RO9 Rodinal film Develper

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+10 will develop ortho film.

• 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? 

Four Film Positive results

Printing

Figure 1

Before any of my negatives see the enlargers negative carrier they all get contact printed, for me this is the first indication of how they may print when enlarged and for some the only time they become a positive. It also serves as a reference.

The contact prints for the Adox and Rollei show under development, to what extent will only become clear when the test strips are produced. The Fomapan 100 and the FP4+ show as well toned. In the case of Ilfords FP4+ it may be over developed.

Once more I step into the the red world of the darkroom and the smell of chemicals. Only there are none! The developer, stop and fix need to be mixed a fresh. This is due to a problem with the fix turning the slot of the Nova processor black. Still not completely sure why!

   

Figure 2

 I set the light boxes height on the enlarger so it will  generate a print 9”x 12” in size. This means the the 6x6  negatives are going to be brutally cropped; maybe that  should be less dramatic and say 'creatively cropped' to  fit  a landscape format but also serves to increase the  magnification.

 I have set the enlarging lens to F8. All the negatives  will be exposed at this setting, it allows a comparison  to be made as to how over or under developed they  maybe with each other. In the past when F8 is set I  find that it gives me a time in the region of 30+  seconds exposure time. Which for me is about average.

Figure 3

I have set grade two and a half to start with, if this proves to be to hard I'll drop it to two. The paper being used is silverproof matt limited grade paper. Being limited does not mean it has not got a full range of tones. It also provides a certain look to the prints that I like.

The first negatives to be exposed are the Fomapan 100. Looking down the focus finder the film  has a regular fine grain making it quite easy to get it pin sharp. The test strips for these negatives are indicating an exposure of twenty one seconds. The picture of the  woods (Fg1) was to hard for the 2.5 grade I set, so reduced it to 2 for the second exposure. Figure 2  the shadow of the tree reflected in the  puddle. Printed straight, was a little flat, so I printed it a second time at grade 2 but burnt in (added exposure)  to the areas around the puddle to lift the puddle area.

Figure 4

Figure 5

The next negatives to be exposed were from the Adox film. Looking down the focus finder to sharpen these negatives brought a smile  as it looked like someone had gone mad and splattered the grain on by flicking a brush. This may have been the result of under development. The test strips were also saying that the negatives were thin, suggesting an exposure of ten seconds, half that of the Fomapan. The two negatives from the Adox film are the complete opposites to each other. The fence post picture (Fg 3) had no detail I could see in the shadow when held up to the light. So when it was being exposed  I dodged the shadow area for a couple of second to stop it blacking right out.  Once it had dried I was surprised to see lots of detail. The two tree picture (Fg 4) was always going to be a landscape crop as there was to much foreground in the negative. It also looked the best picture negative wise.

Figure 6

The Rollei 400s was up next I had trouble picking two negatives that I could see enough of to print. These negatives were thinner than the Adox with some of the frames not showing at all. When looking  through the focus finder at the grain it revealed it to be patchy and shows up on the prints as white blotches. Lack of  proper development is evident maybe?. The picture of the rain on the window (Fg5) was a difficult print to get right.  Keeping the detail, what there is of it, of the door handle and leaf on the left. It was down to six seconds of exposure. The cat (Fg6) picture was the same six seconds but shows up the blotchy grain more. If I had shut the enlarging lens down to F11 or F16 I would have had more time to manipulate how the pictures looked by dodging and burning.

The last negatives to be worked on were the FP4+. Looking down the focus

Figure 7

finder it displayed a fine regular pattern I have come to expect from this film when developed in ID11. I had been looking forward to printing them but was thrown when the test strip revealed that a thirty second exposure was no where near enough. A further two tests revealed a time in the region of fifty seconds. You could say they were the best developed or over developed depending how you look at things. I printed an number of negatives from this film. I was really taken by the smooth tones of the pictures and the intensity of the sky. It was a bright, warm cloud less day. The prints show what a great morning it was at the bridge.  Figure seven showing the superstructure of the bridge gives a good indication as how good the sky was and Figure eight gives a good idea of how strong the sun was. Both pictures were printed at grade two but could quite easily have taken a softer grade.

Figure 8

Conclusion:

I am disappointed that the Rollei 400 was not developed correctly, I know it can produce some very smooth well toned negatives which would have lead to some great prints. As for Adox film, I am coming to the conclusion that we do not mix as this is the second time it has failed to present a good set of neg's. The Fomapan 100 classic was a surprise, if you are looking for a substitute for FP4+ then you will not go far wrong with this emulsion in my opinion. I have noticed that it is slightly more grainy than the FP4+ if you have to burn in the high lights heavily. I use both these films regularly now in rotation as their characteristics are almost identical.

Links to others from series in case you missed them.

Four film

Four film What developed

Four film how well did they develop.

Film development.

It has taken quite a time to reach this point. There have been numerous interruptions, not all of them good, but the results are in and there are some surprises.

The different makes side by side

All the films are 120 format and 6x6 negative size. They were exposed at box speed and developed in the same way with the same thirty month old batch of stock ID11. When I checked the date I was Shocked. It did explain the slightly wheat looking tone to the developer. To be honest I did not give a second thought as to whether it would work or not. The developer was diluted 1+1 and used only once at a temp 20c, No pre-soak was used. All inverted for the first thirty seconds this is equal to twelve inversions and then four inversions every minute this is equal to ten seconds. Then stopped, fixed and washed as normal.

FP4+ negs

I chose to develop the FP4+ first. This is the film all the others are going to be judged against, so there was no pressure to get the development spot on. The suggested time by the manufacturers is eleven minutes, but I find my negatives tend to be a bit thin so process for fourteen minutes. While the negatives were drying I looked over them to see how well they had turned out. I was surprised to find they are some of the best negatives I have produced. Let's hope I can keep this standard up for the rest.

Rollie 400s negs

The next film to be loaded into the developing tank was the Rollei 400s. This did not have a very auspicious start after loading the film into the back of the camera. I had mistaken the noise it was making for the film coming off the spool. I am so used to the sound FP4+makes when being wound on. I checked to see if it was OK in a blacked out darkroom and it was. This lead to four frames being lost. The suggested development time for this film in ID11 is eleven minutes. I must say I had my doubts but developed it for the said time anyway. Need I say they look thin; will have see how well they print!

Fomapan 100 negs

The five litre can of ID11 is getting very close to being used up and the developer is getting darker in colour each time I use it, could be a close run thing as to whether there is enough to do two more films. Next into the soup was the Fomapan classic exposed at 100 ISO. The suggested development time for this speed is eight to ten minutes. This is another film I have no previous knowledge of, so which is it 8,9 or 10 minutes?. With the thin looking Rollei negs at the front of my mind I've chosen ten minutes I feel it may produce better results and it did. My calculated gamble paid off this time. Producing the density of negative I like and very close to the FP4+ results.

Adox chs negs

The last one to meet the spiral was the Adox CHS exposed at 100 ISO. The suggested time for ID11 at this speed is 7.5 minutes. I took no notice of this time at all. Boyd by the results of the Fomapan I pushed the time to ten minutes. Where did this time come from? The previous results indicated that a longer development time would produce denser negatives so I decided to do the same for this. Was I right? NO! I should have gone longer. These are the thinnest negatives of the lot. Again, will have to see how they print.

Experience and knowledge has played it's part in the development of the Fomapan, 400s and Adox but even so the later two's results are 'off' by my standard. The times suggested for developing the films are from a trusted source. So I am a little disappointed that they did not turn out better than they did. Having said that it maybe the developer losing its potency as I start to scrape the bottom of the bottle. It is, to a certain extent, a gamble when using old material, combined with ones I have not used before. All is not lost, it just means that the thinner negatives will be a bit more of a challenge to print properly.

How are they going to print?

Finally the Id11 ran out before I had a chance to do another roll of the 400s. If I had, I would have extended the time by three minutes. With the Adox I would have increased the time by five minutes.

Four Film

The Plan.

This is the first time I have four different manufactures of black and white film in 120 format in stock. To mark the occasion I'm going to compare them to see if there is a noticeable difference between them. This comparison is not about which is the best film to use but to do with creativity and what each emulsion may bring to the party. Choosing a film in the first place is very subjective, you can ask as many questions as you like and look at loads of pictures that are the product of it's exposure but you will not truly know how it looks until you use it for yourself. FP4 was the first roll of film I chose to use and has remained my favorite ever since. At the time it was a close run thing with Kodak's offerings.

The protagonists are, of course Ilfords FP4+, Fomapan classic 100, Adox CHS 100 and Rollei retro 400s.

FP4+ has been the main stay of my median format work and therefore I know how to get the best out of it. The Rollei 400s and Fomapan classic are the two out of the four that are unknown quantities when it come to exposure and development. So to a certain extent the results will also have a first impressions flavour. Not always the best way to judge a product. I have used the Adox before in 35 mm format so I have an idea what to expect and in that case was not favourable but I will not let that taint the use of its bigger brother. I am also aware when loading Adox film it needs subdued lighting as it fogs easily in bright conditions. The Fomapan classic when processed with certain combinations of fix and developer can be susceptible to pinholes appearing in the emulsion but then I have had this with FP4+ in the past.

All the pictures will be made on a Bronica SQAi. I will not be replicating the same twelve views across all the films. I prefer to make pictures when the opportunity arises. They will all be exposed at box speed and developed in ID11 and processed as normal, then printed on an RC paper that will be chosen at the time of printing. I decided to keep things simple and use materials that I have a good understanding of, making it easier to tell how well the two unknown films have been exposed and developed.

All we need now are the exposed and developed film. The links below will take you to the follow up posts.



The links below are the follow ups to this post.
The developed film

The prints

Dogs Dinner.

Well not quite, a dogs water bowl! There is no chance of it falling in his dinner because his head is in the bowl before it hits the floor. The film was more likely to become a chew.

I noticed that two film containers were sitting on the kitchen table. Thinking they were empty I picked them up to throw away, to discover that they were not. I opened one and out dropped a roll of exposed colour film. Butter fingers here managed to drop the roll of film! The consequence of these finger fumbling, was splash! straight into the dogs water bowl. My wife said that she had not seen me move that fast since my superman days. I need reminding, what superman days?

After a bit of dancing around to shake the water out, it was off to the local supermarket for development. An outlet we had not tried before. The film was also long out of date - nearly a decade. If it had not been for the fact I was on my way out I would have blacked out the darkroom and removed the film for drying. These things always happen when you're short of time.

As it turns out the water had destroyed nearly half the frames on a film of twenty four. The up shot of this was we only had to pay half the normal fee. There was also colour shift on some of the prints. This I put down to the water damage.

Am I disappointed? No! Not really, but I am with myself for the butter fingers, but not with the results we have, as neither of us could remember who, what, when or which camera was used in the first place. The big disappointment is with the quality of the processing and paper used. 

A mistake comes good

Developed normally

In a recent chat I had with another photographer, there was a lamenting the fact that he had not noticed a problem with his new pinhole camera; well not the camera but a bit of kit he was using with it. He is not the only one not to notice the little tell tail signs that things are not going well. I had the same sort of thing with the lith 200 process I was trying out for the first time. It was not until I started to use different makes of paper that the fault struck me. Up to that point I thought it was part of the process. It turned out that the box of Kentmere paper had been light contaminated (fogged),but when I could not remember.  At this realization two things crossed my mind, what a waste of a box of paper and dam! it is not a peculiarity of the process.

lith 200 Kentmere paper

I changed to a different paper and continued to produce prints. Using the

negatives I had selected for the trial with the lith 200. While I was doing this I had the idea that maybe the fogged paper could be used to creative affect. I chose some of the negs that may lend themselves to this and processed them accordingly. As the first result appeared in the developer, I started to question this creative wisdom as it looked rubbish, but then my perception changed when the photograph of the bottles on the window sill appeared. It did not look out of place, in fact it added to it a sort of early twentieth century feel. Maybe my idea wasn't such a bad one after all!.

lith 200 Forma paper

What I'm getting at is just because it has gone wrong there is no need to throw the baby out with the water so to speak! With a little lateral thinking creatively you can turn things round. Some of you may think I'm talking a load of rubbish ( I'm being polite) but it is surprising how often a mistake can come good.

lith 200 Kentmere paper

The most popular posts of 2013.

William Henry fox Talbot 

These are the ten most popular posts on this site for 2013. In some cases not the best written but then who sets out to write a bad article. I compare it to making pictures, I go out with the intention of producing my best work. I chose those pictures that meet that criterion and share them with you. Then the choice is yours and that means you may not agree.

Of the hundred and fifty or so posts on the blog the following are the most visited making them the most popular.

1. Fox Talbot a short history.
2. Darkroom layout.
3. Preparing the pinhole camera for use.
4. Basic split grade printing.
5. Choosing an enlarger.
6. Print washing.
7. Test results for Agfa APX 100.
8. Fuji GW 690111 overview/review.
9. Dryside of the darkroom.
10. Keeping your negatives safe.

Easy Lith 200 Results.

This is my follow on post explaining what happened and how it was done. Not everything went according to plan, but more about that later.

Being in a fortunate position of owning a second slot processor I decided to set this at 26 degrees for the lith developer. I did not add stop or fix to the other slots but continued to use what was already available in the other slotty, keeping the temperature to 20 degrees. It is just as well I did as one of the papers emulsion became very soft.

I chose high contrast negatives that I had already printed. I looked back through my notes on how long each was exposed for and added one and half times more exposure to see how things worked. I chose to follow the instructions when it came to diluting part A and B at 2X 1+25+1000 mls water. (20 mls of each 40 mls in total in 1000 mls of water). The paper I chose to start with was Kentmere RC because it was the paper originally used with these negatives. All the prints were exposed to white light, no grades were set. I had no idea how they would turn out or what sort of tone would be produced. I used two other varitone RC papers to see which produced the best results with this mix of A and B.

Kentmere paper

This is the original Kentmere print exposed at grade zero and developed as normal.

Kentmere paper

This is the first print out of the easy lith on Kentmere paper. It took over three minutes for it to reach full development. A very faint out line of the picture started to show about 30-40 seconds in. It was difficult to see whether the print had toned or not with the red light on.

Foma 131 paper

Second print was on Foma 131 varitone. This took a full twelve minutes to develop fully and is what I had in mind as a lith look.

Ilford paper

Third print was on Ilford multigrade paper, I pulled the paper early because I thought it may go completely black.

Conclusions:

Not knowing what to expect from this process makes it difficult to be to critical with the results. One of my main mistakes was to treat this like a normal developer, I should have mixed the two parts separately so I could vary the strengths of each part to get a look that was in my opinion more lith like, this may have lead me to make changes to the amount of over exposure as well. The problem I think in these early stages of getting to grips with a new process such as this is there are a lot of variables to take into account. With more practice I suspect I will arrive at something more my taste.

A side affect of using the Lith process has shown up a weakness in what I considered a well vented darkroom. This is the first time I experienced a build up of fumes. Some updating needs to be carried out if I wish to continue printing using lith chemicals. After a bit of thought I feel it should be upgraded regardless!

Over all I am pleased with the outcome, for a first attempt. Others may not, but I would prefer to get as many of the mistakes out of the way now so I can concentrate on producing finer prints in the future.

Link back to first post easy lith 200

Easy lith 200 try out.

Easy lith 200

For the best part of a year I have been looking at a couple of bottles of Moesch easy Lith 200. It is there by mistake, having turned up in an order I placed and could not be bothered to send it back. After looking at the instructions again I decided to give it a go. How difficult could it be, after all it does say easy lith!? It is time to put 'easy' to the test.

What the instructions say:

The lith developer comes in two bottles marked A and B. the former has Hydrochinon and the latter Potassium Carbonate.

A and B can be diluted from 1+15 to 1+50 or any combination of the two. For example 1+25 = 40 ml of developer to 1000 ml of water. (20 ml A +20 ml B +1000 ml of water)

You should over expose your prints by 1 to 4 stops. The amount of over exposure and the strength of the developer influences the interaction between the two, e.g. with a small over exposure you should use a stronger developer of say 1 to 15 dilution, with a larger over exposure you should use a weaker developer of say 1 to 50 dilution.

Reaction when you add part A and B together

The image printed is dependent on the paper and exposure used i.e. lots of light plus weaker developer equals longer development time and greater colour.

If you are using variable contrast papers (VC) you should use white light as contrast is controlled by a combination of exposure and development time.

Short exposure equals higher contrast, underdeveloped middle tones and minimal colour.

Long exposure equals softer and colourful high lights.

It does not matter what combination of exposure or dilution you use it can take between four to twelve minutes for the image to appear whether RC or FB paper is being used. When in the developer it is recommended that the print is agitated continuously and that the emulsion side should not come into contact with the surface of the tray as it will damage it.

The water added in this case was at 26 degrees.
as you can see the milkiness disappears

The development time will extend from print to print as oxidation and bi products build up this can be compensated for by adding fresh developer to regenerate the working solution.

You can vary the relationship between part A and B. Different affects will be achieved by doing this. More part A equals more colour and harder prints but runs out of steam more quickly. More part B equals a softer print that appears more quickly relatively speaking and will produce more prints before it is exhausted.

It is suggested that by increasing the temperature of the developer to around 26 to 28 degrees centigrade it will reduce development times by 30 to 40% but by doing this it will soften the gelatin making it easier to damage.

The instructions above are not verbatim as they are translated from German but contain all the most important bits.

Some thing’s to think about before you start:

Oxidized lith developer after 24 hours

I would suggest where possible that if you are going to use the developer at the increased temperature of 26 degrees +, that it is done separately to the stop and fix which would normally be used at 20 degrees. This is really aimed at those of us who mainly use a slot processor for printing. By doing this you decrease the amount of fumes given off making the air more breathable. It also allows you to cool down the paper when it is moved to the stop therefore hardening the gelatin layer decreasing it's susceptibility to damage as you move it from bath to bath.

Collapsible bottle.

I added part A and B together when I mixed it up for the first time which I think was a mistake, it would be a better idea to dilute A and B separately as one exhausts more quickly than the other. The instructions do not state either way as to mixing the pair together.

It also states that the developer oxidizes quickly when used in a tray and that you should only mix enough for the session and when finished throw it all away. I found that if you pour the unused developer into collapsible bottles it will stay fresh for at least 48 hours. A slot processor slows the oxidation down but not to the extent that it will keep over night.

Because this post is getting a bit long my results will be posted separately. 

Results link

Angles of view with different lenses..

The diagram shows angle of view or angle of acceptance.

I have been looking back through my college notes and came across this series of pictures. I used the colour film you find in the pound/ budget shops. I have had no problems with the way the film has performed.

These pictures show how much of the view in front of the lens is depicted at the negative. As the focal length of the lens increases the angle of view reduces but the object size gets bigger. Therefore as you go up the focal range so the depth of field lessens.

View at 35mm

View at 50mm

View at 80mm

View at 135mm and the cold is getting to me.

View at 210mm

Ilfords new darkroom paper.

The old Multigrade 4 FB.

Ilford have launched an upgrade to its popular Multigrade 4 FB darkroom papers called Multigrade FB classic suggesting that this is the best light sensitive paper they have produced so far. If you judge it on sales alone and the fact it has sold out you maybe right or they could have simply under estimated it's popularity. It comes in gloss and matt surfaces offering greater sharpness, shorter development times and improved Max D – could this mean less time in the wash? Available at all the usual sizes. The classic paper has a white base tint, neutral image colour, good mid tone range and deep blacks. It has also been made more sensitive to traditional toning techniques but then I didn't find the original that difficult, even with toning developers. As part of the changes a cool tone FB paper has been introduced to complement the warm tone FB papers. This has crisp whites and nicely separated midtones. One of the surprising things about this paper is that Ilford has kept the price of the paper at multigrade 4 FB prices so far.

Technical sheets from Ilford:

FBClassic PDF

FBCool tone PDF

Paper flashing, Pre-flash examples.

I had not envisaged writing a second post on this subject so soon, but I thought I should have included some more examples with the first post.

Examples:

All the pictures that appear here have been printed on Kentmere VC RC at grade 0, developed in Ilford Multigrade and pre-flashed at one second increments with the enlarger light box at nearly full height and the lens shut down to F16.

Straight Grade Zero print

This picture is a straight grade zero print. When I took this picture I knew it would be a difficult scene to print.

Pre-flashed for one second

This picture has had a one second pre-flash the difference is quite subtle but you can just make out an increase in tone.

Two second flash

This picture has had a two second pre-flash and looks a bit washed out. The tonal range has increased in comparison to the last picture now making it necessary to add the grade five exposure to bring out the contrast and blacks.

Pre-flash test strip:

Exposure curve and Kentmere test strip
in second intervals

I have combined the pre-flash test strip for the Kentmere paper with the exposure curve to show how the test relates to the curve. Intervals 1 to 4 relate to the numbers on the curve.

Example two:

Grade zero print

This is also a grade zero print, when I took these shots I did not think the negatives would require pre-flashing.

Flashed for one second

This picture has had a one second pre-flash. If you compare the two carefully you can make out the subtle change in the sky which appears darker and the  additional tonal range in the details in the shadows.