From: ____ on
In article <bOQfj.82401$Um6.47104(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
"Lawrence Akutagawa" <lakuNOSPAM(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> There are folks who don't like Rodinal. That's okay. After all, some folks
> don't like Chevrolets and others don't like Toyotas. The key is to try
> Rodinal. If you like the results, great. If you don't like the results,
> look for something else.

I my mind's eye Rodinal creates a tonal scale at 1;50 & 1:100 close to
PMK without the stain, so it ends up a little more grainy in appearance.
And of course less toxic.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
From: ____ on
In article <477fdb52$0$16321$822641b3(a)news.adtechcomputers.com>,
David Nebenzahl <nobody(a)but.us.chickens> wrote:
>
> but you're not likely to get smooth-looking
> results with Rodinal.

I think that really depends. Some films unquestionably are not going to
give the photographer tight grain "small clumps" when processed using
Rodinal. However T grain films should work well with Rodinal especially
when using 1:50 & 1:100 dilutions.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
From: ____ on
In article <flopdd$sag$1(a)reader2.panix.com>,
tls(a)panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:

> The problem, of course, is that it also reduces true film
> speed by as much as one full stop -- so in practice, you end up with 50
> speed film, at most, and then you need a tripod, unless you're shooting
> snowscapes at noon.

Define film speed :) Reduces? of just shows the speed of older emulsions
for what they really are?

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
From: pico on

"Lawrence Akutagawa" <lakuNOSPAM(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:REHfj.3070$El5.969(a)newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...

> My own prediliction is to decant the 500ml container into 1 oz (30 ml)
> glass amber bottles.

Yep! The bottles with the expressed cap that displaces the last bit of
Rodinal. Air free. Done that way, Rodinal will last forever.


From: Richard Knoppow on

"____" <internetphobic(a)deletedmail.com> wrote in message
news:internetphobic-EB7FCA.17182405012008(a)newsgroups.comcast.net...
> In article <flopdd$sag$1(a)reader2.panix.com>,
> tls(a)panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
>
>> The problem, of course, is that it also reduces true film
>> speed by as much as one full stop -- so in practice, you
>> end up with 50
>> speed film, at most, and then you need a tripod, unless
>> you're shooting
>> snowscapes at noon.
>
> Define film speed :) Reduces? of just shows the speed of
> older emulsions
> for what they really are?
>
The published speeds of films are determined by a well
controlled standard method. The speed does vary with the
developer and the current ISO standard requires that the
published speed note the type of developer used for the
test. The total variation of speed with developer type is
not very great, its limits are probably no more than + or -
about 3/4 to one stop. The fastest speeds are obtained from
developers with Phenidone or its derivatives (but not all
Phenidone developers increase speed) such as T-Max and T-Max
RS, Xtol, or Ilford Microphen. The lowest speeds from
extra-fine-grain developers like Microdol-X or Ilford
Perceptol either at full strength. Developers like D-76 fall
into the middle somewhere with the speed increasing
developers yeilding about 3/4 stop more speed and the
extra-fine-grain developers about 3/4 stop less speed. When
diluted the extra-fine-grain developers mentioned above
deliver about the same speed as D-76 but loose their
extra-fine-grain property and deliver grain also about the
same as D-76.
Rodinal delivers somewhat less speed than D-76 but not
much, maybe 1/2 stop. Generally the underexposure latitude
of most films will accomodate this.
Note that the ISO standard is designed to calculate the
minimum exposure that results in good tone rendition of
shadows. The reason is to minimise grain, which generally
increases with density, and to maximize sharpness. sharpness
is decreased by "irradiation" which is the spreading out of
highlights in the negative due to internal reflection in the
emulsion. Modern emulsions are not as vulnerable to either
of these effects as the films made when the standard was
designed.
For many purposes the tone rendition can be improved by
increasing exposure a bit, usually reducing speed by about
20% will do it. But, of course, the exposure is due not only
to the film speed by the method of metering and decisions
made by the photographer as to what consitutes the shadow
areas of the scene being photographed where he/she wants
detail.
Note that the ISO standard being discussed applies only
to B&W still negative film, there are different standards
for motion picture films, color films, transparency films,
etc.
Rodinal is a good, general purpose, developer whose main
virtue is its convenience and reliability. It delivers good
tone rendition from most films at the cost of somewhat more
grain than developers like D-76 or Xtol but the T-Max
developers and Microphen are nearly as grainy.
Rodinal tends to produce somewhat finer grain when its
diluted. I generally use it at around 1:50 but that is also
to get convenient times for the films I work with.
My "standard" developer for most work is D-76 diluted
1:1 and used once. I also use Microdol-X or Perceptol full
strength for 35mm 100T-Max because the combination delivers
extremely fine grain with reasonable speed.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk(a)ix.netcom.com


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Prev: eBay: Jobo CPP-2 darkroom processor
Next: Enlarger question