Cheers, Rupert! That's a kind compliment indeed.

Thanks! Great to be back !!

Thank you, Dave!

This sounds great 👍

Great comment, Paul! Very helpful!!

Huge thank you for your kind comment, Matthew! I hope you enjoy everything that's coming up this year.

Great comment! Thank you, Gordon.

I'm very glad you like them, Fernando. This is how I learned many years ago.

Thank you for your comment! Very interesting. I shall try inetjoker's technique. Your experience with the minimum amount of Rodinal is valuable and I think it's a clever way of achieving thus minimum amount.

Thank you Ken!

Thank you!

Excellent 👍

Thank you, John.

Thank you for both the compliment and for buying my book! Fantastic!!

Enjoy!

Thanks, fruitless, and yes, of course, you gave me a blast from the past then!

Thanks so much, Dick. For an experienced Rodinal user to say that is precious to me. I'm humbled, sir! I have so many kind viewers that comment with such kindness. I'm very grateful.

Good choice 👍

Have fun!

Thanks 🙏 Everyone should have their favourite. I'm glad you like the 1+25. It's a short development time too if only 5 minutes at 20C.

I recommend trying PANF first using the method in my first video. It's beautiful. Lighting? Try any lighting and see what happens :)

Yes, I bet!

Awesome! I don't expect to hear from you for at least a month ;-) Best of luck and thank you!

@@PictorialPlanet oh i'm aiming for 3 hours at a pop 4 days a week. 8 and 9 hour printing sessions are for the young

Oh yes, I'm with you on that, Cecil.

Yes, close is often very good with certain developers. Enjoy your fine tuning!

You're welcome, Lau!

Good, enjoy my friend!

@@PictorialPlanet one more question,i make rodinal by using tylenol like dr.frkenstein,but i wonder is there another way to make rodinal ?

There is and I intend to make a video on that soon.

@@PictorialPlanet Can't wait to see :))) love you

Excellent!

"Printed in the darkroom", that's music to my ears :)

Thanks!

Thanks, Jonathan!

Thank you for your kind words! I use Ilford FB glossy usually although the new RC papers are very good too.

Excellent choice!

Thanks for your comment! I printed them all grade 3.

Watch parts 3 and 4 :)

Did you get the Bellini RDL, @Austinite333?

@@PictorialPlanet Actually that is what I used. Thanks for the recommendation.

Good way of putting it, a more classic look.

@@PictorialPlanet Have You tried HC-110 (semi) stand development? Would be fun to compare the results with Rodinal stand development...

I haven't tried that, any tips?

@@PictorialPlanet I tried HC 110 Semi stand 1+100 for 2 x 30 min with 30 sec agitation. To my eyes it seems HC 110 favours the midtones ie. less contrast but still very beautiful. Someone on KZfaq also tried semi stand dev where he mixed up HC 110 and Rodinal with good results.

Interesting, thank you for that. I need to try this with Hc110 (or Ilfotec HC)

That's good to hear. He knew his developers.

Edoardo, I think they are the same. There's some weird legal reason they can't use the name Rodinal.

@@PictorialPlanet Thank you very much. I suspected that was the case, but I also thought Adonal was the equivalent of Rodinal "spezial." Best wishes, E.

If you shoot 4x5 it will work in a hand tank (not a tray I don't think). But I would reduce development time to 20 mins and agitate for the first minute, then 20 seconds at 7 minutes and 20 seconds at 14 minutes. This should stop any chance of bromide drag. Adjust overall time to get the negative contrast and or density you want.

Thanks for the kind words, Peter! I have a chart on my website that might give you some ballpark figures and you'll see the relationship between the dilutions and times, especially if you look at the Schwalberh and Johnson times near the bottom.

The chart is at: www.pictorialplanet.com/advanced_photography/rodinal.html

Not sure what you mean by this comment. Are you referring to the Mackie acutance lines? Bromide drag is where the developer becomes locally heavy with bromide by-products (where there is a lot of development such as highlights) and slides down the film, slowing development in those areas where the heavy developer runs. It is undesirable and stopped by agitation.

@@PictorialPlanet Went back and refreshed my memory and Gibson was talking about it in the printing stage... he would agitate just a couple of times and then leave the print in the developer...

I think you'll like Rodinal with 6x6 negatives. Is a favourite of mine with my SL66 although now I mostly use DiXactol. I don't think I'll be reviewing XT3 because I review developers and other chemistry that you can make yourself. This is for the very same reason you describe, companies going bust and/or stopping production of one's favourite developer. It happen to me so many times I decided to stick with what I can make and I've never looked back. If it's helpful, I would highly recommend Crawley's FX55 if you like XTOL. It too is a vitamin C developer with a similar look to XTOL but sharper and comes with a nice boost in film speed. I have many videos on it including making your own. Another recommendation would be Mytol which I intend to cover in later videos. This was designed to be an XTOL clone. Keep watching to see that given the Pictorial Planet treatment.

It is possible that the 1+50 was slightly over developed but not so much to affect the grain so much. However, you make a good point that it's possible. What do you think of developing at 18c instead of 20c to reduce grain?

Hi John and thanks for your comment. Please look at my website under Advanced, Rodinal where you'll see some ideas. But mainly I'd like to ask you to look through my KZfaq videos and see how you make your own times for your films and developers. The massive dev chart has thousands of times but how were they found? Who added them, when and why? Are their results ok, good, or excellent? Do they match your thermometer, your graduate, your agitation technique, your process? Were they scanning, printing, or both? Who tested and vetted them before inclusion in the chart? But I know one must start somewhere. I started by using the Agfa times, from the instructions, back in the 1970s, and tested to get my own. Buy my book and you'll find more on all this. I offer times on my channel, website, and book as starting points for your own discovery. They'll get you on the right path from where you can begin drawing your life map of photography.

All timings I mention are at 20c. I too have used 2.5ml per film without incident. It's only recently I've been made aware of the 5ml per roll recommendation.

@@PictorialPlanet Another benefit of stand dev. is that with longer dev times temp becomes less critical.

Yes, I hope to demonstrate this in my next instalment on Rodinal. Should be fun!

Yes, that could be the glow and the reason you haven't experienced it. I'll add that I think there's an interesting contrast curve too, like an S-curve that you might use to tweak something in photoshop/Lightroom. I'm interested in your 3 minute sweet spot. Was that at 1+50? I suspect that would give lovely sharpness.

@@PictorialPlanet Yes, I originally discovered the three minute sweet spot with Parodinal 1:50, but I've found similar effects on film speed with D-23 replenished stock, HC-110 1+79 and 1+119, and Caffenol LC+C (a version for microfilm derived high contrast stocks like Copex Rapid and CMS 20). I don't have testing to compare sharpness with 1:50 and 3 minute agitation against the same dilution with conventional 30- or 60-second cycles, nor against other dilutions, however; I've barely ever used Parodinal at any other dilution because I found this sweet spot before I finished my first bottle of the stuff.

Hi Alan! No, they don't seem to work like that. Check out my website, under Advanced, Rodinal for some ideas of times.

@@PictorialPlanet Thanks, John. Very helpful info on your website. I will test, of course, but I have a good starting point now.

Hello Gaurav! Stand and semi-stand are in the next Rodinal video! Hold tight...

Stand development with high dilutions (with Rodinal or HC-110, as long as dilution puts normal process between 15 and 20 minutes) depends on local exhaustion to control contrast. Highlight areas with lots of silver to reduce will exhaust the developer faster than shadows with little silver reduction required. Agitation "resets the clock" on this local exhaustion, making contrast more or less linear with time, but if you agitate only after filling or once at halfway through development, you get maximum compensation. This reduces contrast, especially in the highlights (where exhaustion is most pronounced), compared to standard agitation schemes, making stand development for an hour very comparable in overall contrast to normal agitation for between 15 and 20 minutes in the same dilution. This phenomenon also broadens film latitude (especially for overexposure) by developing thinner areas more than denser ones, and similarly compensates for different film types or speeds in the same tank (which would normally have quite different development times). I would *not* recommend stand development for a low contrast scene shot on a low contrast film (like Tri-X or either of the 3200 speed tabular grain films), but it works very well for high contrast scenes shot on high contrast films like Pan F and most 100 speed conventional films (it has less effect on tabular grain).

@@SilntObsvr Thanks for those insights. With your explanation, I think I'm a lot clearer on the impact of agitation as a varible between normal and stand / semi-stand development.

Hi Robert and thanks for your comment. The 5ml per film is for 36 exposures 35mm or equiv. so you, with only ten or so frames, shouldn't worry too much. For instance , if you developed in a 1+100 dilution with 300 mls developer you'd only have 3ml concentrate but with only 10 or so frames to develop you would have more than enough. I do the same, develop short cuts of film, and only use 3ml for 300ml developer.

I would try 1 minute Ian's then 10s each minute and see what you get. Then extend to every 2 minutes and then every 3. See what you like :)

Fascinating

Rodinal will give you more grain than your DD-X. What size negatives are you making? 35mm or medium/large format?

@@PictorialPlanet 35mm

You will have more grain than DD-X which you might like. Check out Eddie Ephraums for amazing photography using Rodinal and 400 iso films.

@@PictorialPlanet thanks

I'll butt in here: 1. I've seen Mackie lines with other developers, generally single-agent formulae (like D-23 1:3) but sometimes in highly dilute superadditive combinations (HC-110 at 1+119 can show it), as long as there isn't too much agitation. Generally, in my experience, you'll get more of this effect with developers that don't have much sulfite, hence by Rodinal does it better/easier than D-23 or HC-110. 2. You can see these lines in the negative with the naked eye and high magnification. A jeweler's loupe likely isn't enough power, but a 20x microscope ought to do it. But yes, the effect is very much like an unsharp mask; in fact, it's likely that this was the inspiration for the original film-based technique of unsharp masking. 3: IMO, this is part of the "Rodinal glow" -- 1:100 loses a little more speed than the stronger solutions (hence a small loss of shadows) but development times generally produce very slightly higher contrast (that is, highlights are developed to a higher density, perhaps a quarter or third of a Zone equivalent). I've heard John say he uses 500 ml per film at 1:100, which still gives 5 ml of concentrate for each 80 square inches (he even talked about this in this video). Cut your agitation to every 3rd or 5th minute and extend development to normalize contrast and you can actually see an increase in speed measured in shadows compared to Rodinal's normal 1/3 to 2/3 stop speed loss.

Thank you! I concur with all SO says here. Excellent answer!

@@SilntObsvr thank you for the serious answer. its a lot to take in )

Same technique.

I don't. I make my Rodinal from p-aminophenol. I hope to do a video on it soon.

You are right. Lower dilution will help control the contrast. Definitely try 1+100.

Sounds like Rodinal might not be the best choice for you. Can you make your own developer or do you prefer ready made?

@@PictorialPlanet I would prefer a ready-made, fine-granulating detector with little contrast. When acquiring negatives, I can always contrast a soft original, but I cannot do the opposite starting from a high contrast negative (and the continuous rotation of the Rondinax tends to increase the contrast). Thanks

@fabriziobianchi8276 I was hoping you'd fancy making your own. D23, which has only two chemicals, is perfect for your use. Soft working, very reliable. Beautiful negatives.

@@PictorialPlanet Unfortunately I have never tried to make one and in Italy I don't think it is easy to find the chemical components. In any case, if you feel like writing me a recipe, I could try. Thank you so much for the information you are giving me I called my suppliers both physical and online (in Italy) and no one has the Kodak D-23 detector in stock; they offer the usual D-76 which however does not have the same characteristics. Unfortunately in Europe the ILFORD, AGFA and BELLINI brands are marketed a lot.

@fabriziobianchi8276 Using D23 To buy the chemicals contact: fotosuvatlar@live.de His company supplies all photo chemicals in Europe. I use them a lot. D-23 Water ~50C 700ml Add a tiny pinch of sodium sulphite and dissolve Add Metol 7.5g and dissolve Add Sodium sulphite 100g and dissolve Add water to make up to 1 Ltr Use D76 times plus 10% Making with teaspoons: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fpemisRny6yYdnU.htmlsi=JuKFy_6d-27XKrBf You can develop five films in the above. Just add 10% to development time for each film after the second. If you like it, and I'm sure you will, you might want to use replenishment. Then you can use the developer for many many more films. Please read my website here: www.pictorialplanet.com/advanced_photography/D23.html

The 1+25 seemed to scan a little better and of course the developing times are shorter. Also, in my digital workflow I add some sharpening which is artificial acutance that's not present in the 1+25 negative and so won't show on the print. But for darkroom printing the 1+50 or 1+100 gives a sharper print due to that better acutance/sharpness. Does that help?

@@PictorialPlanet Ah I see, thank you for clarifying!

Nice!