister in the black at 30 min to put the bottom roll on top and vice versa, to avoid discrepancies.


My R09 chemicals went bad quite fast (one had leaked during transport, 2 others very short usage), about 2-3 months old and was useless. After that ive used Adonal and it holds about 2 years and still is ok, at least latest rolls souped 1-2 weeks ago. I was just thinking of your dilutions, looks strange to me. I use about 5ml per film, only one film in tank at time and 500ml total volume. When i have developed multiple rolls simultanious, it hasnt been even, but with only one roll and a dip midway it comes out great.
 
Back
Top