That's what I was thinking until I developed it in a tank. Maybe it has something to do with the volume of chemistry? Not sure.

@@atticdarkroom This was my thought too - the water helps it have more "effective surface area" or whatever compared to undiluted syrup. I wonder if the extra/better agitation you get with the film on a spool and in a tank was just better at overcoming the viscosity problem than tray development was capable of. Dunno though, just taking shots in the dark. Next video is undiluted Rodinal Trichrome I assume? Edit: oh jeez you beat me to my own Trichrome joke. This is what I get for commenting at 7:28.

@@atticdarkroom rrodinal should be an inhibiting developer if I remember correctly, as in, as it develops film the highly developed parts start to get hindered by the already developed silver (o maybe some chemical component, or both), as it starts to slow the reaction between the rest of undeveloped silver and developer. this helps developement times be longer (its sometimes better to go long, as it gives more control and safety), and the developed film has more grayscales, not just black and white. edit: this is also why the big roll got fried, i think. because more agitation and developer means the exhausted developer gets swished away more, and uninhibited developer gets in contact with the film, making for much stronger developer than sitting in a tray... sometimes developers get differrent times for machines or dipping or tray. I do wonder what iso could be got if using delta 3200, orr tmax3200 and long dev times tho. as its iso1000 at the start, with some light and a good lens, might get something up to 12800 or 25000sth...

Having found myself wondering why we use 70% ethanol for disinfectant I actually found the reason given for it in an old cell culture textbook was that the added water slows down how fast it evaporates when it's sprayed on surfaces, so it has more time to disinfect. Not really relevant but just thought I'd share as I've heard a bunch of different reasons given for it but that one seems the most sensible to me.

I was just thinking that

🤔

I think you’ll need a Jobo for that

@@janmelantu7490 At 1+1000, you would be well within stand development territory, so just letting it sit for a few days without agitations would probably work fine.

Yeah but I believe one roll of 35mm film uses about 3ml of rodinal to develop. This means that at 1:1000 you would need 3 liters of water to get the minimum amount of rodinal for one roll of 35mm film. Oh and you need that amount of solution in the tank for every roll so for 2 rolls you would need 6 liters in one tank.

I remember once that a famous photographer (dunno their name) sometimes developed their films on 1+1000 Rodinal and just puts it in their fridge for a week. Just so we know, the rule of thumb for Rodinal development is that 4 mL is the least amount of stock Rodinal that you need to use when developing one roll of 35mm or one roll of 120 film (for 1+100 that means 4 mL Rodinal for 400 mL water).

That is an incredible idea. Hmmmm....

@@atticdarkroom This is like when they raced a person against a horse or something ...

Get a wet mount negative holder carrier. Problem solved.

You'd be surprised how often that happens.

Someone within those 150 years has probably tried it too but now someone has done it and posted the results on the internet.

I was surprised it actually worked at all. Honestly I was happy with the crappy tray development results. This was just the cherry on top.

haha

That's wild. It never occurred to me that such fast development actually had any utility. Now I know!

@@atticdarkroom It's mentioned in an article about a pretty insane lens, the Canon 300mm 1.8. If you search for that lens you'll find the article but I'll copy the relevant bit here: "The lens is used for “strip, or slit, photography,” Anderson tells PetaPixel. “With this system we can record up to 10,000 ‘strips’ or lines per second. That is how I came to work with this lens. I started doing photo finishes in 1986.” “Back then it was done with filmstrip or timing negative film,” he continues. “I would develop immediately after the race it would take about 8 seconds using dektol at 140 degrees and dip and dunk by hand. When digital took over film things became so much more advanced and so did the lenses.”"

That was an interesting read. And I thought the 200mm f1.8 was a monster. Photo finish photography is something I never even thought about. The whole process sounds so interesting. I gotta look into it. Thanks!

@@ronen_khazin glad to see you beat me here Also this proves it IS possible to use pure rodinal in a dip & dunk processor

@@Purp1eP3nguinZ oh hey! Yeah totally possible but you gotta have some serious pumps to replenish it. That, or you can add sodium sulfite or something like that but then that'll radically change the activity curve, but I think if you're doing 11 second dev, that won't be a massive change.

Thank you. I really appreciate it!

That's a variable I haven't considered. It might be worth revisiting at another time.

That's what I was leaning towards too. Then it just worked. I'm still confused.

Though 4-aminophenol (Rodinal's active compound) is slightly acidic, Rodinal is basic like all developers (thanks to the presence of potassium or sodium hydroxide, the latter is basically lye or drain cleaner).

Hey there Grandpa Peter! Nice to see you!

I've barely touched cinema film. I need to pick up a proper ECN2 kit and mess around with it.

Rodinal went from one of the most economical developers to one of the most expensive very quickly.

@@atticdarkroom for science. Hope more people find your channel, for me, it satisfies more than curiosity.

D76 is like $10 a bag at B&H. Been using it for 12 years exclusively.

I've messed around with brushing on developer, but never with undiluted Rodinal. That's a good idea.

@@atticdarkroom If you used something like orthochromatic 4x5 film you could probably do it by eye a certain amount if you worked under safelight. I guess 120 would work too, but 4x5 would make it easier to see what you're doing, and work on one image at a time. Might have to investigate further

I have access to a Nortisu S-1800 which makes scanning bread-dead simple. Unfortunately accessible for everybody because those machines are about the same price as a nice used car. Otherwise I scan all my 35mm on a Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 and everything else on a Epson V800.

Ilford HP5

That's a good idea. Times like this makes me wish I was a mechanical engineer.

I'm always open to suggestions. I've been meaning to do a deeper dive on Kodak cinema film, and that's one more thing I can add to the list. Thanks!

Oh god, I can't imagine what the development time ISO 5 would be.

@@atticdarkroom just a single dunk then stop & fix

Hmm, now I wonder if I can develop in drain cleaner.

@@atticdarkroom If you mash Red Devil Lye with acetaminophen and sodium sulfite, yes. Then it is called Parodinal. Developed when Rodinal was unavailable for a year or two.

Oh that sounds more legit. I was thinking about using Draino.

I don't remember exactly where, but I think it was around Boise-Eliot.

I saw the bridge and like, wait a minute!

More than I'd like that's for sure.

That sounds like a fun idea. Medium format was always the next logical step, but I never considered trying it with large format.

Not yet, it's definitely something I need to try.

@@atticdarkroom waiting for this.😆

Not yet, but it's something I've been meaning to do for a while.

@@atticdarkroom i really look forward to the video!

Dektol keeps being brought up by a number of people. I've never used it before but after reading up on it I'm definitely interested.

Why not both?

Yep. Used it a few weeks back. Still works.

@@atticdarkroom awesome!

I didn't even know there was a difference. I'll definitely correct that moving forward. Thanks.

@@atticdarkroom not a big difference at 1+100 but at 1+25 it can make quite the difference.

Can you have negative development times?

The math checks out. Can't argue with that.