UlfSpuhl
Hello,
A search of the forum revealed that this topic has already been discussed previously; I’ve read those posts too, but
I’d still like to ask about it myself and get in touch regarding the Rondinax 60.
As I am planning to carry out the development of my own roll films from a medium-format camera, the solution using a daylight developer tank struck me as the simplest option. The posts vary; many people struggle with it and complain that the paper strip does not separate cleanly. However, I am not yet put off by negative reviews online; on the contrary, it piques my curiosity and sense of adventure to give it a go anyway.
However, when people post on the thread I started saying they’ve tried it and it always goes wrong – and several people are saying this – I’m reconsidering the purchase and will stick to developing the films the traditional way with a tank and a changing bag. (I haven’t had any experience with that either, though; I can’t imagine threading the film by touch alone being all that easy.)
You can tell from what I’ve said that I’m already quite old and have no darkroom experience; it’s a shortcoming, but all my attempts so far to learn something practical have failed. I even went to a photography group that runs a lovely, large darkroom with all the trimmings. When I asked, I was told, ‘A darkroom? Nah, we don’t bother with that anymore; we just sit in a warm room on a chair at the computer.’ What can you do? Established master photographers have either switched to digital and thrown out all their analogue equipment, or they simply don’t have the time to teach anyone anything.
I’d love to do a photography course now that I’m in my early 40s, but how and where?
I’ve looked into distance learning, but in my view it’s completely unsuitable for photography.
In my opinion, you can only learn photography and darkroom work through hands-on experience and practical practice; the theoretical side alone isn’t particularly fulfilling. I’ll keep looking around...
Cheers, fluuu
Richard
Hmm, Rodinax... I haven’t had any experience with that. Personally, I use a roll-in-roll-out film holder and would always recommend that.
As for getting the hang of it... Practice is the only way. One mistake you definitely shouldn’t make is to start with a roll of film containing photos! So, take a roll of film (the cheapest one will do), load it into the camera and shoot it through (the direction of the film matters with roll film). Then practise winding it in by the light (you don’t need to cut it off just yet), rewind it and do it again. Keep at it until you’ve got the hang of it. Once you’ve got the hang of it, pop it in the film bag and practise again. After 5–10 runs of each, you should be able to do it by then at the latest :blink:
cfb_de
Hi,
An old Jobo can hold half a litre of developer, but a Rondinax can’t. This limits their use with Rodinal 1+50 ‘in theory’ quite a bit, and completely with Rodinal 1+100. Furthermore, you’ll have to test the development times yourself for all classic tilt-type developers.
These days (well, for the last 30 years or so...), I consider the Rondinax to be technically fascinating, a hobbyist’s item, and worth collecting. Nothing more.
Your other question has already been answered in great detail in another forum.
Best regards,
Franz
UlfSpuhl
Hello,
Thanks for the replies, even if, from a purely practical point of view, they’re hardly of any use.
Using a refillable bag and a tin is a completely different process to using Rondinax; my question was simply
which forum users have experience with this and would be willing to share their experiences, whatever they may be.
The comment from cfb_de also sounds rather as though everything old is met with rejection, is outdated and
useless because it doesn’t correspond to the latest trend; unfortunately, that tells me nothing about the
practical handling of the Rondinax. I thought I’d come across users in an analogue forum
who enjoy traditional craft skills. Or have
daylight developers missed the mark with the real craftsmen in the darkroom?
Regards, fluuu
cfb_de
Hello fluuu,
If that’s how you took my post, then you’ve misunderstood me. My Jobos are ancient; my Teste is actually the same age as a Rondinax.
That’s my standard darkroom equipment. I’m also familiar with the Rondinax (thanks to the Moseltreffen).
My comment referred to the fact that the Rondinax, for example, can only be used with Rodinal 1+50 outside the developer’s specifications. If you stick to the specifications, only Rodinal 1+25 remains. And I don’t usually engage in development with that. Likewise, my agitation rhythm can be adapted to the rewinding required by the Rondinax. In principle, yes, but I have little desire to have to switch to 1+25 just because a lab machine expects me to.
Ergo: For me, the Rondinax is a technically interesting film developing canister, but nothing more. IMHO, these things are completely overpriced on eBay.
By the way: What do you do if the plastic flap inside breaks down?
Best regards,
Franz
MirkoBoeddecker
Hi Fluuu,
So I once went on a trip with a Rondinax and developed my films in the hotel bathroom.
Back then, digital cameras didn’t exist yet and I wanted to check my results, as I was still quite inexperienced and had been suffering constant setbacks. It worked a treat. One roll of film wouldn’t start rolling and was saved by being tucked under the duvet. I saw the low chemical consumption and, above all, the built-in thermometer (does yours have a built-in thermometer?) as a green advantage.
In any case, it was good fun using this canister. The results were OK, but in a Jobo canister you would have had more options and probably achieved a more consistent result.
I noticed that the agitation at the edges (the last frames, where the spiral covered more metres per rotation through the chemicals) must have been stronger, resulting in a slight density gradient from the start to the end of the film.
The film feed also caused slight marks at the edges of frames 9–12.
However, all the negatives were usable.
Franz tends to be rather pragmatic. As a chemist, he probably has to be. He’s saying that there are technically better options than the Rondinax. On the other hand, the Rondinax looks better and is more fun to use.
If I had to do this again today, I’d definitely take a roll-top bag and a Jobo canister with me as well.
Best regards,
Mirko
UlfSpuhl
...ah yes, I’m slowly starting to get the hang of it; I hope I’m not the worst when it comes to thinking for myself. I’ve yet to try developing roll films myself; I know next to nothing about chemistry, so the Rondinax 60 solution holds a certain appeal for me to give it a go. Now, the boxes are fetching really high prices these days, and the financial outlay goes beyond just having fun. So the question arises again: Rondinax 60 or a canister with a replaceable bag. It can get expensive too; I was quoted 150 for a bag
cfb_de
Can and bag. A Jobo 1236 costs less than five euros, and a large replaceable bag (which you can also use for other things) costs less than 30 euros new.
Best regards,
Franz
UlfSpuhl
...if those prices are correct – I've heard quite different figures – then I'm
on the low side at 36
cfb_de
I don't want to put you off, but... For
UlfSpuhl
Hello,
Let’s not get carried away, cfb_de, as the saying goes. I’ve been keeping an eye on the Rondinax 60 online for quite some time now; I’ve no real chance of getting my hands on one in the real world, and prices are hovering between 40 and 60
cfb_de
Hi "fluuu",
I’m not going to make a big deal out of it. You paid far too much, and I don’t care.
As for your question about the incomplete Rondinax: no. There are no more parts for it anywhere. Even the conveyor belt is now a real hassle to replace or repair.
If individual parts for the canisters are offered, they go for such exorbitant prices online that you might as well just hand over your own money. Because there are enough idiots willing to bid crazy sums for them.
Simply write the purchase off as a ‘learning experience’ on your personal expense account without a second thought and put the thing on the shelf. Then buy yourself another (intact) one for under ten euros. Or a old Jobo/Paterson/Plastimat for just under a fiver. That’s actually better suited, because it holds half a litre of developer and can be tilted precisely.
Best regards,
Franz
Wolfgg
Anything in which the item description contains formulations such as ‘found in the cellar’, ‘found in the loft’, ‘I don’t know much about it’, ‘inherited from my grandad’, ‘don’t know how to switch it on’ and similar formulations should be treated with the utmost caution. Because, in plain language, this usually means nothing other than: it no longer works (parts missing, parts defective, already stripped down, etc.).
Regards, Wolfgang
UlfSpuhl
Hello,
That’s some advice here – it’s enough to give you bruises.
It was worth giving the Rondinax 60 a go; it’s a beautiful piece of kit,
nostalgic black-and-white photography equipment – a wonderful contrast to the DSLR.
Right then, I suppose it’s back to Plan B: developing the roll films from the medium format,
a roll film developing tank with all the bits and bobs, getting back into the swing of things.
Gaining personal experience is one of the greatest treasures you can acquire.
If you fail because of your own decisions, it’s not so bad;
you learn something, become wiser and gain experience.
But if you still fail because of advice, tips and instructions from others,
it’s bitter and it hurts. If the help makes a difference, it’s naturally
wonderful and a real gain.
Among other things, I work part-time as an eBay agent for an organisation and sell items; I have some experience,
but that doesn’t stop me from taking a full risk with private purchases and sometimes
bidding without knowing exactly how it will turn out... that’s gambling.
As I’ve accumulated quite a few old photography bits and bobs by now, I really ought to put together a
display case and present it at the next exhibition.
Regards, fluuu
Steff_N
Hello,
That’s some advice here – it’s enough to give you bruises.
It was worth giving the Rondinax 60 a go; it’s a beautiful piece of kit,
nostalgic black-and-white photography equipment – a wonderful contrast to the DSLR.
Nostalgic photography does come with its risks. Now that you’ve got a Rondinax, perhaps a second one, with a focusing screen of course, you can start experimenting. I’d recommend the A49; with Rodinal, you won’t get precise results for the reasons Franz mentioned.
Among other things, I work part-time as an eBay agent for an organisation and sell items, so I have some experience,
but that doesn’t stop me from taking a full risk on private purchases and sometimes
bidding without knowing exactly how it will turn out... that’s a gamble.
Exactly, I paid €21.49 for my Rondinax 60, which is in almost mint (collector’s) condition, including the original packaging and instructions. I took my time waiting for a suitable offer, as I have various other tins for my daily developing. First and foremost, the Jobos.
As I’ve accumulated quite a few old photography bits and bobs in the meantime, I really ought to put together a
display case and present it at the next exhibition.
Regards, fluuu
I don’t have any display-only items. Either the stuff gets repaired or cannibalised.
Regards
Stefan
UlfSpuhl
Hi Stefan,
It’s great for you that you’ve got all that stuff – brand new, practically a gift, and not really necessary.
Of course it’s a risk, and that’s perfectly fine, but if you’re unlucky,
you’ll just have to deal with it. One option is to post about it and see what others say.
What do others say? How much smarter, more sophisticated and brilliant they are, and that
bad luck never befalls them.
With all due respect, though, I don’t believe that; it’s just bluster.
I’d have expected others to share their minor mishaps rather than
how much they’re above such things.
The Rondinax 60, an ancient piece of kit, can only be used by those with a taste for risk and a nostalgic streak
. It’s like breaking new ground into the past, experimenting and exploring.
A high-flying photographer who can do it all would never bother;
he’d either have the latest technology in his darkroom or staff to do the job.
Now you have a brand-new Rodinax 60 in its original packaging with instructions for €21.49
MichaelLaun
Hi fluuu,
What exactly are you trying to achieve with your posts? You ask questions which – just like in other forums (see the Kiev88 thread here on the Analogforum and on Baier, as Franz has already mentioned) – are answered by forum members to the best of their knowledge, and then you snap at people.
If someone comments that you might have paid too much for the Rondinax, or that you could perhaps have done a bit more thorough research regarding the Kiev (the internet is full of information, I know, as I have a Kiev88 myself), that is, in my opinion, no reason to bombard forum members with remarks such as: “I’ve come to the sole conclusion that you’re the greatest and most brilliant of them all.”
The Rondinax 60 is certainly a great piece of kit (it was in its day). I used mine once, just to see if it still worked. And it did. However, I wouldn’t dream of using it for developing today; there really are better options. Apart from the issue with the small amount of chemicals, you can only process one roll of film at a time. And regarding daylight use: I live in an area where it’s dark at night, so I don’t need a tent or anything like that. Besides, I’m lucky enough to have a proper darkroom. As long as it’s light, I actually prefer to take photos...
Best wishes and happy holidays,
Michael
UlfSpuhl
Hello Michael Laun,
I often find this happens to me in forums, especially photography ones. When I ask a question—which is usually more of a rhetorical nature and doesn’t focus solely on the technical aspects—I’m looking to have a conversation about what’s on my mind at the moment, rather than just getting a single fact as a solution. If you like, that’s my problem: I want to explore the photographic issue from all angles, rather than just having the quickest technical solution.
For me, photography is mainly a question of feeling and perception; there’s no technically ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ perspective.
So when someone responds by condescendingly explaining the simplest things as if they were doing me a huge favour, it triggers negative feelings in me. I want to delve into the depths of the subject with this post, yet I’m fobbed off with simple superficialities – that’s rather sad, isn’t it?
It’s exactly the same with the Rondinax 60: it’s about the technical process of developing roll films in daylight, but beyond that, it’s about the nostalgic value of a relic from a bygone era. For me, it’s just as much about breaking new ground, exploring and taking risks as it is for a speleologist entering a cave for the first time. In this case, it’s into the past, but the process of exploration is no less significant.
Modern technology is there to be used, but it has no history of its own; for me, that’s not particularly exciting.
Cheers, fluuu
cfb_de
Hi fluuu,
You might have been better off including these instructions in your very first post.
That would have spared you the stress and the criticism from others, as well as ensuring they remained willing to help.
I’m just as emotional as you are about this. For me, that means I choose who I talk to in forums. Others see it the same way (with reference to me personally).
Best regards,
Franz
Wolf_XL
"It’s exactly the same with the Rondinax 60: it’s about the technical process of developing roll films in daylight, but beyond that, it’s about the nostalgic value of a relic from a bygone era. For me, it’s just as much about breaking new ground, exploring and taking risks as it is for a speleologist entering a cave for the first time. In this case, it’s into the past, but the process of exploration is no less significant.
Modern technology is there to be used, but it has no history of its own; for me, it’s not that exciting."
...sorry, but when I read this sort of nonsense, it makes my eyes roll... Let’s be honest, what’s supposed to be ‘exciting’ about a daylight developing tank? The things just work – usually more poorly than well – because otherwise they’d have caught on in practice! And as for nostalgia – the conventional method of ‘loading in the dark – developing in the light’ is clearly the older technology...
You strike me as someone who wants to learn to ride a bike on a penny-farthing first – and is surprised that either no one takes him seriously, or he gets an exasperated response.
What do you actually want? To satisfy your playful instincts or to get good photos?!? It’s not impossible that one or two usable photos might come out of your experiments – but that will happen more by chance than by design. Good photos are usually the result of perfect planning plus the use of tried-and-tested ‘hardware and software’... Pointless fiddling about just wastes time and money...
So, once again – if you’re only interested in the ‘Olympic spirit’ – go ahead – perhaps it’ll be enough to make you the
‘Eddie the Eagle’ of photography...
