@clivejarmusch2906 I wouldn't use stand development for pushing. It compensates. Pushing is under-exposing and so better to use 1+50 and add ~30% per stop pushed. test on something un-important first :)
@@PictorialPlanet on your video, you developed a ISO 100 film. And as discussed in the video, you rated other shots at ISO 200 and ISO 400, thus underexposing them, right? Sorry for the confusion.
@clivejarmusch2906 yes, stand development often gives a slight rise in film speed but it's nit the same as pushing. Film speed is measured by shadow detail (the low zones). When a film is pushed it's deliberately underexposed but then the highlights are brought back by push processing (longer development). Stand development does not push process but in fact compensates or reduces highlights. Does that make sense?
Amazing results, pushing at 1+200 dilution! Thanks so much for testing this out and sharing the results. I have a lot of Fomapan 400 coming for a shoot next week, and will be pushing that to 800. Will definitely give this stand development a go and see what the results are!
This is an amazing outcome. Rodinal is one of the oldest developers around. The film you are using Ilford Pan F is also a veteran. I agree, I have never seen such beautiful prints. Truly 3D.
For these landscape / botanical subjects, absolutely yes. And I would say architecture as well. But for portraits, I imagine we might want to go the other way? This is an excellent starting point. Thank you. 👌
Hello, John. Very, very well done on both this Rodinal content AND your fine use of RU-vid. Thank you. For even more fun with Rodinal, you might try it as a print developer, diluted about 1+20. It lasts for hours in the tray. Here in the USA, as Agfa availability was irregular over the decades, I was directed by one of my betters to try Mr. Crawley’s FX-2. It is easy to make and behaves in a similar manner. All the best. I hope our paths cross sometime, Don Cardwell.
Thanks for the comments, Don! I must try Rodinal with paper sometime. I have used FX2 before and know if its wonderful sharpness. I used it for a while when I couldn't get Dixactol.
Love your videos but for proper testing we should be looking at only one variable at a time. If the light is changing we have 1 additional uncontrolled variable to contend with. Changes in framing, camera position and/or depth of field, add to the confusion. I have your book, follow you in Facebook and watched every video, so I trust your judgement and experience, but as a viewer I would welcome fewer variables at once.
Thank you for this comment. I totally agree and apologise for when this happens. I try to control as much as I can but sometimes, particularly when doing extensive testing, things change. I will endeavour to keep working in this aspect and improve where I can. Again, I appreciate your taking the time to write this and will double down. Keep watching and let me know if it improves.
Being too chicken to try 1-200 I opted for 1-150 for 1 hour with 1 minute agitation up front then let it be. My film was Delta 100 exposed @ 100. I found the results to be very sharp but more grain was visible in the mid grays than I would liked. I felt my 1-75 results were more pleasing to the eye but further experience would be needed to make any kind of conclusion. Again thanks for the info you put forth.
Thank you for these video's! Up until now i've only developed using Cinestill's monobath developer and a C-41 kit for colour. All the various developers for black and white, and all the different dilutions and times were kind of overwhelming, but this is very helpful.
Hi John, I was able to see your pictures on a large screen, and yes impressive results. I did notice on some of the Ilford FP4+ that they had lines running through the film. I have had this issue myself with Ilford FP4+ in the past. This is the reason that I switched to Kodak TMAX. I have never had an issue with Kodak film and I believe it is the quality control of that great film maker. I would love to use Ilford films again but I'm always aware of the possibility of having those lines running through the film. A shame really as Ilford has always been for the photographer.
Thank you, Peter. I noticed that the reusable cassette seemed to have scratched the film. Was that the line you saw? It's very rare that I have had any problems with Ilford except for some blotching on Delta 400 a few years ago. I believe Ilford corrected a problem with the manufacturing and I've not seen it since. I would like to use TMax more but it's prohibitively expensive here in UK. I do like PANF. It's such a lovely film. I will be doing a video on PMK soon which will feature that film again. It's beautiful with pyro developers, FX15, and Rodinal.
@PictorialPlanet Thanks for your reply John, I don't bulk roll film for fear of contaminated film, when I used ILFORD FP4 +I would buy single rolls and I didn't have those lines on every roll and it wasn't my camera either. As for TMAX, I'd rather have a roll of that than one of those fancy coffees. Horses for courses. I have a friend that worked at Kodak here in Australia in the Golden years of film, and that is my closest affiliation to Kodak. Thanks again for your wealth of experience.
I've been using Rodinal for over 50 years. I use semi-stand development, as I see others have mentioned in the comments below. I feel it offers the best balance of fine grain, acutance and avoiding bromide drag. Rodinal and Ilford films are two of the very few things left in this world that you can depend on to be consistent once you learn how to use them. I copy my film with a Hasselblad 907X and XCD 120 Macro lens and the results are wonderful.
What is your recommendation for stand development of 120 film on Paterson reels? My only experience was with HP5+ and Rodinal 1+100, one hour. The edges of the film were developed fine. At least 50% by area - the zones away from the edges - were underdeveloped enough to ruin the results. I’m guessing the path length for developer diffusion was too long. Thanks for your diligent hard work and for sharing your enthusiasm. (Victoria, BC here).
It sounds like you might not have agitated enough at the beginning of your development but if this still happens try agitating half way through for 20 seconds or so. This will help ensure even development. You're a Patreon and I'm going to answer more on my Patreon channel today.
I know how much time must have gone into making this John so thanks for your time and love . I wonder how the fp4 1+100 metered at 200 would work with 120 or 4x5 !!??
Some speed increase seems reasonable; you're letting the shadows develop for a LONG time, while local exhaustion keeps the highlights from going overboard. I'd be interested to see (which wasn't really visible in this test) if you actually gain enough for the shadows to hold detail at EI above box speed. This is more or less the same as the result from my method of agitating only every 3rd minute (though my method seems much less prone to bromide drag, which can be a big deal in stand development). What *is* surprising is the reduction in grain at 1:200 vs. 1:100 -- I guess it makes sense, in that the film (at least the more exposed area) is getting less actual development, and overdevelopment is one of the great villains of excessive or unpleasant grain. This result, especially, seems likely to be film specific -- FP4+ is well know for its fine, pleasant grain; do the same with Tri-X, Fomapan (even the 100, never mind the 400) or even Kentmere and you might not get the same end result.
The grain reduction was a surprise! I didn't expect it. I think you're right about development and the less development the finer the grain. I know someone who tried using 1+25 in an effort to get finer grain under the logical idea that the shorter time would make finer grain but I think the developer concentration has too much developer action (overdevelopment as you say). The speed enhancement is welcome.
@@PictorialPlanet isn't grain size partly due to the developer solution being alcaline ? The more it's diluted, the less it's alcaline, and thus less grain "explosion" ? I guess development time is a big factor too. And I would guess there are a few time/dilution combos that work better at taming the grain. 1+200 for 60min looks VERY interesting. I'll try it with Fomapan 100 and 400 (unpopular opinion, but I really like Foma 400). Thanks for this amazing series on my favourite developer (so far in my recent film photography journey).
@@stratocactus I've been using Fomapan 100 and 400 in 16mm (recut from 120), 35mm, recut 127, 120, and 4x5 for twenty years now. It's great film, especially considering it was easily the least costly around until Kentmere became widely available (and started rolling in 120).
Great video. I am assuming the water added before development reduces the 'friction' between the hydrogen bromide byproduct and the film, which counters bromide drag? Given that bromide drag is a common caution for 'pure' stand development (bromide density on the film emulsion preventing the developer from reacting in time). Would this mean semi-stand development isn't required, or would you still add water regardless to both methods, or have semi-stand without a pre-soak like normal?
I never used pre-soaks but have started using them more because they're recommended with DiXactol. Sherman also recommends them for semi-stand with his EMA system. I've started using them to help stop uneven development. It's just another insurance policy that costs nothing :)
Great channel and information. I'd been wondering what developer to use with my FP4+, and this series has convinced me that I should return to my old bottle of Rodinal. Quick question. What do you like better, ISO 200 stand development at 1+200, or ISO 100 regular development at 1+100?
Thanks for your comment, Christopher. The iso 200 was a surprise to me but I use the iso100 1+100 13mins regular development most of the time with my Ilford FP4. I got that time/dilution from Bob Schwalberg who wrote about it in Amateur Photographer in the 80s I think. I think it's the best compromise and gives lovely negatives. I never use 1+25 because I think it loses the special Rodinal look. 1+50 is good too but with less compensation. Stand or semi-stand is very good when I have a large contrast range to contend with. Rodinal is such a versatile developer. One if the most versatile I know. My challenge this year is to see if I can get similar versatility from FX55. But Rodinal is a tough act to follow.
John, I can’t thank you enough for this Rodinal series. I haven’t used the developer before but I have been interested and just purchased some recently. So the series was timed perfectly for me. I have some questions. Regarding the stand development, does the dilution actually matter? Or is it the amount of developer that matters? In my mind it is more about the amount of developer (within reasonable parameters). Based on your experience is there a way to increase the acutance further? Again, thank you so much. You are doing fantastic work and you are an excellent educator. The explanation you gave last video on how the developer works to create the acutance was so helpful to my understanding of this.
Hi Justin and thank you for your comment! It's the dilution that matters. So if I used a litre of 1+200 dilution it's the same as using a 500ml of the same dilution. Acutance can be increased. Crawley, a British developer formulator, was a master of increasing acutance through balancing his developer formulas or adding bromide or iodide. But you'll find most acutance developers are already made to their optimum formulation. The highest acutance developer I know is Thornton's DiXactol. He used pyrocatechin to maximise his acutance developer.
Prints look so good! Much bettere than scanned. By the way, I'd like to see the prints when they are dried rather then wet. IMHO wet prints offer higher contrast. Great video. In a few days I'd like to try some pf4 in rodinal 1+200 both at 200 and 400 iso, can't wait to see what it looks like.
Thanks for your comment. True the wet print are a tad more contrasty although I use glossy which lessons the difference. I like to show the wet prints so folk see it's real photo paper and not a digital print. I hope you like your FP4 at 1+200. Lovely film in Rodinal.
@@PictorialPlanet In a few days I'll go for some portraits and wish to use fp4@200 and then develop it in r09 1+200 stand. Hope not to do a mess ^^ The print will be in autum, when temperature will lower. Now it's way to far from the desired 20°.
Hi John, Thank you for your excellent explanations on the different uses of Rodinal! From your point of view, would the "best" way for FP4 be to expose with 200 ISO and then develop 1+200 in stand development, regardless of whether the film is then primarily to be scanned or exposed on paper? Or are the solutions 1+50 and 1+100 at 100 ISO, as you described in the second episode, still relevant? I would have been very interested in a comparison of the results from episode 2 and episode 3. Best regards, Thomas.
Hi Thomas. Thank you for your comment. I will keep using 1+100 normal development because it has that glow that makes photographs of a certain type stand out. Of the stand development techniques I like the 1+200 that you describe but, and this is interesting, next week I'm going to bring something else to the table that's worth knowing about. Hang tight till then :) you might like what's to come!
Impessive! Many thanks. I did see the change in gradation when varying film speed or dilution. A slight increase of sensitivity is also to be expected from the much increased dev time. But to see how far the expectation is met we would have to rather strictly control metering/exposure and look at the deep shadows. Do you have any findings on that?
Forgive this being slightly off topic! So when I drop a freshly exposed sheet of paper into the tray it’s the densest areas that appear first and I need to leave it in long enough to develop the highlights. If I deliberately underexpose part of my film by 2 stops (indoor gathering) but develop normally for the majority outdoor shots. Do the densest parts (highlights) develop first in the tank and shadow detail get cut short due to those particular shots not getting properly “pushed”? Also if overdevelopment ruins highlight detail should N-2 development (for those indoor shots) have any negative effect on the highlights? Struggling to see the downside of simply underexposing a few shots on a lovely low ISO roll versus properly pushing an entire film 2 stops...
This is rather off topic, thanks though for the brain bender! I've been thinking about this a long time. With negative film your highlights and shadows develop together for the first few minutes but soon the shadows run out of silver to develop. There were less silver halide crystals struck by light so less to develop. However, the highlights which have a lot more silver to develop keep going, keep developing and continue to move up the zonal scale. With paper the same things happen but of course it's the opposite. The highlights and shadows develop together, up to a point, but then the highlights stop and shadows continue to develop until they reach the point you stop the development. Your idea is sound except you got the highlight and shadows development the wrong way round. You can prove this by only half developing a film - developing it for half the time you should. The shadows are complete and look fine but the highlights are dull and under developed.
Great comparison. I will try 1+150 and 1+200 in the near future. I hear 1+300 works for certain emulsions. BTW, have you ever tried "coldinal"? 1+80 or 1+100 for longer developing time at 10° or even lower temperature.
Excellent appraisal. I used to use Rodinal (original) with FP4 - EI 100 - 1:200 for 75mins. Worked for me. Do you detect any difference between the original Rodinal and the newer version>
Thanks for your comment, Ray! I detect no difference from Rodinal of yesteryear . I like your dilution. I tried it many years ago and couldn't see much difference between 1+100 and 200 but thus has convinced me that your dilution is better.
ISO 200 in Rodinol 1+200 is really lovely. My question is, if we stand develope for 1 hour in Indian summer the ambient temperature will surely rise to 24°C at least, even inside air conditioned room. Under the circumstances, should I try stand development here in India?
Yes, you should definitely try, it even in wonderful India. Maybe knock 30% off the time if the temperature is that high but initially give it a try see what your negatives look like how they scan or print and adjust the time accordingly. The art of photography is to make the negatives and photographs yours so experiment and I wish you the very best of luck.
Hi John, I have a 5x7 large Format camera, and some FP4 Plus film sheets. I also have a modified Paterson Orbital. Providing I use enough working solution, do you think that Rodinal 1+100 will work okay?
thanks for the video. one question. i have stainless steel tanks that hold one roll of 120 film (what i shoot). would the agitation method be the same as for the patterson tanks?
John, thanks for this series. I have been using Rodinal more and more and the last video in the series was really interesting. In your opinion will as effective with Delta 100 and T-Max 400? I series matching developers and films would be very helpful if that is something you would consider.
Rodinal seems to work well with modern films so I don't see a reason for it to be less effective. You should definitely give it a try. Interesting idea for a series matching developers to films. I only use Ilford though so it might not be interesting. I did do a video on getting the best from PANF. Maybe I could go one on FP4.
Right you are mixing 1+500 (5ml to 500ml) but as I am developing four 5x4 full frame which is 1.67 greater sq surface area and as it only takes 500ml to developer so I feel that I should make up the developer to 8.35 ml (5 ml x 1.67) in a 500 ml developer. Does Brilliant and fascianting series. it matter whether I increase to to 10 ml instead or should I stick to 8.35 ml. Brialliant and fascinating series.
Hi Norman. Your 4 5x4 negatives are the same surface area as one 36exposure 35mm film or one 120 film. 5ml to 500ml is 1+100. If your tank takes 500ml then the 1+100 (5+500, the same) will work well.
@martinhensonphotography With large format I'd be more wary of uneven development across such a large negative, Martin. Therefore, I'd give the film an agitation half way through. This would help defend against possible bromide drag. Rodinal is particularly good against bromide drag but nevertheless that half way agitation for about 20 seconds will help.
@@PictorialPlanet hi thanks John for your reply; I use the system you have recommended to develop my sheet film in and recently followed your instructions for stand development and got some lovely results - so thank you
Thank you very much, this was the part I was waiting for as I'm a big fan of (semi)stand development with Rodinal . Up till now I have developed my films in 1:100 Rodinal for 50 minutes with one agitation at 25 minutes with nice results but after watching this I'll certainly try FP4 shot at 200 1:200 for 1 hour full stand. It's also even more economical, though 1:100 is already dirt cheap. By the way, was your film 35mm or 120? Maybe you said it at some stage but I missed it. I assume it to be 35mm as there was no anti-halation dye in the pre-soak water. If so, the grain will be relatively even smaller on 120. Now how about HP5? I would assume it would be grainier than FP4? Also, a somewhat unrelated question, can Rodinal be succesfully used as the developer (first and second) in B&W reversal process, specifically Fomapan 100R 8mm cine film, or is some other developer superior for that purpose?
Thank you for your comment. I used 35mm film to show how good Rodinal is, even with small format medium speed film. It has this reputation for grain but it really doesn't deserve it with slow to medium speed film and even fast film in medium or larger format. HP5 will give larger grain but if you use medium format it's a non-issue.
Most films first developer needs to have fix incorporated into it to lighten the highlights in the final image, though foma 100 doesn't seem to need it. You could use straight rodinol for that film. Look into the ferric chloride and ammonia bleaching method if doing it at home as it's less dangerous than the others.
Water rinses can be used, if efficient, but stop can be more efficient. It helps prevent the fix from reacting with the developer which can cause problematic stains. This happens with paper and film development .
@@PictorialPlanet thank you John. i was pretty sure stand developement can deal without stop bath because of it's dilution and developer being exhausted after long developement time. is every fixer can react with developer remains or some particular (alcalic, other?)
You don't want any contamination of your fixer by your developer, it'll create all kind of problems. Contamination is bad. Washing the film or print in a stop bath helps stop this contamination. Water washes work but need to be thorough. I show in some of my videos using water rinses. I use three rinses of water at 20C with 30 seconds constant agitation in each. Especially useful for staining developers like PMK or 510. Once the developer has been washed out of the film it won't contaminate your fix and you're safe. Using stop bath is just a quicker way of doing this. In the old days they didn't use a stop at all and went straight into the acid fix because, of course, it's acidic and stop development pretty well instantly but it didn't last long with such contamination. You can imagine!
Try the same time. Although I don't use Fomapan (for no other reason than I'm happy with Ilford) I'd try the same times because of the way stand development works.
Hello I process six 8x10 berger panchro 400 with 15+750 in Jobo, 22 mln with good results. So, 2,5ml by film is raisonnable… Long life to rodinal… To compare sensitivity to development, I think it coule be good to show negatives side by side on white table in order to taste fog and overall density… Bonjour Je viens de développer mes 6 tout premiers 8x10 dans du rodinal à 15+750, en jobo, avec de très bons résultats : bonnes densités et pas de voile pour une exposition à 100 asa et un temps de pose de 1/8s (donc pas de soucis de réciprocité). Donc 2,5ml par « film » me semble très raisonnable… Comme la sensibilité est un mythe, je trouve que cela aurait été plus démonstratif que de mettre les négatifs côte à côte sur une table lumineuse pour apprécié les densités globales des films et se rendre compte jusqu’où on peut aller trop loin. Sur une image positive, il y a forcément un rattrapage d’exposition qui fausse le test… Longue vie au Rodinal J.Ph.
Thank you for your comment and for confirming to everyone that 2.5ml per film is enough. I will do a better job of showing the negatives. Long live Rodinal.
Thank you for a very insightful video. This might be a silly question but shouldn't light sensitivity increase with a higher ISO? Why do the higher ISO images look darker?
Hi Chirag. The FP4 film has a set light sensitivity of 125iso (box speed). As I increase the iso on the meter the film gets less light because the meter thinks the film is more sensitive than it really is. Therefore, the film gets less light and becomes under exposed, and therefore darker. If you had HP5 (400 iso) and exposed it at EI 1600 (iso 1600) it would be under exposed by two stops and with normal development would be dark.
@@PictorialPlanet Thank you and understood. Now it makes sense. I can’t wait to try your method of stand development. It’s economical and less stressful too 😀
Hi, I followed the 1/200 process with R09 One Shot Developer and FOMAPAN 200. I agitated in the soft but firm way for 1 minute and then let it rest for an hour without any movement. I skipped the soaking, stopped with a water bath and fixed with Ilford Rapid Fixer. I kept the temperature of all the liquids at about 20 degrees. While the grain and resolution looks amazing I got very strong bromide drag lines all over the film. Is this because I skipped the soaking or did I miss something else?
@bentbilliard sounds good. It must be something to do with the film. I get none with Ilford and Rodinal stand. One way to reduce bromide drag is to agitate half way through the hour, at the 30 minute mark, for about 20 seconds.
I woudn't push Fomapan 2 stops, but if you wan't to try it with Rodinal, test with two batches of 1+200 i.e. you replace the developer with fresh one halfway. That and/or increasing the development time could help. I've read about using combination of 1+25 and 1+100 or 200 but I don't know about developing times for that.
Hi John, maybe I'm a bit naive here but i wanted to try Rodinal to get LARGE GRAIN without having to enlarge the negative to its fullest and lose sharpness. Is there a way to achieve this? Great series thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Any issues with bromide drag with pure stand development? I agitate lightly every 20 mins for an hour and I’ve never had any issues with it. Some people really have issues with it though.
Bromide drag can be a pain with certain developers dependent a lot on their developing agent. Metol is effected by bromide more than phenidone. Rodinal is also pretty robust when stand developing. Your idea, to agitate every 20 minutes, is sound and will help stave off that bromide Rtm rag and uneven development.
Hi John l always shoot FP4 at 200 and develop it in FX55 which gives me nice results but out of curiosity l shall try Rodinal at 1+200 and compare the results, any thoughts on which will preform best:)
Hi Steve. I think FX55 will offer the best results. It's a more modern advanced developer fine tuned for modern tabular grain films. It's a Crawley masterpiece. If, as I suspect, it's closely related to Paterson FX50, Crawley designed it to take on Kodak Xtol with better film speed and sharpness. I've not finished investigating the limits of FX55's abilities.
@@PictorialPlanet I'm curious if you could develop two rolls at the same time with stand development. I'm just getting into developing my own film and was wondering if I could stand-develop two rolls at once to save time.
I’m developing some films (Foma100&400 mainly) with a semi stand: 60min at 1:100 with one agitation after 30 minutes. I’m worried about bromide drag lines. What is your take on this?
As you can see from this video series I don't agitate at all in 60 minutes. No bromide drag in my experience. Why don't you try it and see for yourself?
@@PictorialPlanet yes I noticed and am going to give 1:200 a try thanks to you! I was just wondering if you’ve got (earlier) experience with one single agitation at 30min.
I have used semi-stand many times, usually with Pyrocat and Exactol. It works well and it does reduce development time somewhat because you are refreshing the developer and starting faster development again. The reason to do pure stand development is to obtain the highest degree of compensation and acutance. However, if you are used to semi-stand stay with it. The increase in acutance and compensation is relatively small. Rodinal is particularly resistant to bromide drag. I've never seen it with Rodinal. Pyrocat, 510, and Exactol are less resistant and need some agitation during long development times. With them a good strategy is to agitate initially for a minute and the twice more, evenly spread, throughout the development period. For example. If I was develops FP4 with Exactol for 20 minutes I'd agitate for the first minute, then 30 seconds at 7 minutes and another 30 seconds at 14 minutes before ending at 20 minutes. Thus strategy can be used with Rodinal too as well as HC110/Ilfotec HC (1+120) and others.
In my experience Rodinal, with normal development, gives less than box speed but with stand I'd start my tests with box. Check your shadow detail and adjust if you'd like more or less. You'll know what you like.
