Show us yer film shots then!

Pigeonnier Royale at Sauze-Vaussais, France. In the 16th century pigeons would be used to carry messages between pigeonniers that would then be carried onto the recipient by dispatch riders on horseback.

Pigeonair 35D POL.jpg

Pigeonaire 2 35D.jpg

Zeiss Contarex 'Bullseye' with Zeiss 35mm Distagon & Zeiss Polariser. Kodak Pro Image 100 processed and scanned professionally.
 
River Glane at the Site Corot, Saint-Junien, France.

Corot Glane View LSF Chute Slow SS RTS.jpg


Zeiss Contax RTS with 50mm f1.7 Planar. Kodak Pro Image 100 processed and scanned professionally.
 
Zeiss Contarex 'Bullseye', Zeiss Distagon 35mm & Kodak Pro Image processed and scanned professionally.

Site Corot, Steps leading to Corot's Cabin....

Corot Cabin Steps PTF 35D.jpg
 
Contax RTS, 28-85 Vario-Sonnar & Kodak Pro Image processed and scanned professionally.

Pont Gothique Sainte-Elisabeth, Glane, France.....

Pont Ste Elisabeth Path View LSF RTS.jpg

Pont Ste Elisabeth Wider View LSF RTS.jpg
 
I've always tended to stay away from developing faster speed films with Rodinal, but decided to give it a try to see the results for myself. The negatives are noticeably grainier than had I used DD-X but the 120 format probably hides the worst of it, and they otherwise look ok (although the edge acutance makes me wonder if they look over-sharpened). I'll happily use Rodinal with faster films, but I'll probably avoid developing anything above 125asa with it in the future unless I'm wanting a particular look.

Zeiss Mess-Ikonta 524/16
Kodak Tri-X (with yellow filter)
Adox Rodinal 1+50 13mins @ 20°


The Baden Powell by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr


The ghost of an old neighbour by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr


Big buoys (don't cry) by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
FishyFish said:
I've always tended to stay away from developing faster speed films with Rodinal, but decided to give it a try to see the results for myself. The negatives are noticeably grainier than had I used DD-X but the 120 format probably hides the worst of it, and they otherwise look ok (although the edge acutance makes me wonder if they look over-sharpened). I'll happily use Rodinal with faster films, but I'll probably avoid developing anything above 125asa with it in the future unless I'm wanting a particular look.

Zeiss Mess-Ikonta 524/16
Kodak Tri-X (with yellow filter)
Adox Rodinal 1+50 13mins @ 20°
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you're seeing is due to Rodinal, in general. How do the negatives look like? If they're overdeveloped, that might accentuate the 'scanned grain' look. Else there might be something related to scanner interaction with the grain. Is the Tri-X fresh or expired? Has it gone through airport scanners? Those have been factors for strong grain in the past, for me.

Here are some examples in my own worflow - Rodinal 1:50 and Fomapan 400 in an old Agfa 120 folder much like the one you use, but with an uncoated triplet

Incident exposure at 250 EI and development time cut by 25% over the manufacturer's recommendations.

i5RVKSi.jpg


jitsOlx.jpg


WZ6Edn0.jpg
 
Last edited:
trypdal said:
I'm not sure what you're seeing is due to Rodinal, in general. How do the negatives look like? If they're overdeveloped, that might accentuate the 'scanned grain' look. Else there might be something related to scanner interaction with the grain..

Here are some examples in my own worflow - Rodinal 1:50 and Fomapan 400 in an old Agfa 120 folder much like the one you use, but with an uncoated triplet

Incident exposure at 250 EI and development time cut by 25% over the manufacturer's recommendations.

i5RVKSi.jpg


jitsOlx.jpg


WZ6Edn0.jpg
Click to expand...

My development times were the ones given by the Massive Dev Chart app, and temps and timings would have been on the mark based on that. Perhaps reducing the time might have benefited the results. Looking at the original scans, I think some of the graininess is a result of post processing, so maybe I'll see if I can make some tweaks and improve things.
 
FishyFish said:
My development times were the ones given by the Massive Dev Chart app, and temps and timings would have been on the mark based on that. Perhaps reducing the time might have benefited the results. Looking at the original scans, I think some of the graininess is a result of post processing, so maybe I'll see if I can make some tweaks and improve things.
Click to expand...
I have 0 experience with Tri-X but I'd try 10 minutes next time and see how you get on. MDC info can be quite erratic IME.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top