Beef
Hello, fellow photographers :)
I’m facing a problem again... (the print size remains the same throughout... approx. 16cm x 12cm)
Up until now, I’ve actually been developing my film more or less by eye, making a test print (with several exposure times on it) and then producing the rest of the prints.
Sooo... but now everything has changed. I’ve now firmly settled on using Fomapan 100 in combination with Rodinal.
In the basement, I’ve set up a test setup (see pictures)... a mannequin under standard Rembrandt lighting.
All the pictures were taken with an aperture of f/2.8 and a shutter speed of 1/60s (focused on the top edge of the dress at the neckline). I took the trouble to cut each frame from the film in the dark and develop them
.
Here are the pictures (in reality they’re sharp and of good quality... but I’ve scanned them terribly ;) )
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND][ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND][ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND][attachment=79:10.jpg][ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND][ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
In order, from top left to bottom right... Development time in Rodinal:
3 mins, 5 mins, 8 mins, 10 mins, 12 mins, 15 mins
Developing tank: 350ml... of which 10ml Rodinal
. So approx. 1:35 or 1+34. All at EXACTLY 20°C
.
As follows:
For each print, I made a test strip from the respective negative...uncovering another cm every 1 second. I then took the exposure time at which the test strip was closest to the original image (to the naked eye) in terms of brightness and detail.
This resulted in the following enlargement times (ranging from 3–15 minutes):
5s, 4s, 4s, 3.5s, 3s, 2s[color="#FF0000"]This brings me to my first question:[/colo
Does this enlargement exposure time always have to be constant for each film type? Or does it actually depend on the negative development time? Because ACTUALLY, my prints hardly differ at all... only in contrast... I’ve already adjusted the brightness through washing. Should I, for example, have used an exposure time of 4s for all negatives to see which negative development time is best???
[color="#FF0000"]2nd question: What’s the best way to determine the time I need for enlarging?!
[/colo If I have too short an exposure, the black areas on the print don’t turn out properly black (more like dark grey)...if I have too long an exposure, the white areas become darker (more like light grey).
My idea was:
I take the start of a developed negative film... when you load the film, this part is as black as the negative can possibly be. Then comes the point where the film has maximum light transmission, and after that come the images. You could use this point and perform exposure on a test strip in one-second intervals. From second to second, the black part gets blacker and blacker, until eventually the white part starts to darken. That would be the ideal exposure time, wouldn’t it? That way, you’re making full use of the film’s entire characteristic curve, aren’t you!?
I came up with all this for the following reason:
Of the images above, I chose the one with an 8-minute development time, as it seemed the most sensible to me. In addition to this negative (i.e. the one developed for 8 minutes), I then shot four more negatives: pushed to 200 and 400 ISO, and pulled to 50 and 25 ISO (developed for longer or shorter periods using the corresponding factors). Just to test the film’s capabilities. SOO, after the first two pushed negatives, I noticed that I could make prints from them that are almost identical to the standard ones :-D (although they are already pretty hard), and the enlargement times were around 2–3 seconds.
[color="#FF0000"]3. Question: The exposure time for my Ilford ILFOSPEED (G3) seems rather short to me... is that normal?
[/colo My baryta paper needs about 30 seconds ;) I’ve got a 75W bulb in the enlarger (too much?) and always set it to the smallest aperture (I only have two ;) ) – so to half (I reckon).
So, I hope someone here can help me out. This has been a problem of mine for a long time and I’d really like to sort it out. In a commercial lab, they develop all films (of the same type) for the same duration and make all prints with a time factor (or not)...they certainly don’t do a test strip for every single picture :lol:
It would be great if someone could give me a good example of how and with what settings I can take a photo and then adjust my enlargement time accordingly... basically a negative for calibration ;)
I was perhaps thinking of the zone system: I take a photo of a COMPLETELY white wall at f/22 and 2s... then I take one at 1/500s and then at 1/15s. This produces, in sequence, negatives of zones X (=WHITE), 0 (=BLACK) and V (=18% grey). After these three negatives, I could then somehow calibrate my enlarger, couldn’t I? If something comes out wrong, I must have had poor exposure when I took the shot ;)
Sorry again for this long post... but this topic is surely helpful for loads of other people too... I haven’t found anything about it anywhere here.
Thanks in advance ;)
Regards
Andi
cfb_de
Hi Andi,
With properly tested films and perfect exposure, a consistent development and enlargement process will naturally always give you the same exposure times and the same contrast when enlarging. That’s the whole secret of the Zone System: you determine the appearance of the positive through the exposure when taking the photograph, and you’ve practised your lab processes to perfection beforehand. Using fixed-grade paper.
(Okay: strictly speaking, the Zone System involves N, N-1 and other development methods, but with properly tested material and a spot meter – which didn’t exist in St Anselm’s day – you can also control this via the exposure.)
To enable a better assessment of your process suitable for the internet, it would be helpful if you could publish scans of all your negatives. Without any post-processing, but including the film edge. Also include a scan of the co-developed film leader at maximum density (i.e. take two shots: one of the subject, one with the lens removed and fully exposed to the light for approx. 3 seconds, and develop both in the same way; also develop the film leader for, say, 15 minutes in the developer).
This way, you can also specify dmin on the film in relative terms and know the dmax of your scanner, and relative to that, the dmax of the various developers.
You can then create a relative density table by comparing different negatives. This isn’t suitable for determining the exact speed and development time, but it does point you in the right direction.
You can find out how to test films properly, for example, in Otto Beyer’s tried-and-tested guide:
http://www.ottobausw.de/FILME_EINTESTEN_V2_03.htm
. My gut feeling is that with your dilution, you should end up with a time of around 4.5–5 minutes. Leaving aside the moon phase, agitation rhythm and your wrist. But this print also looks suboptimal: too grey. No highlights, no proper blacks. Is it really just the scan that’s rubbish, or perhaps your enlargement process as well?
The images are all too grey, which strongly suggests to me that the Duka light isn’t right or that the paper is ancient.
I’m running the Fomapan 100 in Rodinal 1+50 at 20°C in the Agfa tilt tank for 7.5 minutes. Exposure is set at 100 ASA just above the 18% chart on the palm of the hand (i.e. half a stop below the nominal sensitivity with a meter that reads slightly low).
Best regards,
Franz
Beef
Hi Franz,
Thanks again for your help :lol:
Well, I just don’t see why you’d need to test a film… it has a fixed ISO rating and you simply set the aperture and exposure time accordingly. If, for example (with a fixed aperture), the camera’s light meter gives me a reading of 1/60s for the darkest area and 1/1000s for the brightest area of the scene I’m photographing, then I know I need to achieve optimal colour and tonal reproduction by exposing the whole image at 1/250s (1/250s corresponds here to 18% grey). Or am I wrong here?
As for the paper, I only use (at least so far) fixed-grade paper. To achieve the perfect development process, I use a gradient of 3... I think that’s standard (?).
I don’t get what you mean by N or N-1 with regard to the zone system ;) Oh, and I don’t have a spot meter... I either use the camera’s centre-weighted light meter (which handles the example mentioned in the first paragraph brilliantly) or act as a spot meter by getting very close to the areas of the image I’m measuring.
So I don’t know if the negatives will be of any use to you. I only have a scanner with 1200 dpi and also had to resize and crop the images to be able to upload them here. As a lightbox, I used a converted backlight from an old laptop ;) (but it’s still a dreadful scan).
The contrasts don’t quite match the actual negative (but you did say: no post-processing). It sounds as though you have Fomapan negatives... so you can make a rough estimate.
Have I understood this correctly:
1. I should take another standard photo like this
2. Then remove the LENS (so that everything is blurred) and, with the camera on a tripod, pan it to the left, for example, and take a shot of the spotlight? With the same exposure time and aperture? Or should I move closer so that the spotlight fills the entire frame?
I’m using the following spotlight setup here:
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
The one on the left (Rembrandt)
(I’ve left the one on the right in there just for the benefit of others :) )
So the 5-minute print has generally (the paper) turned a bit greyish... that usually happens when I leave the paper in the developer for too long. Are 1–1.5 minutes actually too long for RC paper? It seems to me that the paper only starts to develop properly after about 1 minute.
But maybe it’s down to the developer... BECAUSE here I’m also using ADOLUX KONSTANT ;) (Just by the way... could you perhaps recommend another one to me, one with which you achieve good contrast values, for example? I’ll need a new one soon.)
Exposure is set to 100 ASA just above the 18% chart on the palm of the hand (i.e. half a stop below the nominal sensitivity with a meter that reads slightly low)
Do you mean that instead of, say (as I do), 1/60s and f/2.8, you’re performing an exposure at 1/60s and f/2 (or somewhere BETWEEN f/2.8 and f/2)? I’ve also noticed that the contrast gets stronger here.
Right, and here are the ‘horrible’ negatives:
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND][ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND][ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND][attachment=86:10.jpg][ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND][ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
From top left to bottom right:
3 mins, 5 mins, 8 mins, 10 mins, 12 mins, 15 mins
Here I photographed the test setup in the basement again with a modern digital camera to have a real-world comparison:
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND][ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
I also took both pictures at
ISO 100
and
f/2.8 (without flash)
to have a direct comparison. I took the first picture directly in the camera’s black-and-white mode... I didn’t change anything on the computer (apart from the size).
(Oh, and that thing hanging off the microphone stand next to the doll is just a "car air freshener" ;) )
Regards
Andi
cfb_de
Hi Andi,
So first of all, you need to learn the developing process. You’ll find an initial reference below.
First things first: how old was the film? What exactly is your developing process? The blue in the film looks pretty rubbish at first glance. I get my TriX films to come out much clearer.
Next: the scan of the *black* negative is still missing. Light on the film without a lens in front of the camera! So far, unfortunately, the scans are still of little use for the classification mentioned. But I think I’d already written that.
Now: A film has a *printed* ISO value. This has about as much to do with reality as the Pope has to do with fathering children! And I write that as a Catholic.
On that note: your understanding of exposure metering urgently needs correcting through experience. Pay particular attention to artificial light and lighting situations. Especially with your test setup. What did you use to light it? How did you measure it?
But none of that matters at all with your scanning technique. It never produces results that can be evaluated. No effort, no reward.
Hence my usual and blunt advice: pick up the material with a long arm and test it out. Otto has described exactly how to do this wonderfully. If that seems too complex to you, start by buying a basic guide such as ‘Reinhard Merz, Das Praxisbuch black and white’. The book costs €16.90 and is available from suitable retailers with no delivery charges.
Please find these retailers yourself; I don’t advertise competitors here either.
Regarding the paper used: MG3? Did I remember that correctly? That stuff is completely obsolete now. And on the question of development time: the developer plays a part in that (standard solutions develop fresh MD-IV in 45 seconds) as does the darkroom lighting.
MG-III dates back to a time when I hadn’t even started studying for my A-levels yet. I’ll be turning 40 soon.
So here’s my final piece of advice, since you didn’t want to read up on it or think it through even at Otto’s: you need a basic guide on how to do this properly from the start. See “Merz”.
And once you’ve mastered the basic procedures, then you can get down to the finer details. You can’t learn this overnight.
It’s not for nothing that it’s a trade requiring training, and for amateurs to demonstrate such skills in internet forums at a higher level—often acquired over years of study—takes several years. No pain, no gain. And no reward without hard work.
This concludes my advice.
Best regards,
Franz
Beef
Hi Franz,
I think you’ve misunderstood me a bit ;) Well, I’ve been involved in photo development for quite some time now and have already achieved some very good results. As for the paper: I use standard Ilford photographic paper. The packaging says ‘Ilfospeed RC Deluxe IS3.1M’. What’s wrong with that?... It’s actually a very high-quality paper.
As for the literature:
I’ve already bought quite a few expensive books and studied them thoroughly...
- One specifically on fermentation and development processes
- Then a textbook specifically on black-and-white photography (Michael Gnade)
- One specifically on exposure and professional photography (Michael Gnade)
- One covering the entire field of photography
- And another very professional one on the subject, which I got from a professional photographer
I do have the knowledge... even if it doesn’t come across that way (besides, this example in the thread was just one subject, one roll of film and a test with a developer that was new to me).
I’ve read through your Otto link... I just didn’t feel like it at 1 am last night (understandable).
However, it didn’t help me much, as I don’t have that measuring device.
Regarding the film:
The film is brand new and only arrived in the post from FOTOIMPEX that very day. What do you mean by ‘blue’ in the film? Also, I’ve specifically included that black-exposed film leader with every negative image. THAT’S THE BIGGEST WEAKNESS.
I’ve already told you that the scans aren’t much use to you ;) My scanner isn’t designed for that and is also quite old ;)
On lighting/exposure:
I lit it from the front with a 1000W halogen spotlight and from the back at an angle with a 500W halogen spotlight (without a diffuser... so harder light).
I’m actually quite familiar with the zone system... the only thing I really need to know is whether Zone X on the negative is as black as the film leader, which was exposed during the film’s exposure... and whether Zone 0 corresponds exactly (since it’s a negative) to the film’s transparency (i.e. that the film is bare... no silver particles)???
Regarding the process:
You say that positive development takes about 45 seconds. Here’s a scan from one of my books... it claims that positive development MUST ALWAYS take 2 minutes and that all other preceding processes should be adjusted to THESE 2 MINUTES.
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND][ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
However, I noticed today that it’s best to leave my paper in the developer for 50 seconds. After a minute, it actually starts to turn brown quite quickly.
Regards
Andi
Urnes
Well, I just don’t see why you’d need to test a film… it has a fixed ISO rating, and you simply set the aperture and exposure time accordingly. If, for example (with a fixed aperture), the camera’s light meter gives me a reading of 1/60s for the darkest area and 1/1000s for the brightest area of the scene I’m photographing, then I know that I need to achieve optimal colour and tonal reproduction by exposing the whole scene at 1/250s (1/250s corresponds here to 18% grey). Or am I wrong here?
Yes, you’re wrong here. The film only has a fixed ASA value under predefined laboratory conditions. This depends, amongst other things, on the subject contrast and the developer. I expose Foma 100 film, for example, at 50 ASA and develop it with A49. Likewise, the (personal) ASA value also depends on the light meter. Not all of them produce the 18% grey; there is also the K-factor, which allows for deviations either way, and of course the age of the device or any misalignment. Two camera bodies of identical construction can sometimes differ by as much as 2/3 of a stop, depending on the manufacturer. On top of that, this naturally means you’ll have different development times depending on the subject’s contrast (here’s where the zone system comes into play again). If you don’t take this into account, you’ll have to adjust the contrast later via the paper or, for all I care, via the positive developer. In a large-scale lab, the images aren’t all exposed the same way either; instead, the contrast is measured by the machine and the image is exposed accordingly.
How long a positive developer takes depends solely on the paper and the developer used. Whilst Ilford RC papers in Ilfospeed (I think that’s what it’s called, isn’t it?) only need a minute, N-113 takes 2 minutes, and I tend to leave the good old Polywarmton in a bit longer, because a highlight still appears after 2 minutes.
Regards, Sven.
Beef
Hi Sven,
Yes, I’ve just read up on that too ;) I actually have some really excellent books on the subject, but I’ve never read that the ASA speed can vary (or perhaps I just missed it ;) ).
Having read through quite a few pages on the subject yesterday, I now know all the details... but there is one problem:
95% of all methods for adjusting personal ISO sensitivity and development time rely on a lab exposure meter, which I can use to measure the film’s density. I don’t have this meter and it’ll probably be too expensive for me anyway. I don’t want to become a professional photographer, I just want to be able to take nice photos and make full use of my film’s contrast range.
Here’s an example of one such method:
testing film
(or Franz’s website)
Yesterday I tried the following:
I stuck a sheet of A4 paper (grey) flat onto a large book and stood it upright. In front of it, I
set up
my camera on a tripod. The distance from the camera to the sheet was so short that the sheet covered the entire viewfinder (and with high sharpness towards infinity). From the side, I illuminated the sheet with soft light so brightly that the camera’s automatic system calculated a shutter speed of 1/15s at f/8. According to the following calculation disc, I should now get an image with the brightness of Zone V (or am I wrong again here):
Zone calculation disc
With reference to this Zone V, I took a series of shots from Zone 0 to X using manual settings. This gave me the following result:
I then tested at which (positive process) exposure time a BARE film would allow my positive to reproduce the deepest black (i.e. Zone 0). My current thinking is to adjust the ISO speed and development time (negative) so that Zone 0 just about produces the bare film and Zone X still forms a density such that, with this positive development time, a white tone is just about produced. Or the other way round, so that Zone X corresponds to the maximum negative density the film can produce (practically the start of the exposed film). Or do I need to adjust everything so that Zone X corresponds to full density and Zone 0 to the bare film. OR are all these thoughts wrong? ;)
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
Also, this is the film’s maximum density:
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
Zone X and maximum density look similar...but in reality you can see that the film leader is already quite a bit more dense... I reckon twice as dense.
The problem is also that I don’t even have a grey card. When my neighbour comes home today, I’ll ask him if he has a grey card or even that lab exposure meter (he’s a professional photographer).
Otherwise, my only option would be to just experiment and see what I like... as described here:
Testing film through experimentation
Or do you have any other ideas or tips? Because if I’m going to be shooting with this film for the next few months or years, I’d actually quite like to have got it set up properly for the right use at least once :lol:
Regards
Andi
Urnes
Hi Andi,
Well, if you want to hear my personal opinion, then grab your camera, pick up two or three rolls of film and go out for a bit of a shoot. Then develop the film, print a few of the pictures and have a look at what you don’t like. If the negatives aren’t dense enough, lower the ISO by half a stop; if there’s too much grain, use a different developer or a different film, and so on. I think you should base your photography on the images themselves, not on the equipment. Even if you have 10 stops of information on the negative, you still have to decide which 6–7 stops you’ll put on the print...
I’m simply someone who prefers taking photos to testing. That’s why, like many here in the forum, I have a fairly high tolerance for frustration. However, I must also say that for 90% of my images, I end up with a medium gradient in the final prints, and all without any testing. The Foma 100, however, wasn’t as dense as I needed it to be for 8x10" after the first negatives at 100 ISO, so I just did the exposure at 50 ISO. But by the time I’d got the whole workflow sorted – from leaky flatbed film cassettes right through to rinsing the prints – half the pack of film was gone... c’est la vie.
Regards, Sven.
Beef
Hi Sven
Yes, I’ve now decided to go for the ‘single-shot method’ too. I actually used up a bit of film yesterday as well...
First, I took a normal shot of the subject, then one with overexposure and one with underexposure. The shot with overexposure was closer to the result I wanted, so I used that as a basis and then overexposed and applied underexposure to it again (slightly). That’s how I gradually worked my way towards a good result for the enlargement process. For the negative development time, I simply went with Franz’s 7.5 minutes (which several other people use as well).
What puzzles me, though, is that regardless of whether it’s overexposed or subject to underexposure... I can compensate for it all again with the exposure time on the enlarger :-D
I’ve also looked into the ISO values in more detail: a film REALLY does have its 100 ISO if that’s what’s stated... you just have to use the appropriate developer and exactly the time specified in the data sheet. For APX 100, for example, Rodinal; for Fomapan 100, for example, Fomadon Excel or LQN. Then they have their FULL 100 ISO. Incidentally, this is even stated in the description of the Fomadon developer in the Impex shop).
As I also used a development time of 7.5 minutes, I actually arrive at the same result as Franz and you, namely that I need to perform an overexposure on the shot. However, I would really like to use the full 100 ASA (otherwise I might as well just buy a 50 film). I also noticed that the Impex developer chart specifies a time of 10 minutes for the Fomapan 100–Rodinal combination. Might this perhaps achieve the 100 ISO, so that one can rely entirely on the camera’s automatic settings (which is also more convenient)? (Apart from any possible metering errors by the camera)
I simply want to achieve a good average value so that my times in the enlargement process remain consistent, I don’t have to suffer from overexposure of the shot, and I can also make use of the push and pull options accordingly.
The development times aren’t set for no reason... they must be based on some standard.
When I hand in a roll of film to be developed at the photo shop, they surely also go by the 100 ISO, develop it for the specified time and enlarge it after a set time. Or am I completely wrong about that again :lol:
Regards
Andi
cfb_de
The instructions for Fomapan 100 and Rodinal specify a processing time of 10 minutes. Would that perhaps achieve an ISO 100 equivalent?
Yes. However, the film then becomes too hard for my liking and the highlights get washed out. This does limit the number of stops available on the film to 4–5 out of the 10 in the scene, but I’d really like to be able to choose for myself which 6–7 stops out of 10 I capture on paper.
And that is precisely why I have only ever bothered with test shots once for the films I use most frequently. You don’t have to go about it academically by plotting curves; many people are perfectly happy simply having tried it out under the enlarger.
Besides, as a beginner without much darkroom experience, you won’t notice exposure differences of +/- one stop in the darkroom anyway. These disappear within the material’s tolerance and are simply not noticed by the image-maker, who is filled with joy.
Incidentally, for ‘standard sensitivity’, not only must the light meter and development processes be correct, but so too must the subject (a standardised grey-scale sensitised strip, which in reality has little to do with reality) and its lighting (which, in reality, is a major variable in terms of colour temperature). Incidentally, a camera never actually sees such a test film. Test strips are contact-printed
That is why – and due to a lack of time – I haven’t been able to get round to your scans yet.
Best regards,
Franz
Beef
Hi Franz,
Don’t worry about the negatives at all… I’ve already written them off anyway ;) I’m so incredibly grateful that you and the others here on the forum are so helpful. I’ve already learnt far more here than I have from my books… it’s just confirmed to me that you need practical experience and can’t always rely on the literature.
And I have to admit something else:
I took another test photo earlier (though with a computer flash). This time I followed the developer chart EXACTLY... developed for 10 minutes in Rodinal 1+50 and Kipp (type 1). And I performed the exposure on the film at 100 ASA. The negative looks quite thin, underexposed but with strong contrast... it seems you were right again with your recommended overexposure and the 7.5 mins ;)
Have a look at these Fomapan photos with the punks (from the top: images 6–8):
Fomapan photos
I think this result is absolutely perfect... these images were developed with Diafine and exposed at ISO 200. He does, however, write that he uses Rodinal at ISO 80 (just think of the stark difference), but unfortunately no development time is specified again. Do your photos turn out roughly like this when you use Rodinal? What speed do you set your camera to again? And do you develop for 7.5 mins? Then I’ll stick more closely to these values. I can then fine-tune things (e.g. regarding the difference in exposure between cameras) based on this reference.
I’ve also read quite often that 7.5 minutes gets the best out of the film.
And regarding the grey card... I ordered one here last night... but it’s not in stock :lol: so I’ll have to keep ‘testing it out as I go’ :lol:
Regards
Andi
Beef
Hi
So, I’ve taken a few test shots again...
As I realised last time that I definitely need to achieve an overexposure of the film, I’ve just set my camera to DIN 19 (64 ASA).
The camera’s automatic mode calculated a shutter speed of 1/4s at f/4. I then set the shutter speed to a fixed 1/4s and shot with
the following apertures: f/2.8
; f/4–2.8
; f/4
; f/4–5.6
; f/5.6
(images are in this order)
. The following images were produced:
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND][ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND][attachment=99:f4_1_
4s.jpg][ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND][ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
Does this finally look good? I think I got the DIN 19 just right... in my opinion, the image with an aperture of f/4 is the best.
I developed the whole batch in Rodinal 1:50 at 20°C for 8 minutes (according to the Foma data sheet: 8–9 mins). I use a rotary developing tank...rotating continuously for the first 30 seconds...then two very gentle rotations every 15 seconds thereafter.
Exposed (15s) on 7x11cm baryta warm-tone paper (ADOX), developed for 1.5 mins in Adolux Konstant.
Is everything right now, or are there still any objections? :lol: Is there perhaps something wrong with my positive process? I mean, in terms of the times.
Regards
Andi
cfb_de
Hi Andi,
That’s looking pretty good already. I do have one comment on your process, though: rotating it a little every 15 seconds isn’t ideal. That means you’ll end up with parts of the film drying out repeatedly, completely out of your control.
That’s why you should either not rotate at all (= tilt-development with the film always fully wetted) or rotate continuously. Continuous rotation shortens the development time, but with acutance developers (those with ‘acutance’ like Rodinal) it certainly doesn’t ensure the maximum impression of sharpness.
With your process, you might as well just use the tilt method. That way, you’ll get pretty much exactly 7.5 minutes if you skip the 30-second continuous tilt at the start and instead do 1 minute of continuous tilt followed by one tilt every 30 seconds :-)
There should be at least 5ml of Rodinal concentrate per film in the tank, and the film should be completely submerged in the solution. One could certainly argue about the 50 or 64 ASA. Firstly, it depends on the exposure. Secondly, it depends on which grey tones from the subject you’d like to see in the print. And I’m simply more keen on being able to see something even in the ‘black’ areas.
I always prepare 510ml of Rodinal, even for just one 35mm film. Why? With 10ml, the measurement error is smaller when preparing the solution, and the stuff costs next to nothing anyway. Besides, in the canister, which is always filled to the same level, I always have almost the same concentration ratios. Yes, even during development of just one 35mm film, I pop the second empty reel in there too.
I only use my 2100/2400 Jobo for testing, as it also holds 510ml. In the large Jobo reel, however, I can load a few film snippets and simply separate them using a skewer, which isn’t possible with the small ones from the 12-system.
The results are on a par with my 1236 Jobos and can also be applied to mass 35mm development in the 2336 (it holds 5 rolls of 35mm film, though lifting the canister plus 2 litres of developer for a total of 25 minutes is verging on a workout).
None of these Jobos have leaky lids and, at the time of writing this post, were available on ePay for less than
