moritz_cine
Hello,
Yesterday I used the APX400 (new emulsion) for the first time at 1600 ISO.
Digitaltruth recommends a development time of 30 minutes at 1:25 in Rodinal.
As I’ve been toying with the idea of trying out a fixed-time development for a while now,
my thought was not to develop the APX400 ‘normally’, but
to use a fixed-time development instead. To be honest, I have no experience with this, but I wanted
to give it a go.
(It’s quite possible that the APX400 isn’t a good film for this, or rather, I’ve found virtually
nothing about it online.)
That’s why I wanted to know if any of you have experience with this and
could perhaps give me a tip regarding dilution and development time. :)
Many thanks and best regards,
Moritz
Wolfgg
Hello Moritz,
My settings for 400-speed film (e.g. RPX400) with standard contrast:
Rodinal 1+140 for 70 minutes at 20°C; agitate only for the first minute, then leave the can upside down until the 23rd minute to ensure even development, then stand it upright for the remainder of the time.
But use a large bottle with at least 800ml, otherwise there won’t be enough concentrate in the bottle. And fill it completely with developer, so there’s no air left in it (because of oxygen).
Regards, Wolfgang
moritz_cine
Thank you very much, Wolfgang :)
Abax
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:11.2px;">"When comparing sharpness, we were reminded once again that there is sometimes a world of difference between theory and practice. Tank development led us to expect razor-sharp images, as it is ideally suited to edge effects that enhance sharpness. But far from it, as all three tilting methods produce sharper negatives. And now for the kicker: with tank development, Rodinal produces significantly out of focus images compared to Ultrafin Plus, which, due to its formulation, exhibits only a slight edge effect.
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:11.2px;">Because what cannot be cannot be, we repeated the experiment several times – always with the same result. Flat development produces poor results; with Rodinal, the results are miserable. This could be because the gelatin swells excessively due to the extremely long development time (20 minutes), causing the silver filaments in the coated layer to become mobile."
€
in:
https://www.fotografie-in-schwarz-weiss.de/sw-fotografie/wissen/90-filme-entwickeln-die-richtige-bewegung.html
€
Best regards
KlausWehner
Thanks, Abax, for the link!
€
I have carried out direct comparisons between static and rotary development.
The result was that static development leads to a loss of image quality.
€
However, static development can fulfil its actual purpose (reducing contrast).
In my experience, however, a reduction in contrast can be achieved more easily by other means.
€
The loss of sharpness can be explained by the significant swelling of the gelatine over a long period of time.
This promotes the diffusion of silver particles in the emulsion.
The higher the pH value, the longer the development time and the higher the temperature, the stronger the diffusion.
€
In my comparison, the Wehner developer showed the least loss of quality.
Nevertheless, I would not recommend this process.
€
Best regards
Klaus
Wolfgg
The post linked by Abax refers to Rodinal 1+50. This is a completely different situation, not comparable to 1+140 or even higher (with 100 film, I even go up to 1+160). The swelling of the gelatin and the resulting migration of silver crystals within the wet layer, which causes out of focus images, depends heavily on the pH value of the developer (the higher the pH, the greater the migration). At 1+50, this is much more alkaline than at 1+140 and higher. That is the crucial point! Using Rodinal at 1+50 or even 1+25 is therefore pointless! It is only at high dilutions that the developer visibly slows down in high densities due to exhaustion, and the edge effect becomes clearly apparent at the edges (it works like unsharp masking in digital image processing). Just give it a go yourself – it’s much quicker than wading through lots of websites.
?
Regards, Wolfgang
KlausWehner
Wolfgang, you’re absolutely right, of course!
Just give it a go. Experimenting is fun.
€
Rodinal contains a strong alkali.
Even at high dilutions, the pH value drops only slightly.
To achieve adequate development, you then need to extend the development time.
It’s a zero-sum game.
The edge effect is based precisely on a concentration gradient and diffusion.
If the dilution is extremely high, the concentration gradient cannot be very large either.
€
We don’t really need to argue about this here, especially as it doesn’t answer the original question at all.
In the spirit of the questioner, I would agree with you: give it a go!
€
Best regards
Klaus
Olivinyl
Hello everyone,
Pushing film with Rodinal isn’t a particularly good idea anyway.
Two years ago, I tried developing APX 400 New and Kentmere 400 in a 1:50 Rodinal solution. For my process, I need negatives with a gamma of 0.65, meaning Zone I at 0.10 and Zone 8 at a density of approx. 1.42. I developed the first test film for 18 minutes, tilting it once every 30 seconds. The negatives were very thin, but would have been great for scanning. The speed was 250 ASA. On the second attempt, 20:00 minutes and slightly better. Third attempt, 22:00 minutes and hardly any more density. Last attempt, 25:00 minutes and identical to 22:00 minutes. I thought the Rodinal had gone off and ordered a new bottle, but there was no improvement.
So, with just two swishes per minute, enough oxygen is introduced into the developer for the Rodinal to oxidise and become ineffective.
With a static development process, you swish it at the start and perhaps after 30 minutes, but Rodinal in a high dilution of 1+100 is ineffective after 30 minutes at the latest.
A development time of 30 minutes in Rodinal 1+50 at 1600 ASA is just as useless.
Find another developer for pushing.
Best regards,
Oliver Krosse
Abax
Well: "Just give it a go." I did give it a go, using a 1:200 dilution. At least with the FP 4 Plus I used, the results were a disaster. And I don’t see the point in all that effort when you can get the same or even better results in less time.
Best regards
Olivinyl
...mess...
I thought the development process at the start of my second SW phase was going to be absolutely brilliant, but it actually turned out to be a complete mess. I’ve really ruined loads of good photos with this development voodoo. They’re either a nightmare to print or just look slimy and creamy. Better to tilt it a bit and save time than leave it as it is and end up disappointed.
Best wishes, Oliver
Wolf_XL
...Developing film has a lot to do with voodoo – especially since Rodinal is chemically dead as a doornail in these dilutions after half an hour at the latest anyway... Maybe someone should start making Rodinal globules – I’m sure there’d be plenty of fans who’d think that was absolutely brilliant... :lol:
Wolfgg
Well, what am I doing differently then?
Here are the two key points again, as they differ from the usual method and are therefore often overlooked:
1) The can must be filled completely; there must be no air left inside, so that the Rodinal can only be spoiled by the oxygen already dissolved in the water (the can must, of course, be sealed airtight).
2) Double the amount of developer (working solution, not concentrate) per film compared to standard dilutions, i.e. just one roll of 135/120 in a can of 800ml or more (for test strips with only three exposures, a small can will of course do).
I have already tested development times of up to 6 hours in this way; then, as a test, I tipped the used Rodinal 1+140 or more into a beaker and held a film snippet in it to see whether it ‘lasted until the end’ or whether the long time had been a waste. And lo and behold, the usual increasing blackening was evident every time! Admittedly slower than with a fresh solution, but it was still working. Once I even left a beaker of used 1+160 open overnight and only dropped a film snippet in the next morning. Even that slowly turned black. And you’re saying it’s supposed to ‘go off’ after just 30 minutes? Make of that what you will.
Regards, Wolfgang
€
Wolf_XL
Faith can move mountains… :) But you probably danced around the development box while you were coding, and that’s why it worked...
Don’t hold it against me – I believe in it about as much as I believe in homeopathy…
Olivinyl
Hi Wolfgang,
Have you ever bothered to measure—or had someone measure—static-developed films of different durations using a densitometer?
Just expose the film three times using something opaque. Once as indicated by the light meter, then one exposure 3 stops overexposed and one 4 stops underexposed. So Zone 5, 8 and 1. If you lay the strips (same film stock) from a 60-minute, 120-minute and 180-minute tank development side by side, you’ll see that there’s no difference in the density readings for Zones 5 and 8. It’s true that something still happened with a test strip, but the developer is no longer able to build up the densities required for proper highlight detail.
Best regards, Oliver
KlausWehner
Hello everyone,
?
Without reliable facts, we won’t get anywhere on this point.
Specific measurement data would be helpful. I completely agree with Oliver on that.
?
It would be just as important to understand Moritz and Wolfgang’s motivation for developing a stand.
If the goals and expectations are clear, we can check whether they are actually being met.
?
Personally, I have a big question mark over Wolfgang’s statement that his method would achieve a ‘normal contrast’.
I would actually expect a low contrast.
However, Wolfgang has not defined what he means by a ‘normal contrast’.
?
Best regards,
Klaus
Wolfgg
I really wouldn’t have thought that Rodinal, which is over 100 years old, would still be causing such a stir :).
For the sceptics, I’ve picked out an example here with long development times to analyse: Rollei 80S, measured 10 years ago, all still using original Rodinal from Leverkusen at a dilution of 1:200. Even after 1.5 hours, it still manages to push the density curve higher, even at the high densities. The fact that only about 0.2D was added in the highlights between 1.5 and 3 hours is probably down to the film’s maximum density; it isn’t a reversal film that goes up to D=3.
Absolutely clean working is, of course, essential with such dilutions – no fixer bath residues in the lid or coil.
Regards, Wolfgang
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
KlausWehner
Well done, Wolfgang!
Very meticulous work.
€
In this case, you’ve used the table development exactly for the purpose it was originally intended: to flatten the gradation.
As an aerial reconnaissance film, the Rollei 80 S has a very steep gradation and a limited dynamic range.
For its intended purpose, it only needs to be able to reproduce 3 (to 4) contrast levels, but these must be of high contrast.
€
However, if this film is to be used for general photography, it must be able to reproduce at least 5 contrast levels.
This requires a very soft development. A fixed-time development process is well suited to this.
However, the problem of loss of sharpness remains.
€
All aerial surveillance films have been designed for very rapid processing. All aerial surveillance films achieve high maximum densities.
These are the reasons why the film responds so well to extended development times.
€
But the question was about the APX 400. This is a film with a rather moderate contrast.
If you develop this using a process that specifically reduces contrast, you will struggle to obtain usable negatives.
€
If you’re interested, we’d be happy to carry out a direct comparison.
I could send you my developer. Then you can directly compare both processes using APX 400 (at ISO 1600/33).
€
If you’re interested, please get in touch with me.
To be fair, I’d like to make the same offer to Moritz as well.
€
Best regards
Klaus
Wolfgg
Hello Klaus,
Yes, we’re straying from the main topic, but the side question was how long Rodinal remains effective when highly diluted, and as you can see: for hours.
As far as I’m aware, the Rollei80S doesn’t need to be ‘softened up’ first; it has quite normal gradation, and Rodinal 1+50 for 10–15 minutes is actually recommended for natural-looking prints. In the original Agfa data sheet, the 1–8 zone curve translates to 1.5D, so it’s already close to ‘pictorial’ – see here:
http://www.agfa.com/docs/sp/aerial/aviphot_pan80_2004-06-15_en.pdf
Unfortunately, your offer of materials is going to run into time constraints for the foreseeable future. A test like this takes a whole day if it’s to be done properly; I’m still working full-time and am already under pressure to meet deadlines again. I always have to postpone things like this until quieter periods, such as the summer break or between Christmas and New Year.
Regards, Wolfgang
KlausWehner
Hello Wolfgang,
Yes, it all takes a lot of time. And there’s never enough of it. It’s the same for me.
But I really admire your meticulous measurements!
Just a quick note on the Agfa data sheet.
There’s a gradient/time curve there.
It starts at 0.9, peaks at around 1.5 and ends at 1.9.
A gamma of 1.5 is intended for this film. For normal shots, that is of course far too high.
According to the data sheet, a gamma of 0.9 can be achieved with the G 74 developer at a development time of 20 seconds (!).
Personally, I could manage with this gradation. But there are, of course, other limitations with this film.
For this film, your method is a good way of at least achieving a reproducible contrast.
But even with a ‘normal’ film, this won’t work anymore, and it becomes particularly difficult with the APX 400.
In addition, losses in sharpness and tonality are to be expected.
However, this could only have been determined through a direct comparison.
You probably won’t want to believe me entirely. That’s understandable, as you trust your own measurements.
But they don’t show the whole picture: other quality parameters are not taken into account.
If you were to carry out comparable measurements with the APX 400, you would find significantly different readings than with the 80 S.
Perhaps Moritz could tell us about his experiences?
Thank you for this objective and well-informed exchange of views!
And of course: my offer still stands unchanged.
Best regards
Klaus
moritz_cine
My idea was really just to run an experiment first and see how the film behaves.
€
Mainly because the APX400 has relatively low contrast and I wanted to try and maintain at least a bit of that when
pushing it to 1600. It worked more or less well.
€
I tried it as suggested by Wolfgang, but wasn’t 100% satisfied with the results.
I have the feeling that the negatives were significantly thinner than during the development in Rodial 1/50 or in
Atomal 49 stock.
In this case, it’s quite likely that it was down to me and the circumstances (pushing to 1600, and so on).
So for now, it doesn’t necessarily say anything about the process as such.
€
I’ll have a bit more of a play around and develop the APX400 once as 400 and again
with an extended development time as 1600 using the standard method, and then compare them. Let’s
see what comes of it and how I like the negatives, or rather how good they are.
€
It’s always a question of what you want to achieve with it. As I said, my approach was simply that I thought I could keep the contrast a bit flatter
compared to ‘normal’ push development in Rodinal. But for that,
Rodinal might not necessarily be the best developer.
€
Many thanks to you all in any case!
