# Looking into trying Rodinal and have a few questions.



## xypex982

I'm tired of throwing half used bottles of developer so I am looking into trying Rodinal as I know it has a long shelf life so I can shoot as I please and not worry about my developer. To give you background about what I shoot and prefer before I ask any questions I will say that I shoot mainly 35mm but do a little 120 usually Tri-x @400 in 35mm or shanghai @100 in 120 and I don't mind grain and like the "vintage" grain structure of Tri-x so I know that Rodinal showing the Tri-x's grain wont be a problem. I don't push often and if I do it may just be a stop. Lastly I do like to dabble and throw in some dollar store Memories or Samsung 200 iso c-41 film in my BW chems for a little experimentation.

So my questions

1. Since it isa so hard for me to find online is this r09 stuff really the same?

Foma Fomadon R09 Film Developer - 250ml (Similar to Agfa Rodinal) | Freestyle Photographic Supplies

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/9721-Compard-R09-Spezial-film-Developer-125-ml-Agfa-Rodinal-Special?sc=24100

2. Any special advice a first time user of Rodinal?

3. Whats the difference other than dev times between a 1+50 ration and 1+100?

That's really all I can think of at this point, thank you for any help.


----------



## compur

Rodinal is a high acutance developer (loosely, that means it promotes 
acuity or what we perceive as image sharpness) and it provides its own 
unique and beautiful tonality.  It's also the oldest continuously produced 
developer, being over 100 years old.  (It's not the oldest developer, as 
some mistakenly say, but it is the oldest that is still being sold.) 

In film developing anytime you increase sharpness you also increase the
visibility of grain so bear that in mind.  If you use a fast film (300+ ISO)
you're liable to get pronounced grain.  I usually use Rodinal with slow to 
medium speed films but, if you're going for a grainy effect, use fast films
with it too.

In my opinion it is also best used with "traditional" type B&W films, that is, 
not with the newer technology T-Max or Delta films. This is because of 
Rodinal's unique tonal characteristics. But, again, this is just my opinion. 

Rodinal is what you might call a "cult developer" as it has a very devoted 
following.  There's even a Flickr forum devoted to its use here:
Flickr: RODINAL

There are different ways of using Rodinal including different dilutions and 
different agitation methods including no agitation at all (called stand 
development).  Some also mix Rodinal with other developers. I suggest 
reading the posts at the above forum and study the pics posted there for 
more info as well as general searching on the web for "Rodinal" for more 
info from users. It's a pretty big subject in itself.  Mostly, though, you
can best learn by using it yourself and experimenting with it.

To give perhaps an over-simplified generality, the higher dilutions and/or 
stand development technique tend to promote more subtle tonal effects 
and edge effects which you have to see to appreciate. A picture is, as
they say, worth 1,000 words. 

As for R09, I just bought a bottle of it myself a few days ago.  I was in 
Freestyle and they were out of Rodinal. I haven't tried it yet. I understand 
it is the same formula or virtually the same.  The label on the bottle says 
"Sold as Rodinal" for whatever that's worth. I believe Photographers Formulary 
also sells a Rodinal developer (or, at least they once did).

BTW, another developer with a long shelf life is Diafine.  It is also re-usable
many times while Rodinal is a one-shot developer (use once only). The
two developers are different though. Diafine is a push-process, compensating 
developer (increases film speed while helping tame contrast).


----------



## Sw1tchFX

So than what would be the best combination for acuity as far as a film/developer combination goes?


----------



## compur

Sw1tchFX said:


> So than what would be the best combination for acuity as far as a film/developer combination goes?



I assume you mean what combination would give the greatest acuity?

Super, super high sharpness isn't my thing so I've only dabbled with the 
highest acutance developers (higher than Rodinal) but my bible for such 
things is _The Film Developing Cookbook_ by Anchell & Troop. 

They list the highest acutance developers to be:
FX-1
Kodak High Definition Developer (HDD)
Beutler
Neofin Blue
and "some pyrocatechin developers" 

The book gives the formula for FX-1 or you can buy it from Photographers
Formulary (PF). The Beutler formula is also in the book as are a number of pyro
developers, some of which are also available from PF. Neofin Blue is a
commercial product available from Tetenal.  The formula for HDD is 
available on the web if you search for it.  Ingredients to mix your own
are available from PF or from Artcraft Chemicals or other sources.

Per the above reference Rodinal is not in the highest acutance group nor in 
the second highest group.  It's in the 3rd highest group. To give you an 
idea of the scale of things.

Also note that in photochemistry everything is a trade-off.  To gain 
something you always have to trade something for it. These super
high acutance developers also give highest grain and poorest gradation.
They are also mostly speed enhancing developers too so they do
give about a one-stop push whether you want it or not.

Personally, I value gradation and I find Rodinal to be as high acutance
a developer as I usually need or want.  

As for which film would give the greatest acuity with these developers, I 
don't know.  I haven't explored that.  If I wanted to go that way I would 
probably start with Rollei Tech Pan.


----------



## Derrel

I had a Rodinal phase. I developed an awful lot of Tri-X in highly diluted Rodinal using Bill Pierce's methodology as put forth in some old articles he wrote back in the late to mid-1970's, using 10 second "roller pin" agitations in between 60-second standing times. I would agree with compur's experience that Rodinal is best-suited to traditional B&W films, and is no great shakes whatsoever on newer T-grain type films.

While Rodinal concentrate does have good shelf life, I'm not sure that it is any better, or even as good, as Kodak HC-110 as far as shelf life. As far as the acutance issue with Rodinal goes, I honestly think that the effect is over-portrayed with modern (1970's and later) B&W films...maybe when film sucked Rodinal made sense, but on 35mm Tri-X or Plus-X, I think the acutance benefits of Rodinal are largely mythical, left over from much earlier films of the 1930's and 1940's, and that a better result can be obtained with a better, high-grade condenser enlarger, like the Leitz Focomat, and a good enlarger lens. I think that with Tri-X HC-110 produces an overall "better" negative than Rodinal when handled similarly--the HC-110 negative has finer grain, longer tonal range, and prints better overall when developed in HC-110 Dilution B versus Rodinal at 1:100.

Rodinal may have high acutance, but to me that's code for "excessively grainy-looking" when the film being souped is 35mm Tri-X or Plus-X. However, some people do like that look. Rodinal-developed Tri-X does not scan worth a darn, IMHO. It wet prints better than it scans. Here's a scan of a full-frame 35mm negative that I souped in Rodinal at 1:100 back in the mid-1980's. Caution: implied nudity 

R59-15A-Dana_Tri X1986.JPG photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com


----------



## Sw1tchFX

GAH


SO basically alot of acuity, means alot of grain. Kind of like oversharpening.


Than is it even at all possible to shoot an image on say 4x5, print 24 inches wide, and not have any objectionable grain with ridiculous detail?

You look through the galleries and there are these huge prints with insane detail, with no grain. And they were definitely not shot digitally.



I'm a LOUSY film shooter. But when I shoot film, i'll usually shoot 35mm Delta 100, Develop in D76 (undiluted to shave off time [yeah, i'm that lazy]), and then printed 8x10, looks like ISO 25,000 dog sh*t out of my DSLR, except with real contrast.

i'm just curious as far as a good balance between detail and tonality, what the best combination and methods would be. 

People say that film has more detail than digital, but i've printed 20x30's off my D700 at ISO 400 that smoke similar sized prints i've seen from 50 speed medium format in terms of both detail and tonality. 

I have to be wrong somewhere.


----------



## Derrel

Well, personally, I think the ideal balance between acutance and smooth tonality is HC-110 Dilution B, developed with 10 second agitation at each minute, at 68 degrees. I think D:76, diluted 1:1, not straight, is a very reasonable developer as well, on "traditional" B&W emulsions. 35mm film is quite small in image area; a 24 inch wide print made from a 4x5 negative is  a very small,minimal enlargement, like a 5.5x enlargement, whereas with a 24x36mm frame, the same print size is quite a stretch, in a relative sense.

I don't know Delta 100 film at all. Film versus digital resolution comparisons depend on a lot of factors. Kodak's Technical Pan in 35mm size could resolve the individual fibers that made up a woman's veil, back in early Kodak literature: that film could resolve detail beyond the level of basically, I think, any non-process-camera lens. 4x5 sheet film can resolve superb detail; even average-grade medium-format film of the 1950's can resolve excellent detail. But when we look at say, medium-speed or high-speed color negative film of the mid-1990's versus a Nikon D700, the comparison shifts to digital in terms of resolution and overall picture quality. Just the other day, I happened to find some high-rez, film publicity shots from the Cameron Diaz film "In Her Shoes". Ugh! NO comparison. Digital from many d-slrs could and does create a better image.

35mm looks pretty good in Panatomic-X, up to 11x14 or so, but the 11x14 ratio wastes a huge amount of the 35mm aspect ratio...you're throwing away a huge amount of the sides of the image at that aspect ratio. 100 or 125-speed B&W in 35mm looks good, but 6x6 Tri-X Pan Professional looks better, at roughly 3x higher a native ISO rating.

If you want 35mm negatives to look really good, the developing process needs to be carefully optimized, along with the Exposure Index you shoot at, and the way you meter. A 35mm negative is pretty small. The D700's sensor is awfully,awfully good, even at ISO 400, it looks as good as VPS 160 down-rated to 100 and C-printed. We're really lucky to have such amazing cameras; the first generation of ISO 400 35mm color negative film hit about 30 years ago when I was in high school, and it was crap compared to a D700 at 1600.


----------



## compur

Sharpness and grain are two ends of a see-saw.  Increasing one decreases 
the other and vice versa.  When you make the image sharper you are also
making the grain that makes up the image sharper and more visible.  When
you make the grain finer you also soften the overall effect of sharpness.

D-76 was Kodak's big breakthrough developer that provided a good balance of 
the two factors c. 1930s.  More recently Xtol is thought to have improved 
upon this ability.  But, everyone has their own opinions about which 
film/developer combination is best.

There is a third factor to B&W images that many seem to ignore (including
manufacturers' literature) probably because it's harder to define and that is 
gradation or tonality.

T-grain films (T-Max & Delta) are sharper and finer grained than 
"traditional" films.  Few would argue against that but what about their 
tonal characteristics?  Many believe (including me) that they gained their
improved sharpness and grain characteristics at the expense of tonality.

Something that not many seem to be aware of (and manufacturers don't 
advertise it) is that these t-grain films contain less silver than older films. 
This makes them cheaper to manufacture.  It is likely that this reduced
silver content accounts for the difference in these films' gradation and 
tonal characteristics.  Traditional B&W images are made out of silver.  Less 
silver means less material to work with in creating the image which means 
poorer gradation/tonality.

You always give up something to gain something else in photochemistry.

Well, almost always.  You can use a pyro developer such as PMK.  Pyro
actually adds its own image information to the silver image by leaving a
stain on the negative which enhances image gradation and highlight 
subtleties, etc.  A book was written about this type of developer called _
The Book of Pyro_ by Gordon Hutchings.


----------



## Derrel

compur said:


> SNIP>
> 
> T-grain films (T-Max & Delta) are sharper and finer grained than
> "traditional" films.  Few would argue against that but what about their
> tonal characteristics?  Many believe (including me) that they gained their
> improved sharpness and grain characteristics at the expense of tonality.
> 
> Something that not many seem to be aware of (and manufacturers don't
> advertise it) is that these t-grain films contain less silver than older films.
> This makes them cheaper to manufacture.  It is likely that this reduced
> silver content accounts for the difference in these films' gradation and
> tonal characteristics.  Traditional B&W images are made out of silver.  Less
> silver means less material to work with in creating the image which means
> poorer gradation/tonality.



DING! DING! DING! Totally,totally spot-on. Tonality is why so many people like Tri-X. It doesn't have fine grain. It's not high in acutance. It has moderate resolving power. But it has superb tonality! It also has the ability to maintain emulsion speed and create some actual shadow density when underexposed because it has enough silver to do the job...where the new T-grain films have really poor shadow density, and lose effective emulsion speed when underexposed. As far as I am concerned, the newer T-grain type emulsions like T-Max, while they do have finer grain, really are not all that favorable to my own preferences. The even-newer, dye-based monochromatic chromogenic film emulsions are another,entirely different cup of tea--and are pretty good when the B&W work is going to be done via scanning B&W negatives. So, as compur points out, less silver can be bad for traditional printing, less silver, or even NO silver, is actually better for digitizing images from film!

In my opinion, T-grain films suck when you want to do much  in the way of minus development; they lose effective emulsion speed very quickly, and their linearity is bad, compared to older-style films with lots of silver,and which can be developed in a lot of developers, across a wide span of time/temps.

Last night, I was thinking about Sw1tchFX's comments about his unfavorable experiences with big enlargements from B&W negatives, and I got to wondering: how were those negatives translated into large prints??? If they were scanned, and then printed on a modern, digital printing system (Fuji Frontier, Kodak,etc) then that's not quite the same as wet darkroom printing. The thing about traditional B&W film (panchromatic, silver-based stuff like Tri-X, Panatomic X, Plus-X, Verichrome Pan,etc) is that it does not scan very well, so the digitization process can spoil the end result right there, by accentuating grain and ruining the tonality. 1980's-syle T-grain films have less silver, and a softer,lower-acutance look than older style film, and "modern" chromogenic, dye-based monochrome films are dye-based and therefore scan superbly, better than any other type of monochrome films I have used. So, when somebody says they got bad or unsatisfactory B&W results that do not holdup to digital captures, the entire printing-out part of the chain comes into question. Digitizing, and  then printing to an inkjet or photo printer is not the way "most" traditional or FT-grain B&W film was intended to be handled.

Similarly, as I alluded to yesterday, the enlarger has a big effect on the prints, and perceived acutance. I have done most of my B&W work on three enlargers: Omega D2, Besseler 23C-II,and Leitz Focomat II. Of those three, the Focomat's overall system/performance seemed to me to produce the highest **apparent** acutance, as well as the most-contrast per paper grade. Comparing the Focomat's superb, crisp, dust-enhancing (lol) super-efficient condenser system with the Omega or 23C's softer, more-forgiving system meant a different "look" to the prints. So, even in the wet darkroom, the method of printing-out has some type of effect on the apparent degree of acutance that a given film/developer will yield, and what might be good for Worker 1 might not be the best choice for Worker 2, who has a different need for a negative that is more-tailored to his enlarger's tendencies.


----------



## Ornello

Sw1tchFX said:


> So than what would be the best combination for acuity as far as a film/developer combination goes?



Probably FX-39 and Delta 100 or Acros 100.


----------



## Ornello

compur said:


> Sharpness and grain are two ends of a see-saw.  Increasing one decreases
> the other and vice versa.  When you make the image sharper you are also
> making the grain that makes up the image sharper and more visible.  When
> you make the grain finer you also soften the overall effect of sharpness.
> 
> D-76 was Kodak's big breakthrough developer that provided a good balance of
> the two factors c. 1930s.  More recently Xtol is thought to have improved
> upon this ability.  But, everyone has their own opinions about which
> film/developer combination is best.
> 
> There is a third factor to B&W images that many seem to ignore (including
> manufacturers' literature) probably because it's harder to define and that is
> gradation or tonality.
> 
> T-grain films (T-Max & Delta) are sharper and finer grained than
> "traditional" films.  Few would argue against that but what about their
> tonal characteristics?  Many believe (including me) that they gained their
> improved sharpness and grain characteristics at the expense of tonality.
> 
> Something that not many seem to be aware of (and manufacturers don't
> advertise it) is that these t-grain films contain less silver than older films.
> This makes them cheaper to manufacture.  It is likely that this reduced
> silver content accounts for the difference in these films' gradation and
> tonal characteristics.  Traditional B&W images are made out of silver.  Less
> silver means less material to work with in creating the image which means
> poorer gradation/tonality.
> 
> You always give up something to gain something else in photochemistry.
> 
> Well, almost always.  You can use a pyro developer such as PMK.  Pyro
> actually adds its own image information to the silver image by leaving a
> stain on the negative which enhances image gradation and highlight
> subtleties, etc.  A book was written about this type of developer called
> _The Book of Pyro_ by Gordon Hutchings.



Uhmmmmm....no. This has nothing to do with "how much silver" is in the film. This hoary myth has been floating around for decades now. Film manufacturers cannot arbitrarily reduce the amount of silver used in making emulsions. This is absurd.

If you figure that silver sells for about $15-20/ounce, and that a roll of B&W film sells for about $6 these days, you can see that silver is only a small part of the cost. Health insurance for the workers probably is a greater fraction of the cost. Tabular film crystals are 'flatter' and are more efficient in gathering photons. Rodinal is one of the worst developers available. Its sharpness is actually poorer than that of D-76! Tonality is determined by a number of factors, but I am not aware that tabular films are any worse than standard films.

Believe _nothing _you read on forums about developers or films (except what I write). Most photographers know next to nothing about how film works or is constructed.


----------



## timor

I have to read the whole thread word by word. Will be fun.


----------



## timor

Oh, I didn't notice, that it is five years old discussion resurrected by Ornello. 
Ornello, welcome to TPF ! Interesting and strong comments of yours. Looking forward to see some more.


----------



## compur

Ornello said:


> Uhmmmmm....no. This has nothing to do with "how much silver" is in the film. This hoary myth has been floating around for decades now. Film manufacturers cannot arbitrarily reduce the amount of silver used in making emulsions. This is absurd.



Please elaborate. If it's not too much trouble.



> If you figure that silver sells for about $15-20/ounce, and that a roll of B&W film sells for about $6 these days, you can see that silver is only a small part of the cost. Health insurance for the workers probably is a greater fraction of the cost.



I see. So if your B&W images don't turn out to your liking then health insurance is the real culprit because health insurance costs more than $15-20 an ounce. I think you're really onto something there.



> Tabular film crystals are 'flatter' and are more efficient in gathering photons.



Amazing. Do the flat crystals gather the photons with their flat little hands?



> Rodinal is one of the worst developers available. Its sharpness is actually poorer than that of D-76!



... yet Rodinal is by far the most successful in terms of its longevity. Go figure. I guess us photographers just don't know as much as you do. 



> Tonality is determined by a number of factors ...



Care to tell us what those factors are? If it's not too much trouble.



> ... but I am not aware that tabular films are any worse than standard films.



I believe that. 



> Believe _nothing _you read on forums about developers or films (except what I write).



Okie dokie.



> Most photographers know next to nothing about how film works or is constructed.



Then it's lucky you came along when you did because we're all clueless about film photography here.


----------



## timor

Compur couldn't hold it. 
(Darn autocorrect !!!)


----------



## pixmedic

I tried Rodinal once...
tasted _*terrible*_. 
not recommended.


----------



## Ornello

compur said:


> Most photographers know next to nothing about how film works or is constructed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's lucky you came along when you did because we're all clueless about film photography here.
Click to expand...


So it would seem.

Look here:

Manufacturing Cost Breakdown Pt. 1

and here:

A Big Source of Silver Bullion Demand Has Disappeared | Gold News


----------



## terri

Welcome to TPF, Ornello.    Resurrecting a 5 year old thread to dispute comments made that long ago seems an odd way to start off, usually a measure relegated to spammers or trolls to push an agenda.    I hope we see you participating in more current threads, too.     Enjoy the forum!


----------



## timor

In general we know, what is an "overhead". In general we know, that large portion of photographic film and most of the photographic paper (which is more important to survival of analog photography) is manufactured in Europe, which is not cheap place to manufacture anything. What it has to do with _"how film works or is constructed" _?


----------



## Ornello

terri said:


> Welcome to TPF, Ornello.    Resurrecting a 5 year old thread to dispute comments made that long ago seems an odd way to start off, usually a measure relegated to spammers or trolls to push an agenda.    I hope we see you participating in more current threads, too.     Enjoy the forum!



I was looking for discussions of Rodinal.


----------



## timor

Let's discuss Rodinal...


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> In general we know, what is an "overhead". In general we know, that large portion of photographic film and most of the photographic paper (which is more important to survival of analog photography) is manufactured in Europe, which is not cheap place to manufacture anything. What it has to do with _"how film works or is constructed" _?



It should be obvious that if silver is $15/oz, and a roll of film  (at retail!) costs $6, the amount of silver contained in a roll of film is _far _less than 1 oz. Thus, saving a small amount of raw silver would hardly make a difference, as other costs are more significant. T-Max films actually cost more to manufacture, by the way.

The fact is that Rodinal is not a very good developer, despite its popularity. The use of strong alkali causes clumping of the crystals, giving a rather grainy appearance. Low-ph developers that use borax as an alkai (such as D-76), or no alkali at all (such as D-23), or even mild acid (D-25) are often more suitable for small format work.

*Kodak D-25.*

This formula is recommended by Kodak to produce extra fine-grain negatives than those processed with standard developers, albeit at some loss of film speed.

*KODAK D-25*

Low to medium contrast fine grain film developer.

Water, 125*F/52*C 750 ml
Metol 7.5 grams
Sodium Sulfite (anhydrous) 100 grams
Sodium Bisulfite 15 grams
Water to make 1 Litre.

Mixing instructions: Add chemicals in specified sequence.

Dilution: Use undiluted

Starting point development time: 20 mins.

Replenish with Kodak DK-25R.​


----------



## timor

By how film works and is constructed I understand it's photographic characteristics, not the cost of manufacturing. Especially interesting is an aspect how it works with Rodinal.


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> By how film works and is constructed I understand it's photographic characteristics, not the cost of manufacturing.



Of course it's both, you see.


----------



## timor

Ornello said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> By how film works and is constructed I understand it's photographic characteristics, not the cost of manufacturing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's both, you see.
Click to expand...

I don't see it. I don't see, how the cost of manufacturing influences action of Rodinal on film emulsion.


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> By how film works and is constructed I understand it's photographic characteristics, not the cost of manufacturing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's both, you see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see it. I don't see, how the cost of manufacturing influences action of Rodinal on film emulsion.
Click to expand...


"How film is constructed" affects its cost and properties.


----------



## timor

You are mixing something up. Let me assure you, none of my cameras care about the price of film I am loading them with. Nor Rodinal cares. I also didn't notice any change in properties of my film going with change of my film cost of manufacturing.


----------



## Ornello

My question:

"No doubt Kodak has been asked this one before: according to rumors circulated by various parties (of  which I am not a member), the 'silver content' of various films and papers is supposed to have been diminished by deliberate acts of Kodak to achieve greater profitability over the past few decades. Specifically, some have reported that films such as 
Tri-X have been changed over the last 20 or 30 years to contain less silver. I would like Kodak to comment on this."



Answer from the Kodak technical department:

"Regarding Kodak Tri-X products, there are three basic Tri-X products that professional photographers might be involved with. I'm not sure what other films might be included in your description of "films such as Tri-X." A significant change in silver content of traditional B/W films would be accompanied by a significant change in other characteristics: tone reproduction, contrast, and granularity, for example. Consistency of product has always been a prime goal in the manufacture of Tri-X products, and, over the years, comparisons of Kodak products with other manufacturers' products have shown Kodak to be consistently ahead of other manufacturers in this regard. Any "breakthrough" in technology that would allow a significant change in the silver content or image structure would be better introduced to the public as a new product than as a "secret" change to the Tri-X films. In fact, such a breakthrough was introduced with the T-Max films. Although some people within the company expected sales of Tri-X would tail off following the introduction of the T-Max films and that the products would be discontinued due to lack of sales, this has not happened.

The current "best practice" for manufacturing these products is to control the characteristics of all the materials going into the product, and to control all parts of the manufacturing process so that the "standard" product formulation will produce product with consistent characteristics every time. This has been found to work better than the procedure used in past years, when the film formulation engineer had the freedom to "tweak" a component slightly to compensate for apparent changes in raw materials in order to make the resulting product closer to established aims. So it is probably not true to say that a particular Tri-X product has always had the exact same silver level for the past 30 or 40 years. But based on my experience for the last 20 or so, I doubt that there would be any variations greater than 5%, and certainly no permanent, intentional level shift."


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> You are mixing something up. Let me assure you, none of my cameras care about the price of film I am loading them with. Nor Rodinal cares. I also didn't notice any change in properties of my film going with change of my film cost of manufacturing.




I was talking to someone else, of course.


----------



## timor

That's old news. Change in silver content was forced not by the price of silver but by better understanding of processes of exposure and development. This happened some 35 years ago.


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> That's old news. Change in silver content was forced not by the price of silver but by better understanding of processes of exposure and development. This happened some 35 years ago.




Read the response from Kodak. What you speak of is a myth.


----------



## timor

Ornello said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are mixing something up. Let me assure you, none of my cameras care about the price of film I am loading them with. Nor Rodinal cares. I also didn't notice any change in properties of my film going with change of my film cost of manufacturing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking to someone else, of course.
Click to expand...

To whom ? I see you answering my questions in that post...


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are mixing something up. Let me assure you, none of my cameras care about the price of film I am loading them with. Nor Rodinal cares. I also didn't notice any change in properties of my film going with change of my film cost of manufacturing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking to someone else, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To whom ? I see you answering my questions in that post...
Click to expand...



"compur"


----------



## timor

Ornello said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are mixing something up. Let me assure you, none of my cameras care about the price of film I am loading them with. Nor Rodinal cares. I also didn't notice any change in properties of my film going with change of my film cost of manufacturing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking to someone else, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To whom ? I see you answering my questions in that post...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "compur"
Click to expand...

By citing me ?


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are mixing something up. Let me assure you, none of my cameras care about the price of film I am loading them with. Nor Rodinal cares. I also didn't notice any change in properties of my film going with change of my film cost of manufacturing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking to someone else, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To whom ? I see you answering my questions in that post...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "compur"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By citing me ?
Click to expand...



I forget when you piped in, actually. The composition of films affects their photographic properties and manufacturing costs, and as the response from Kodak states, the "amount of silver" cannot be changed willy-nilly to "save money". The research costs involved in developing T-grain films was enormous, which is why T-Max films actually cost more at retail..


----------



## timor

I "piped" in as your statements were so interesting...


----------



## timor

That is it ? We even didn't get to Rodinal. Despite my efforts to direct discussion there...


----------



## pixmedic

timor said:


> That is it ? We even didn't get to Rodinal. Despite my efforts to direct discussion there...


 
hey....I discussed Rodinal.


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> I "piped" in as your statements were so interesting...



See the first page of this thread, post #8. The issue I was responding to was whether T-Max films had 'inferior' tonality because they have 'less silver'. I never liked the H&D curve of the original version of T-Max 400, because it was the opposite of that of most 'outdoor' films (which have steep slopes at the toe, which helps boost contrast in shadow regions, to offset the effects of lens flare caused by the bright sky in most outdoor photography, and soft slopes at the shoulder, to help keep clouds from blocking up). T-Max 400 was designed as a 'studio' film, and like others (such as TXP and the late PXP) it has a softer slope in the shadows and greater contrast in the highlights. I did not know this at first, so I was disappointed with the 'look' of TMY and quit using it (I am an 'outdoor' photographer). The revised version of TMY is supposed to have an H&D curve that is more like Tri-X Pan, though I have not used it.


----------



## timor

pixmedic said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is it ? We even didn't get to Rodinal. Despite my efforts to direct discussion there...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey....I discussed Rodinal.
Click to expand...

And I liked your approach...


----------



## timor

Ornello said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I "piped" in as your statements were so interesting...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the first page of this thread. The issue I was responding to was whether T-Max films had 'inferior' tonality because they have 'less silver'. I never liked the H&D curve of the original version of T-Max 400, because it was the opposite of that of most 'outdoor' films (which have steep slopes at the foot, and soft slopes at the shoulder, which helps boost contrast in shadow regions to offset the effects of lens flare, while keeping clouds from blocking up). T-Max 400 was designed as a 'studio' film, and like others (such as TXP and the late PXP) it has a softer slope in the shadows and greater contrast in the highlights. I did not know this at first, so I was disappointed with the 'look' of TMY and quit using it (I am an 'outdoor' photographer). The revised version of TMY is supposed to have an H&D curve that is more like Tri-X Pan, though I have not used it.
Click to expand...

O ! And now, finally, something serious about photography.
I never used TMY, I know only TMY-2. And like it. How about TMX ?


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I "piped" in as your statements were so interesting...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the first page of this thread. The issue I was responding to was whether T-Max films had 'inferior' tonality because they have 'less silver'. I never liked the H&D curve of the original version of T-Max 400, because it was the opposite of that of most 'outdoor' films (which have steep slopes at the foot, and soft slopes at the shoulder, which helps boost contrast in shadow regions to offset the effects of lens flare, while keeping clouds from blocking up). T-Max 400 was designed as a 'studio' film, and like others (such as TXP and the late PXP) it has a softer slope in the shadows and greater contrast in the highlights. I did not know this at first, so I was disappointed with the 'look' of TMY and quit using it (I am an 'outdoor' photographer). The revised version of TMY is supposed to have an H&D curve that is more like Tri-X Pan, though I have not used it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> O ! And now, finally, something serious about photography.
> I never used TMY, I know only TMY-2. And like it. How about TMX ?
Click to expand...


I haven't used it in a while, but it seemed excellent the last time I used it. I prefer Acros for a fine-grained film, but I rarely use slow films.


----------



## timor

I ask, cause the original question was about TMX and Rodinal...
Acros is excellent, but TMX treated right is also fine grained.


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> I ask, cause the original question was about TMX and Rodinal...
> Acros is excellent, but TMX treated right is also fine grained.




I prefer Acros because it takes longer to develop, which helps consistency. I prefer development times of at least 8 minutes. A 30-second variation on a 5-minute time is proportionally greater than on a 10-minute time.


----------



## pixmedic

To be perfectly honest,  TMX didn't taste any better than the rodinal....but whatever floats your boat I guesd


----------



## timor

do you develop in what ?


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> do you develop in what ?




Mostly FX-39 1+14. The last thing on earth I would use is Rodinal. It is the worst developer of all time.


----------



## timor

Where are you getting that ?


----------



## timor

OK, I see it at Freestyle...


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> Where are you getting that ?




I believe there are several sources. It is no longer marketed by Paterson, and is now sold by Adox.

ADOX FX 39

Adox FX-39 Film Developer - 500ml | Freestyle Photographic Supplies

Adox FX-39 Film Developer - 500ml


----------



## timor

Some confusing info at Freestyle site about the origin of that formula.


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> Some confusing info at Freestyle site about the origin of that formula.



It has nothing to do with Beutler's efforts.


----------



## limr

pixmedic said:


> I tried Rodinal once...
> tasted _*terrible*_.
> not recommended.



I think production costs forced the manufacturer to reduce the amount of flavor crystals.


----------



## timor

Ornello said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some confusing info at Freestyle site about the origin of that formula.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with Beutler's efforts.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking...


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some confusing info at Freestyle site about the origin of that formula.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with Beutler's efforts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what I was thinking...
Click to expand...


Beutler's developers used high-ph alkali and very low concentrations of developing agents and sulphite. Most of Crawley's formulas are derived from Adox MQ borax formula, which is a variant of the d-76 formula. See:

http://www.subclub.org/darkroom/develop2.htm


----------



## timor

FX 37 doesn't look anything like D 76. And first time I see Beutler formula with potassium iodide


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> FX 37 doesn't look anything like D 76



Well, it's an evolution of it, and I was referring to Crawley's own statements on the matter. You can look in old copies of the British Journal of Photography from the 1970s and 80s. Look up FX3, FX4, FX7, FX11, FX15 and FX18.

Crawley believed (and I agree) that straight D-76 is too active, and not as sharp as it could be.

Look closely at this image (an extreme blow-up), and note the slight increase of density of the dark areas adjacent to bright ones, and vice versa. The effect is subtle, but real.

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/006/006xoB-15979984.jpg

I don't remember which film this is, but the developer was either Acutol or FX-39.


----------



## timor

Yes, but then many were trying to improve on known formulas and one can always say that the start was this or that. D76 itself was a failure with it intended target.
What about that picture ? I see, what you saying, but this only occurs on the border between shadow and strong highlight, not in shadows or highlights.So, what is this effect ?


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> Yes, but then many were trying to improve on known formulas and one can always say that the start was this or that. D76 itself was a failure with it intended target.
> What about that picture ? I see, what you saying, but this only occurs on the border between shadow and strong highlight, not in shadows or highlights.So, what is this effect ?




What do you mean by 'D76 itself was a failure with its intended target.'? D-76 has been very successful since its formulation in 1927, when it was introduced for motion-picture film. Straight D-76 is perhaps a bit too strong for modern 35mm films, leading to excessive contrast and less than ideal sharpness. Films of today are much finer-grained than what was available in 1927, so reduction of graininess is of less importance. D-76 1:1 works very well, though, and can serve as an almost ideal developer.

The effect you see is called an 'adjacency effect'. There are several varieties, including the Eberhard effect, which is of importance in astrophotography. Rodinal does this too (in fact, most developers do) but Rodinal is a crude formulation compared to more modern formulas such as Crawley's. Crawley tried to balance all the properties to provide better speed, fine grain, and excellent sharpness.

These 'adjacency effects' give an enhanced impression of sharpness, and are useful to counter-act the loss of sharpness in enlarging caused by diffraction.


----------



## timor

D 76 was formulated for motion picture industry, proved to be inconsistent and inside 2 years was replaced by D 96. So, the several tons Kodak still had in warehouses Kodak sold for bargain price to still photography suckers that proved to be a success. Remember, that at the time most amateurs only contact printed, Leica was still in the beginnings.
I have no knowledge of astrophotography. How this effect is important there ?
On the other hand what apertures are you using for printing ?


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> D 76 was formulated for motion picture industry, proved to be inconsistent and inside 2 years was replaced by D 96. So, the several tons Kodak still had in warehouses Kodak sold for bargain price to still photography suckers that proved to be a success. Remember, that at the time most amateurs only contact printed, Leica was still in the beginnings.
> I have no knowledge of astrophotography. How this effect is important there ?
> On the other hand what apertures are you using for printing ?




D-96 is merely a variant of D-76. The main advance of D-76 was the use of borax as an accelerator, instead of sodium or potassium carbonate. The combination Metol + Hydroquinone + Borax was a breakthrough in developers.

Kodak D-96 motion picture negative developer (the official formula)
Water (50C) 750 ml
Metol 2 g
Sodium sulfite (anh) 75 g
Hydroquinone 1.5 g
Potassium bromide 400 mg
or
Sodium bromide 350 mg
Borax (decahydrate) 4.5 g
WTM 1 l
pH at 27C =8.6
Specific gravity at 27C = 1.068

For enlarging I use a Leitz 50mm F/4.5 Focotar-2, usually at f/6, which seems to be the optimum aperture.


----------



## timor

Up to the event of D76 and subsequently D96 developers used in motion pictures were of staining variety. With good picture quality (better, than D76), but inconsistent densities in each development they were no good for color film production. D76 should improved that, but it didn't for the same reason. Problem was dropping pH with each use. D96, which you call D76 development, at the end all MQ developers can be called that, eliminated that and still it is a standard motion picture B&W developer. However in some cases something else is used. Plus I am not sure how close to the real thing is any official Kodak formula, for example they don't include sequestering agents.
I wasn't aware that Focotar has marked aperture f/6. Maybe you meant f/6.3. I am sure it is best lens one can get, albeit little slow. Anyway, with f/6.3 you shouldn't get any noticeable diffraction even with 15x enlargement.
Going back to the picture you gave us the link to. Is it your work ? Tel us more about it like film, process, power of enlargement (or % of the frame), scanning and PP after the scanning.


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> Up to the event of D76 and subsequently D96 developers used in motion pictures were of staining variety. With good picture quality (better, than D76), but inconsistent densities in each development they were no good for color film production. D76 should improved that, but it didn't for the same reason. Problem was dropping pH with each use. D96, which you call D76 development, at the end all MQ developers can be called that, eliminated that and still it is a standard motion picture B&W developer. However in some cases something else is used. Plus I am not sure how close to the real thing is any official Kodak formula, for example they don't include sequestering agents.
> I wasn't aware that Focotar has marked aperture f/6. Maybe you meant f/6.3. I am sure it is best lens one can get, albeit little slow. Anyway, with f/6.3 you shouldn't get any noticeable diffraction even with 15x enlargement.
> Going back to the picture you gave us the link to. Is it your work ? Tel us more about it like film, process, power of enlargement (or % of the frame), scanning and PP after the scanning.




The aperture I use is between 5.6 and 8, around f/6 to 6.3. There are no half click-stops on this lens.

The photo was from a test of films and developers made about 10 years ago. I am not sure which combination this is, but I think it's Neopan 400 or 1600 in Acutol. Printed, then scanned. I don't recall the details. It is an extreme blow-up, of course.


----------



## timor

What about the size of negative and is it scan from the neg or print ? Is that whole frame ?


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> What about the size of negative and is it scan from the neg or print ? Is that whole frame ?



No, it's a tiny part of a 35mm frame. Scanned print. I never scan negatives. Who would do something so idiotic as that?

This image is Neopan 1600 in Acutol 1+14 for 7.5 minutes. The other is a different combo, but they were taken the same day at the same position. This is the full frame. As you can see, the grain is very unobstrusive.


----------



## timor

Ornello said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the size of negative and is it scan from the neg or print ? Is that whole frame ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I never scan negatives. Who would do something so idiotic as that?
Click to expand...

Ha ha ! MOST scans negs and PP in PS. But I don't own film scanner nor PS. That's why I am interested in what you are saying. And "tiny" is not good enough, percentage would be much better. Otherwise I cannot even have an opinion.


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the size of negative and is it scan from the neg or print ? Is that whole frame ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I never scan negatives. Who would do something so idiotic as that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha ha ! MOST scans negs and PP in PS. But I don't own film scanner nor PS. That's why I am interested in what you are saying. And "tiny" is not good enough, percentage would be much better. Otherwise I cannot even have an opinion.
Click to expand...


Color negs, yes, but B&W no way. The Callier effect makes them look very grainy and contrasty. You can see the area of the whole image, which I just uploaded.


----------



## timor

Ornello said:


> You can see the area of the whole image, which I just uploaded.


Looks good.


----------



## timor

Ornello said:


> The fact is that Rodinal is not a very good developer, despite its popularity. The use of strong alkali causes clumping of the crystals, giving a rather grainy appearance.


Going back to that issue of silver clumping. Elaborate on that. That issue comes back over and over for years. You are blaming high pH for that, how do you see it ?


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that Rodinal is not a very good developer, despite its popularity. The use of strong alkali causes clumping of the crystals, giving a rather grainy appearance.
> 
> 
> 
> Going back to that issue of silver clumping. Elaborate on that. That issue comes back over and over for years. You are blaming high pH for that, how do you see it ?
Click to expand...



Read this, but see the other articles too, especially the one about T-grains:

photo technique magazine  » Grain Clumping – Fact or Fable?

The fact is that Rodinal has a harsh, high ph accelerator with no solvent, and this makes the graininess worse than it would be with a lower ph accelerator and some solvent (sodium sulphite).


----------



## timor

I know that article since long ago. It says clumping doesn't happen. Excessive grainless could be "achieved basically with any developer. I've seen worst, what you are showing in your samples achieved with D76. On the other hand my Agfa 100 (APX) developed in Rodinal showed no grain in 8x10 prints. I used Rodinal for about first 20 years of my photography passion and was happy with it. It always is the way you are using stuff.


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> I know that article since long ago. It says clumping doesn't happen. Excessive grainless could be "achieved basically with any developer. I've seen worst, what you are showing in your samples achieved with D76. On the other hand my Agfa 100 (APX) developed in Rodinal showed no grain in 8x10 prints. I used Rodinal for about first 20 years of my photography passion and was happy with it. It always is the way you are using stuff.



I don't use D-76. The two samples were Neopan 400 in Acutol and FX-39. Again, these are small sections.

With slow films, developers make little difference as far as graininess is concerned. With medium and faster films, Rodinal clearly trails behind other choices, giving less speed, more grain, poorer sharpness, or all three (note results on FP3 and Plus-X, and on HP4 and Tri-X). See attached article from _Leicafotographie _from 1967 or so.


----------



## timor

This data is at least 40 years old.


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> This data is at least 40 years old.




So what? Most of the developers are basically unchanged. Acufine, Microphen, D-76, Rodinal, etc....

It is clear that Rodinal gives poorer definition and more grain on Tri-X than any other developer tested. Tri-X is basically the same, too.


----------



## timor

Most films changed. As you said already.


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> Most films changed. As you said already.




So what? How does that invalidate the relative standing of the _developers_? It doesn't!


----------



## timor

If emulsion changed, action of developer changed. And TriX underwent substantial change. 
Whit this kind of "pixel peeping" one has to be careful. It goes far beyond any usefulness. If you are a specialist in astrophotography, maybe different story, but in pictorial photography if you need 22x enlargement from 35mm you switch to medium format to be better of.


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> If emulsion changed, action of developer changed. And TriX underwent substantial change.
> Whit this kind of "pixel peeping" one has to be careful. It goes far beyond any usefulness. If you are a specialist in astrophotography, maybe different story, but in pictorial photography if you need 22x enlargement from 35mm you switch to medium format to be better of.




Tri-X has remained essentially the same product since its introduction (with minor improvements to the manufacturing process, according to EKC, quoted earlier), and Rodinal has remained essentially unchanged since at least the 1950s. The article shows that the characteristics of Rodinal are that it produces more grain, less speed, and poorer sharpness on all films except the very slowest, where developers hardly matter.

Just face it, Rodinal sucks.


----------



## timor

Ornello said:


> Just face it, Rodinal sucks.


 One man opinion. 
Here is another man opinion:
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just face it, Rodinal sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> One man opinion.
> Here is another man opinion:
> Rodinal - Oldest Commercial Developer
Click to expand...



I am familiar with this article. Rodinal still sucks, and I have the data to back that up.


----------



## timor

Sometimes is good to be so certain...


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> Sometimes is good to be so certain...



Did you read the entire article, and notice how thorough and precise their technique was? It sure beats anecdotal BS.

Rodinal is just about the worst developer for anything but the very slowest films.

You would make a very poor scientist. You disregard evidence and deny anything that contradicts your prejudices. Rodinal sucks!


----------



## timor

I have some experience with research methodology. Sample used in that research was statistically invalid. Nor any real data on resolution was revealed. Just opinions. But maybe this is close to reality. I will not enlarge small frame 22 or more times 13 is good enough for me. At this magnification and use of slower films Rodinal even in this research looks like on par with anything else. Plus it may introduce a distinctive look if used skilfully. Like Ralph Gibson did it.
To clear things up I am not using Rodinal for long time now, but this is for totally different reasons than those pointed by you.


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> I have some experience with research methodology. Sample used in that research was statistically invalid. Nor any real data on resolution was revealed. Just opinions. But maybe this is close to reality. I will not enlarge small frame 22 or more times 13 is good enough for me. At this magnification and use of slower films Rodinal even in this research looks like on par with anything else. Plus it may introduce a distinctive look if used skilfully. Like Ralph Gibson did it.
> To clear things up I am not using Rodinal for long time now, but this is for totally different reasons than those pointed by you.




As they said, they could not try every film with every developer...they would still be going! It was a survey of the common developers at that time, which really have not changed that much.


----------



## timor

Ornello said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have some experience with research methodology. Sample used in that research was statistically invalid. Nor any real data on resolution was revealed. Just opinions. But maybe this is close to reality. I will not enlarge small frame 22 or more times 13 is good enough for me. At this magnification and use of slower films Rodinal even in this research looks like on par with anything else. Plus it may introduce a distinctive look if used skilfully. Like Ralph Gibson did it.
> To clear things up I am not using Rodinal for long time now, but this is for totally different reasons than those pointed by you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As they said, they could not try every film with every developer...they would still be going! It was a survey of the common developers at that time, which really have not changed that much.
Click to expand...

It is not the number of films and developers, that could be 3 only. One slow, one medium and one fast in three developers. It is the number of repetitions of test needed to statistically eliminate variances inherently embedded in every scientific tests. With film, as we know it, each batch might be different. Same with developers. This is why in the past photographers were buying large quantities of film with same emulsion number and developers from same batch. First five or so rolls was sacrificed usually for testing before commercial work could be comenced with any measure of confidence.


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have some experience with research methodology. Sample used in that research was statistically invalid. Nor any real data on resolution was revealed. Just opinions. But maybe this is close to reality. I will not enlarge small frame 22 or more times 13 is good enough for me. At this magnification and use of slower films Rodinal even in this research looks like on par with anything else. Plus it may introduce a distinctive look if used skilfully. Like Ralph Gibson did it.
> To clear things up I am not using Rodinal for long time now, but this is for totally different reasons than those pointed by you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As they said, they could not try every film with every developer...they would still be going! It was a survey of the common developers at that time, which really have not changed that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not the number of films and developers, that could be 3 only. One slow, one medium and one fast in three developers. It is the number of repetitions of test needed to statistically eliminate variances inherently embedded in every scientific tests. With film, as we know it, each batch might be different. Same with developers. This is why in the past photographers were buying large quantities of film with same emulsion number and developers from same batch. First five or so rolls was sacrificed usually for testing before commercial work could be comenced with any measure of confidence.
Click to expand...


None of that is relevant here. The developers generally performed the same with all the films. Microdol-X gave less speed and fine grain. Acufine and Microphen produced more speed. Rodinal produced less speed, more grain, and poorer sharpness. What else is there to know?

Acufine, D-76, and Rodinal were matched with all the films, and the characteristics were consistent. Rodinal always gave the least speed, worst grain, etc.

The procedures were very rigorous, and described in the article.

And as I already mentioned, very slow films are so sharp and fine-grained that it's really hard to get bad results from them.


----------



## gsgary

My Rodinal loves any make and type of film


----------



## Ornello

gsgary said:


> My Rodinal loves any make and type of film




Some of my best friends have used Rodinal.


----------



## gsgary

I'm a Rodonaphile


----------



## timor

Ornello said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have some experience with research methodology. Sample used in that research was statistically invalid. Nor any real data on resolution was revealed. Just opinions. But maybe this is close to reality. I will not enlarge small frame 22 or more times 13 is good enough for me. At this magnification and use of slower films Rodinal even in this research looks like on par with anything else. Plus it may introduce a distinctive look if used skilfully. Like Ralph Gibson did it.
> To clear things up I am not using Rodinal for long time now, but this is for totally different reasons than those pointed by you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As they said, they could not try every film with every developer...they would still be going! It was a survey of the common developers at that time, which really have not changed that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not the number of films and developers, that could be 3 only. One slow, one medium and one fast in three developers. It is the number of repetitions of test needed to statistically eliminate variances inherently embedded in every scientific tests. With film, as we know it, each batch might be different. Same with developers. This is why in the past photographers were buying large quantities of film with same emulsion number and developers from same batch. First five or so rolls was sacrificed usually for testing before commercial work could be comenced with any measure of confidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of that is relevant here. The developers generally performed the same with all the films. Microdol-X gave less speed and fine grain. Acufine and Microphen produced more speed. Rodinal produced less speed, more grain, and poorer sharpness. What else is there to know?
> 
> Acufine, D-76, and Rodinal were matched with all the films, and the characteristics were consistent. Rodinal always gave the least speed, worst grain, etc.
> 
> The procedures were very rigorous, and described in the article.
> 
> And as I already mentioned, very slow films are so sharp and fine-grained that it's really hard to get bad results from them.
Click to expand...

Now you are discrediting regular scientific methods just to prove your point. And the point is you don't like Rodinal. That's fine, everyone is entitled to have own little world in which he feels safe. Don Quixote did.


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have some experience with research methodology. Sample used in that research was statistically invalid. Nor any real data on resolution was revealed. Just opinions. But maybe this is close to reality. I will not enlarge small frame 22 or more times 13 is good enough for me. At this magnification and use of slower films Rodinal even in this research looks like on par with anything else. Plus it may introduce a distinctive look if used skilfully. Like Ralph Gibson did it.
> To clear things up I am not using Rodinal for long time now, but this is for totally different reasons than those pointed by you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As they said, they could not try every film with every developer...they would still be going! It was a survey of the common developers at that time, which really have not changed that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not the number of films and developers, that could be 3 only. One slow, one medium and one fast in three developers. It is the number of repetitions of test needed to statistically eliminate variances inherently embedded in every scientific tests. With film, as we know it, each batch might be different. Same with developers. This is why in the past photographers were buying large quantities of film with same emulsion number and developers from same batch. First five or so rolls was sacrificed usually for testing before commercial work could be comenced with any measure of confidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of that is relevant here. The developers generally performed the same with all the films. Microdol-X gave less speed and fine grain. Acufine and Microphen produced more speed. Rodinal produced less speed, more grain, and poorer sharpness. What else is there to know?
> 
> Acufine, D-76, and Rodinal were matched with all the films, and the characteristics were consistent. Rodinal always gave the least speed, worst grain, etc.
> 
> The procedures were very rigorous, and described in the article.
> 
> And as I already mentioned, very slow films are so sharp and fine-grained that it's really hard to get bad results from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are discrediting regular scientific methods just to prove your point. And the point is you don't like Rodinal. That's fine, everyone is entitled to have own little world in which he feels safe. Don Quixote did.
Click to expand...



Huh? I tried it a long time ago, when it was all the rage (and it was part of the fad to print on Agfa Brovia grade 4). The results were not very good. I found Neofin Red, and then Acutol. Acutol was a great developer. Now, we have FX-39, which is so far superior to Rodinal that it's laughable. I was using Adox KB 14 (ASA 20) and Tetenal Neofin Blue for a while, but then I got tired of the limitations of such slow films. FP4 in Acutol and Tri-X in UFG were the best combinations I could find in the early-mid 1970s. I worked in a camera shop, and had access to a great many products to try. I was always testing.

Funniest quote from a customer:

"Can you help me? I shoved my ASA."


----------



## timor

It is not, that I doubt your experience, it is the way you try to convey it on us. You stepped into a bunch of enthusiasts of photography who see photography as very flexible field. There is no such a thing as the best or the worst. All is relative, we do pictorial photography, not task specific applications. It is not about technical perfection seen under microscope, it is about what the picture is doing for us emotionally. Gary is developing his 30 years old films in Rodinal inside the fridge, I am mixing my own formulas, people are using Holgas, Brownies and whatever else and we have fun. It is the post-modernists era, everyone is looking for own form of expression. Modernists became boring, technically correct they all look much alike. 
And look, what is doing digital folks. Total fantasy. But fun.
With the time maybe you show us some of your pictures and believe me, mostly we will be interested in emotional part, not in looking for grain clumps.


----------



## gsgary

26 years out of dat Tri X and Rodinal







HP5 and Rodinal






Orwo UN54 and Rodinal






Kodak Kodalith Ortho and Rodinal






XP2 (C41 film) and Rodinal


----------



## timor

O ! I didn't see the can yet. Nice !


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> It is not, that I doubt your experience, it is the way you try to convey it on us. You stepped into a bunch of enthusiasts of photography who see photography as very flexible field. There is no such a thing as the best or the worst. All is relative, we do pictorial photography, not task specific applications. It is not about technical perfection seen under microscope, it is about what the picture is doing for us emotionally. Gary is developing his 30 years old films in Rodinal inside the fridge, I am mixing my own formulas, people are using Holgas, Brownies and whatever else and we have fun. It is the post-modernists era, everyone is looking for own form of expression. Modernists became boring, technically correct they all look much alike.
> And look, what is doing digital folks. Total fantasy. But fun.
> With the time maybe you show us some of your pictures and believe me, mostly we will be interested in emotional part, not in looking for grain clumps.




I have been injured for five years with some back issues, but feeling better. I can't wait to get back in the darkroom. I have a whole box full of chemicals and books full of formulas (I usually mix my own paper developers from scratch unless I am in a hurry). The decision by Paterson to drop chemistry was really hard to accept. FX-39 was resurrected, but I want Acutol and Acuspecial too.

Photographers who have little insight or nothing much to contribute often pursue 'technique' for its own sake. Photography suffers from an over-abundance of this sort of nonsense. Photographs are almost always most effective when they are direct and clear. One can look back over the decades at the various fads in photography, and chuckle. Remember posterization (B&W and color), soft focus (David Hamilton), tilted cameras (we are still suffering from that one), fashion photography with extreme wide-angle lenses?

Avedon with his damned soft-box light on everything (even B&W????!!!!)



Blow Up - Michelangelo Antonioni (1966)

http://www.designboom.com/wp-conten...p-yokohama-by-numen-for-use-designboom-04.jpg


----------



## timor

Sorry to hear about your back, wish you speedy recovery.
I can see, that you are taking the whole demise of film photography hard. Well, we have to accept it.


----------



## Ornello

timor said:


> Sorry to hear about your back, wish you speedy recovery.
> I can see, that you are taking the whole demise of film photography hard. Well, we have to accept it.




It's nice to see young people showing an interest in film, but unfortunately many of them are just playing with various techniques rather than showing any real insight.

Where are today's Eugene Smiths?

7 Lessons W. Eugene Smith Has Taught Me About Street Photography


----------



## gsgary

Ornello said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear about your back, wish you speedy recovery.
> I can see, that you are taking the whole demise of film photography hard. Well, we have to accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's nice to see young people showing an interest in film, but unfortunately many of them are just playing with various techniques rather than showing any real insight.
> 
> Where are today's Eugene Smiths?
> 
> 7 Lessons W. Eugene Smith Has Taught Me About Street Photography
Click to expand...

I take everything Eric Kim says with a pinch of salt only good thing about him is he likes Leica


----------



## gsgary

Ornello said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear about your back, wish you speedy recovery.
> I can see, that you are taking the whole demise of film photography hard. Well, we have to accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's nice to see young people showing an interest in film, but unfortunately many of them are just playing with various techniques rather than showing any real insight.
> 
> Where are today's Eugene Smiths?
> 
> 7 Lessons W. Eugene Smith Has Taught Me About Street Photography
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take everything Eric Kim says with a pinch of salt only good thing about him is he likes Leica
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is Eric Kim?
Click to expand...

Well you posted a like to one of his articles (7 things ) above


----------



## Ornello

gsgary said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear about your back, wish you speedy recovery.
> I can see, that you are taking the whole demise of film photography hard. Well, we have to accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's nice to see young people showing an interest in film, but unfortunately many of them are just playing with various techniques rather than showing any real insight.
> 
> Where are today's Eugene Smiths?
> 
> 7 Lessons W. Eugene Smith Has Taught Me About Street Photography
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take everything Eric Kim says with a pinch of salt only good thing about him is he likes Leica
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is Eric Kim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you posted a like to one of his articles (7 things ) above
Click to expand...



That was just a link to an article about Smith, showing some of his images.


----------



## gsgary

Ornello said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear about your back, wish you speedy recovery.
> I can see, that you are taking the whole demise of film photography hard. Well, we have to accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's nice to see young people showing an interest in film, but unfortunately many of them are just playing with various techniques rather than showing any real insight.
> 
> Where are today's Eugene Smiths?
> 
> 7 Lessons W. Eugene Smith Has Taught Me About Street Photography
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take everything Eric Kim says with a pinch of salt only good thing about him is he likes Leica
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is Eric Kim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you posted a like to one of his articles (7 things ) above
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was just a link to an article about Smith, showing some of his images.
Click to expand...

Eric Kim wrote it


----------



## Ornello

gsgary said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear about your back, wish you speedy recovery.
> I can see, that you are taking the whole demise of film photography hard. Well, we have to accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's nice to see young people showing an interest in film, but unfortunately many of them are just playing with various techniques rather than showing any real insight.
> 
> Where are today's Eugene Smiths?
> 
> 7 Lessons W. Eugene Smith Has Taught Me About Street Photography
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take everything Eric Kim says with a pinch of salt only good thing about him is he likes Leica
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is Eric Kim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you posted a like to one of his articles (7 things ) above
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was just a link to an article about Smith, showing some of his images.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eric Kim wrote it
Click to expand...



OK, I don't know anything about him.


----------



## gsgary

Ornello said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's nice to see young people showing an interest in film, but unfortunately many of them are just playing with various techniques rather than showing any real insight.
> 
> Where are today's Eugene Smiths?
> 
> 7 Lessons W. Eugene Smith Has Taught Me About Street Photography
> 
> 
> 
> I take everything Eric Kim says with a pinch of salt only good thing about him is he likes Leica
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is Eric Kim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you posted a like to one of his articles (7 things ) above
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was just a link to an article about Smith, showing some of his images.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eric Kim wrote it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I don't know anything about him.
Click to expand...

Go on you tube, Don McCullin is as good as Eugene Smith there's also Philip Jones Griffiths who shot with Eugene Smith


----------



## timor

walcoxchem said:


> Did you know its super easy taking of darkness from balck and white negatives by using potassium cyanide? i just learned that and ordered 100g from horneyproducts@yahoo.com it came in after three days from north carolina, charlotte. its really cool after i saw the effects.


As far as I know potassium cyanide has nothing to do with photography. It is a deadly poison and 100g would be enough to kill at least 200 people. Are you trying to sell this to us ? And what that is supposed to do ? Take darkness from the *balck*  negatives ? Something tells me, that you are just another spammer 
Potassium Cyanide, Delhi - India
This time one without a clue...


----------



## timor

One spammer down. Thanks mods.


----------

