Xtol vs. Rodinal.
Gabriel Marro
But I do use Rodinal and HC-110. Very diferent developers but
no one is better than the other, IMHO.
I use Rodinal 1+100, and dilution B for HC-100. Both with HP5+
film, Rodinal when pulling and HC110 when pushing it. Results are
similar but the grain. I prefer the grain produced by Rodinal becouse
is pretty sharp while the grain made by the other looks like unfocus.
Try to print a rodinal developed negative and touch the len to
unfocus a little the grain while mantaining the picture sharp, the
result is like you have used other developer.
I am new in the darkroom, and so I can be very wrong....
Gabriel
PS: Me acabo de dar cuenta de que estoy contestando en Inglés
a alguien español..... con lo que me cuesta!! un saludo.
Monica y Pedro escribió en mensaje
<01be883f$46174580$LocalHost@monica-riveiro>...
>KC <gp...@lycosmail.com> wrote in article <7f7tdm$jvd$1...@news.flashnet.it>...
>> A baby and an old developer ?
>> What do you think about ?
>> Who win ?
>> Maybe the old man Rodinal !
>>
>
> From my point of view ( and my experience) Xtol has got nothing to do with
>Rodinal. While the first is an excellent developer which produces fine
>detailed grain and a good range of grey tones I consider the second gives
>poor results. But that is only my opinion behind some experience with both
>developers. Maybe someone doesn't fully agree with me.
>
> I first used Rodinal when I took up photography, nine years ago. Now my
>preferences in film developers are led to HC 110, TMax, Microphen ( which i
>am not entirely satisfied with ) and X-tol.
>
> Other points of views?
>
>Monica Riveiro.
>Asturias, Spain.
>
KC
What do you think about ?
Who win ?
Maybe the old man Rodinal !
Thanks for any suggestion.
Karl.
Monica y Pedro
KC <gp...@lycosmail.com> wrote in article <7f7tdm$jvd$1...@news.flashnet.it>...
> A baby and an old developer ?
> What do you think about ?
> Who win ?
> Maybe the old man Rodinal !
>
From my point of view ( and my experience) Xtol has got nothing to do with
Rodinal. While the first is an excellent developer which produces fine
detailed grain and a good range of grey tones I consider the second gives
poor results. But that is only my opinion behind some experience with both
developers. Maybe someone doesn't fully agree with me.
I first used Rodinal when I took up photography, nine years ago. Now my
preferences in film developers are led to HC 110, TMax, Microphen (which I
am not entirely satisfied with) and X-tol.
Monica y Pedro
> A baby and an old developer ?
> What do you think about ?
> Who win ?
> Maybe the old man Rodinal !
>
From my point of view ( and my experience) Xtol has got nothing to do with
Rodinal. While the first is an excellent developer which produces fine
detailed grain and a good range of grey tones I consider the second gives
poor results. But that is only my opinion behind some experience with both
developers. Maybe someone doesn't fully agree with me.
I first used Rodinal when I took up photography, nine years ago. Now my
preferences in film developers are led to HC 110, TMax, Microphen ( which i
am not entirely satisfied with ) and X-tol.
lemonade
<moni...@las.es> wrote:
> From my point of view ( and my experience) Xtol has got nothing
to do with
> Rodinal. While the first is an excellent developer which produces fine
This is all quite true.
>
I consider the second gives
> poor results.
It has to be used right on the right films. Try it diluted between 1:50 and
1:100 on any of Agfa 25, 100; Plus-X, Verichrome Pan; Pan F, FP4, etc.
It is not a fine grain developer, but with these films, it doesn't matter.
You gain instead a very long tonal scale, along with economy and
convenience.
--
Due to the intolerable volume of spam these days, I no longer supply a
valid email address.
Monica y Pedro
> I use Rodinal 1+100, and dilution B for HC-100. Both with HP5+
> film, Rodinal when pulling and HC110 when pushing it.
I usually use HC110 for pushing too. I have been doing it with the film
HP5+ with very good results. On the other hand, I have been taking some
pictures in a bar with the HP5+ rated at 1600 and I developed it with
Microphen (Someone told me that it was the perfect developer for pushing)
but the results were unsatisfactory for me. Rather light negs, at first
sight. Although when i printed the negs. the copies were not so bad. But
such light negs. scared me at first. I consider HC110 an extraordinary
developer which gives fine grain.
Results are
> similar but the grain. I prefer the grain produced by Rodinal becouse
> is pretty sharp while the grain made by the other looks like unfocus.
Do you really think so? Does Rodinal give sharp grain??
> I am new in the darkroom, and so I can be very wrong....
Well.. i am not so new... but every day that passes bye the more a read
the more a learn. And that is the good thing in photography, there are no
limits. Every day you learn something new about products or techniques.
>
> Gabriel
>
> PS: Me acabo de dar cuenta de que estoy contestando en Inglés
> a alguien español..... con lo que me cuesta!! un saludo.
Hombre.. esta es una lista de news en ingles, no seria muy correcto
escribir en español ya que nadie nos entenderia, o casi nadie. Pero valga
para mandarte a ti otro saludo en español!!!
un cordial saludo.
--
Monica Riveiro
Asturias, Spain.
MONI...@santandersupernet.com
Monica y Pedro
Lemonade wrote.
> It has to be used right on the right films. Try it diluted between 1:50
and
> 1:100 on any of Agfa 25, 100; Plus-X, Verichrome Pan; Pan F, FP4, etc.
Thank you.. i will try it. Some time ago I used some rolls of Agfa 25 for
landscape photography and I developed them with Neofin Rot by Tetenal. The
results were excellent and the grain was tiny. I am going to use FP4 next
week and I will develop it with Rodinal following your advice...
Greetings.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> Lemonade wrote.
>
> > [Rodinal] has to be used right on the right films. Try it diluted
> > between 1:50 and 1:100 on any of Agfa 25, 100; Plus-X, Verichrome
> > Pan; Pan F, FP4, etc.
>
> Thank you.. i will try it. Some time ago I used some rolls of Agfa 25
> for landscape photography and I developed them with Neofin Rot by
> Tetenal. The results were excellent and the grain was tiny. I am
> going to use FP4 next week and I will develop it with Rodinal
> following your advice...
If tiny grain is the result you are looking for then Rodinal, at any
dilution, is the wrong developer.
May I recommend Microdol-X at 1:3 for tiny grain and no loss in
resolution or gradation. Microdol-X and TMax 100 can approach Tech Pan
in quality.
Fine grain films work best with fine grain developers. Rodinal, IMHO,
works best with TMax 3200, where the definition it imparts to the
already huge grain makes the grain somehow more acceptable.
I believe the European equivalent of Microdol is Microphen, though I
could be mistaken, and probably am (Perceptol, Atomal??). The original
Microdol was D-23 with salt, of all things. Microdol-X is the current
product with the addition of something for the prevention of dichoric
fog.
There is a common perception that Microdol results in 'mushy'
photographs. Not so! You just need a negative that is truly in focus.
Sharp grain gives the impression that the picture was in focus, when it
was not - only the grain was in focus when the print is made.
For well focused negatives you need either an apochromatic lens or take
the picture through a bandpass filter, such as a 25A. Since only a
narrow portion of the spectrum is used in exposing the negative the lens
becomes apochromatic for free! This is what I do with my 35mm Nikons
since I can not get apo lenses for them. For 4x5 I find an Apo Sironar
is just the trick.
Now, Tmax 100 shot with an Apo Sironar, tripod on bedrock, no wind
blowing, developed in Microdol-X 1:3 - that's a treat!
Recommended especially for mountains and cathedrals.
Nick Lindan
Steve1chsn
>Microdol-X and TMax 100 can approach Tech Pan
>in quality.
Hmmm...is this true? I haven't used this stuff but I am using Xtol....do you
know how it compares?
**** steve ****
Richard Knoppow
Microdol-X will deliver very fine grain with T-Max 100. It should be
used at full strength for the finest grain. The price is rather low
acutance. When diluted 1:3 Microdol starts to have edge effects which
increase its acutance but at the price of grain. At 1:3 its not really
finer grained than D-76. The dilution reduces the solvent effect of
the sulfite which is partially responsible for the fine grain.
Xtol probably gives the best combination of fine grain and
sharpness.
Ilford Microphen is very similar to D-76 with Phenidone substituted
for the Metol. Its performance is similar to D-76 with somewhat
higher film speed.
Kodak D-25 is probably the closest published formula to Microdol-X
but an examination of the MSDS shows it is not identical. The Sodium
Chloride in Microdol-X is likely a restrainer.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Paul Friedman
>
> Lemonade wrote.
>
> and
> > 1:100 on any of Agfa 25, 100; Plus-X, Verichrome Pan; Pan F, FP4, etc.
>
> Thank you.. i will try it. Some time ago I used some rolls of Agfa 25 for
> landscape photography and I developed them with Neofin Rot by Tetenal. The
> results were excellent and the grain was tiny. I am going to use FP4 next
> week and I will develop it with Rodinal following your advice...
>
>
Neofin (both versions) is a high acutance developer. The grain will
be there, but it is SHARP. That makes it an excellent choice for
APX25 (as you descovered). Rodinal won't give you quite the acutance,
but its tonality is "special" -- noting else produces the same
results.
With most developers -- Xtol and Rodinal included -- the more
you dilute it, the more acutance you get. Xtol has the interesting
property of producing higher speed as it is diluted (that's real
speed, by the way, not just in the highlights).
Paul Friedman
> dilution, is the wrong developer.
>
> May I recommend Microdol-X at 1:3 for tiny grain and no loss in
> in quality.
>
> works best with TMax 3200, where the definition it imparts to the
> already huge grain makes the grain somehow more acceptable.
>
> I believe the European equivalent of Microdol is Microphen, though I
> could be mistaken, and probably am (Perceptol, Atomal??). The original
> Microdol was D-23 with salt, of all things. Microdol-X is the current
> product with the addition of something for the prevention of dichoric
> fog.
>
> There is a common perception that Microdol results in 'mushy'
> photographs. Not so! You just need a negative that is truly in focus.
> Sharp grain gives the impression that the picture was in focus, when it
> was not - only the grain was in focus when the print is made.
>
> For well focused negatives you need either an apochromatic lens or take
> the picture through a bandpass filter, such as a 25A. Since only a
> narrow portion of the spectrum is used in exposing the negative the lens
> becomes apochromatic for free! This is what I do with my 35mm Nikons
> since I can not get apo lenses for them. For 4x5 I find an Apo Sironar
> is just the trick.
>
> Now, Tmax 100 shot with an Apo Sironar, tripod on bedrock, no wind
> blowing, developed in Microdol-X 1:3 - that's a treat!
>
> Recommended especially for mountains and cathedrals.
>
> Nick Lindan
Jut for the record, it's Perceptol, not Microphen (you were right
the second time <grin>) that is equivilent to Micridol.
What Microdol does NOT give you is acutance. The big problem with
minature film (aka 35mm) is that you need to give up something.
Microphen undiluted is at one end of the scale and FX-1 diluted
and used as a stand developer is at the other end. Good old D-76
is darn near in the middle (hence its popuarilty, I imagine).
No choice is either right or wrong. Much depends on the subject
(and what you are trying to "say" about same) and on personal taste.
ArtKramr
>From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" <noli...@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: 4/18/99 6:35 AM PST
>Monica y Pedro wrote:
>> Lemonade wrote.
>>
>> > [Rodinal] has to be used right on the right films. Try it diluted
>> > between 1:50 and 1:100 on any of Agfa 25, 100; Plus-X, Verichrome
>> > Pan; Pan F, FP4, etc.
>>
>> Thank you.. i will try it. Some time ago I used some rolls of Agfa 25
>> for landscape photography and I developed them with Neofin Rot by
>> Tetenal. The results were excellent and the grain was tiny. I am
>> going to use FP4 next week and I will develop it with Rodinal
>> following your advice...
>May I recommend Microdol-X at 1:3 for tiny grain and no loss in
>resolution or gradation. Microdol-X and TMax 100 can approach Tech Pan
>in quality.
>
But with a heavy loss in emulsion speed from 1 -2 stops.
Arthur Kramer
Las Vegas NV
ArtKramr
>Date: 4/18/99 11:30 AM PST
> Microdol-X will deliver very fine grain with T-Max 100. It should be
>used at full strength for the finest grain. The price is rather low
>acutance.
And a rather heavy loss of emulsion speed.
ArtKramr
>Date: 4/18/99 12:33 PM PST
>Neofin (both versions) is a high acutance developer. The grain will
>be there, but it is SHARP. That makes it an excellent choice for
>APX25 (as you descovered). Rodinal won't give you quite the acutance,
>
Nothing will match the acutance of Rodinol. Nothing. In fact acutance (knife
edge sharpness) is just about all Rodinol offers and is the reason for its
unique look.
Paul Friedman
>
> Nothing will match the acutance of Rodinol. Nothing. In fact acutance (knife
> edge sharpness) is just about all Rodinol offers and is the reason for its
> unique look.
>
Art, I suggest you try FX-1, FX-2, or Beutler's. Rodinal is on the
acutance side of things, but no tto the extent of those three.
Rodinal offers gradiation unlike other developers -- I suggest that is
another reason for its use.
xx
than D76 1:1 BUT definitely not as sharp a look.
Rick
In article <371a30fd...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
dick...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
>steve...@aol.com (Steve1chsn) wrote:
>
>>Nick wrote:
>>
>>>Microdol-X and TMax 100 can approach Tech Pan
>>>in quality.
>>
>>Hmmm...is this true? I haven't used this stuff but I am using
Xtol....do you
>>know how it compares?
>>
>> **** steve ****
>>
> Microdol-X will deliver very fine grain with T-Max 100. It should be
>used at full strength for the finest grain. The price is rather low
lemonade
<noli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Fine grain films work best with fine grain developers. Rodinal, IMHO,
> works best with TMax 3200, where the definition it imparts to the
> already huge grain makes the grain somehow more acceptable.
You can use Rodinal on grainy films if you like the ultra-grain effects.
Most people would consider it a special-purpose use.
On the other hand, I disagree with the view that fine grain films work best
with fine grain developers. The problem is that fine grain developers
compromise other aspects, such as acutance. But a film like APX25 or even
100 has tiny enough grain that even with Rodinal, grain just won't be a
problem, for the vast majority of uses. So then why bother with a
fine-grain developer? Use Rodinal instead at high dilution and reap the
other benefits.
lemonade
<MONI...@santandersupernet.com> wrote:
> results were excellent and the grain was tiny. I am going to use FP4 next
> week and I will develop it with Rodinal following your advice...
Do let us know how they turn out, along with what developing times and
dilutions you end up using. Good luck!