Digitaltruth Photo

Jim, use whatever dev works for *YOU*. Ignore the "experts" who say such-n-such dev doesn't work, or this-n-that dev isn't good for this. Do what *YOU* like!

I would like to point out that there is on going research to design newer, better and more environmentally friendly photo-chemistry. Such research should be supported and encouraged.

http://www.greenphotochemistry.com/

Jim Appleyard wrote:Jim, use whatever dev works for *YOU*. Ignore the "experts" who say such-n-such dev doesn't work, or this-n-that dev isn't good for this. Do what *YOU* like!

There are peceptible differences between developers, but careful tests and good technique are necessary to bring them out.

I couldn't agree more with Mr. Appleyard. I still try some exotic developers for special situations, but my main chemistry is the same I have used for the last 40 years. Once I found the "look" I wanted I stayed with it.
The only critic you have to please is the one spending the money, which is you.

I don't think you have given rodinal a fair chance here, I use it all the time at dilutions of 1/50 or even 1/100 If you have the patience rodinal will give you beautiful negs. and you will also be safe in the knowledge that your using one of the oldest developers around.

Kevin_r_obrien1 wrote:I don't think you have given rodinal a fair chance here, I use it all the time at dilutions of 1/50 or even 1/100 If you have the patience rodinal will give you beautiful negs. and you will also be safe in the knowledge that your using one of the oldest developers around.

One of the oldest and technologically most primitive, if that floats your boat. Rodinal is vastly inferior to many current products, which will give you more beautiful negs than Rodinal will.

I really don't agree, the richness and sharpness that rodinal produces when used properly is second to none in my opinion. It will be interesting to see where the new formula's stand in 50 years time and weather Rodinol is still here with us. Having said this its all down to opinion it's a bit like the chicken and the egg, Is Photography art? etc etc, thank goodness were not all alike eh!!

Is the Apple Mac better at developing film, or should I stick to my IBM PC clone?

Kevin_r_obrien1 wrote:I really don't agree, the richness and sharpness that rodinal produces when used properly is second to none in my opinion. It will be interesting to see where the new formula's stand in 50 years time and weather Rodinol is still here with us. Having said this its all down to opinion it's a bit like the chicken and the egg, Is Photography art? etc etc, thank goodness were not all alike eh!!

People who believe Rodinal is good have not critically evaluated other products in comparative trials. Paterson FX-39 is vastly superior to Rodinal in every way. Heck, D-76 1:1 is better than Rodinal in every way. I don't understand the persistence of Rodinal in the marketplace. It is simply an inferior product with a good, but undererved, reputation.

*sigh*

If you want a developer that:
1) Will never go bad.... or, more to the point, will never go so bad as to stop being able to develop negatives...
2) Develops negatives with the highest possible accutance, at the expense of actual resolution, sharpness, and fine grain.
3) Can be added to water like Vermooth to a dry martini and used as a developer.
4) Will give you a unique look that is evident even when you are looking at 4x5 prints.

... then Rodinal's for you.

Remember, Ornello. New Coke was superior in every way to Coke Classic.

Wirehead wrote:*sigh*

If you want a developer that:
1) Will never go bad.... or, more to the point, will never go so bad as to stop being able to develop negatives...
2) Develops negatives with the highest possible accutance, at the expense of actual resolution, sharpness, and fine grain.
3) Can be added to water like Vermooth to a dry martini and used as a developer.
4) Will give you a unique look that is evident even when you are looking at 4x5 prints.

... then Rodinal's for you.

Remember, Ornello. New Coke was superior in every way to Coke Classic.

1) Yes, it is long-lived. So is stone. So what?

2) No. There are sharper developers that give finer grain and better speed too.

3) So? Who cares?

5) Right. Golf-ball grain....

I can't wait until he criticizes Rembrandt's work by saying, "It could have better if he used brand 'X' brush".

People like this have probably never used Rodinal and couldn't tell a Rodinal print if it fell on them.

Jim Appleyard wrote:I can't wait until he criticizes Rembrandt's work by saying, "It could have better if he used brand 'X' brush".

People like this have probably never used Rodinal and couldn't tell a Rodinal print if it fell on them.

Oh, yes I have used it. Last time about 1969 or so. I discovered Paterson developers shortly thereafter and never used a drop of Rodinal again. Why should I? Acutol gave better speed, finer grain, better sharpness, and better tonality. FX-39 is better yet. There is no comparsion between FX-39 and Rodinal. None. FX-39 is vastly superior in every way possible.

Ornello wrote:FX-39 is better yet. There is no comparsion between FX-39 and Rodinal. None. FX-39 is vastly superior in every way possible.

Ornello, how is FX-39 packaged, transported, made into stock solution and then into working solution? What is its shelf life once the original container is opened? Is is able to be transported by air?

I was given a single bottle of Rodinal. I like its convenience.

I use a syringe to draw 6mL from the bottle and make that up to 300mL with water. I then put the Rodinal back in its carton in a cool dry place, and don't worry about it.

The only other developer I have been able to obtain recently is D-76. Messing with 415 grams powder, making that up to 3.8 litres of water and then worrying about oxidization, containers, shelf life etc is a pain.

Rodinal cannot be transported by air, if FX-39 can be, I'd like to give it a try.

I will have to agree with Ornello this time. Life of developer is not an issue with me, anyway. I have tried two bottles of rodinol, and could never get consistant results from roll to roll. D-76/ID-11 is always there, always works, and gives predictable results (assuming the user exposed his film correctly). I have had equally good results with Acufine. Paterson products are not available locally, so I can't comment on them. Let me make this comment. If one were to take ten rolls of film, the same subject matter, and develop them in ten different formulae, and enlarge them to 8X10, would anyone be able to tell the difference? The film and format would be, say, FP-4+ 120. 35mm to 8x10 would probably show more differentiation. But, overall, probably not enough difference to shake a stick at. I think Roger Hicks has alluded to this at APUG.
Enough for now. Have a good day in a darkroom.
Jim