Having
used up all the ID11 on the four film project and a backlog of
exposed film building up, I thought it was about time I break out
'my something for the weekend' developer. I have always kept a backup
developer for those occasions when I get caught out. This time I
reached for a small bottle of RO9/ Rodinal. This little bottle has
been on the shelf for years and in that time it has slowly turned to
a rich red brown colour. This single shot developers keeping
qualities are legendary. Silverprint has a forty year old bottle that
they use from time to time! It still produces good quality negatives,
so my 'youngster' should have no problems.
RO9/
Rodinal is not classed as a fine grain developer. It is famous for
it's contrast control and flexibility. It's high acutance produces
very sharp looking negatives a bit like sharpening a digital file
in Photoshop.
It's
character to a certain extent is governed by it's dilution.
For
example:
1+25
produces high contrast negatives and the most obvious grain.
1+50
Is the standard dilution producing crisp, normal contrast negatives,
with slightly more grain than a fine grain developer.
1+75
and 1+100 will render high contrast negatives as normal.
1+300
can be used with document type films.
This
is another developer I have not really used before so when I picked
a Fomapan 100 ISO 100 to try it out on there is a little first use
nerves! - How will the negatives look? How much is a little more
grain than a fine grain developer? Is the time suggested going to
produce well toned negatives? All questions that cannot be properly
answered until the film has been fixed. My mantra is “keep it
simple” and chose the standard dilution 1+50 as this comes close to
the development time I use for ID11, which means I can compare these
neg's against the ID11 negatives.
I
used my long standing agitation method, although on the bottle it
gives a different one. Agitate for the first thirty seconds and then
tilt the tank at thirty second intervals.
I
have used this developer with FP4+,Fomapan 100 and the Rollei 400s
and again I'm having trouble with the latter. The other two have
presented nicely toned negatives that have been easy to print. They
are slightly more grainy than the ID11 negatives I am use to. But you
would not think so when you look at the prints, I'm hard pressed to
see a difference when comparing them side by side.
The
pictures that appear with this article have been scanned from 9 x 12
prints produced on Kentmere variable contrast paper RC. I have found
that grade two works better with these negatives than my usual
grade three. This maybe down to its contrast controlling attributes.
I have also used a couple of negative with the split grade method and
again no appreciable difference. I do all my test prints on RC papers
and then do my final prints on FB papers. Here again there has been
no sign’s of increased grain.
All
the pictures were developed in a mature Ilford multigrade developer -
by mature I mean at least a month old, that has been replenished
once or twice. I find that the prints take on a warmer tone than those
first produced in the developer when fresh. It also takes longer for
the first signs of the print to appear when fresh, about ten or so
seconds and as it matures twenty seconds or so. This is not a method
for the faint hearted as it can deplete very quickly in a matter of
one print to the next. I have been caught out and ended up with a
print that does not fully develop.
Overall
I am very pleased with the negatives RO 9 presents. Yes they are more
grainy but that does not translate to the final print. While I was
looking into the use of RO9 Rodinal I came across a gentleman that
has indicated that the original Rodinal could be used as a print
developer and it was the exception to the rule in this respect. Does anyone know differently?
I
don't know about you but over the years I have found no matter
how careful I am setting the printing paper in the easel before
exposure, it can still come out wrong. I'm talking about making sure the the picture is parallel to the sides of the paper. It
is something we all have to deal with at some point. The problem
being you can not tell this until the paper has been processed by
which time it is to late.
This
means that the paper has to be trimmed true again. To allow for this
I have increased the margins around the printed area and even the
size of the paper. Which I think is a waste as I would prefer to use
the whole sheet to print on. But aesthetically speaking I think the
margin around the picture adds to the overall effect and stops finger marks getting on the image. Which leads on
to another skill that needs to be mastered, the art of trimming your
print parallel. At one time it did not matter what I did I could not
get it right, that is until a friend introduced me to the cut edge
principle. This is where you use the freshly trimmed edge as your
straight edge for the next cut and so on round the print. Wow! what a
difference it has made over the years.
