MF (6x4.5,6x6,6x7,6x9,6x12) B&W film images sharing

**John Olsen** · 21-Oct-2016, 18:49

Starting to learn about Rodinal 1:100 stand development. This is TriX400. Previous attempts here have been blown out in the highlights. Scanned from Ilford print.

**austin granger** · 22-Oct-2016, 18:30

Haystack Rock with Dead Tree, Oregon by Austin Granger, on Flickr

Haystack Rock with Slabs, Oregon by Austin Granger, on Flickr

Haystack Rock with Sign, Oregon by Austin Granger, on Flickr

**Leigh** · 22-Oct-2016, 20:55

Originally Posted by John Olsen

Starting to learn about Rodinal 1:100 stand development. This is TriX400.
Previous attempts here have been blown out in the highlights.

If you use Rodinal as designed, it's a compensating developer that does not blow the highlights.

- Leigh

**Terry276** · 23-Oct-2016, 09:44

I've had similar problems using Rodinal and Tri-X at 1:100. It might have been a temperature issue, but I never did a scientific test to find out.

**Maris Rusis** · 23-Oct-2016, 15:24

Private Jetty, Noosa Afternoon

Gelatin-silver photograph on Agfa MCC 111 VC FB photographic paper, image size 18.5cm diameter, from a 120 format Tmax 100 negative exposed in a Seagull 4A-103A twin lens reflex camera fitted with a Marexar Ultrawider fish-eye auxiliary lens and a #25 red filter.

**John Olsen** · 23-Oct-2016, 16:50

Originally Posted by Leigh

If you use Rodinal as designed, it's a compensating developer that does not blow the highlights.

- Leigh

Sorry, my post was too terse. Previous attempts with other developers did not work. I meant that the Rodinal was more successful for me in this environment.

**tuco** · 24-Oct-2016, 09:52

Originally Posted by John Olsen

Starting to learn about Rodinal 1:100 stand development. This is TriX400. Previous attempts here have been blown out in the highlights. Scanned from Ilford print.

How does the negative look for highlight detail? Scanning a print is now a 3rd generation image. And the print can't grab all the density that is on the negative without help just like commodity scanners can't get all that's on a negative either.

**John Olsen** · 24-Oct-2016, 15:25

Originally Posted by tuco

How does the negative look for highlight detail? Scanning a print is now a 3rd generation image. And the print can't grab all the density that is on the negative without help just like commodity scanners can't get all that's on a negative either.

That's true. There's more on the Rodinal-developed film that a digital scan would be able to recover, compared to this scan of a print. So a digital print would probably be a better image if I wanted to direct my life down the digital path. I am pleased with this, however, because it allows me to get a decent image under a circumstance where HC-110-development would have been hopelessly blown out, even with pull-processing.
If we ever see the sun again, I've got some coastal trees that I want to re-visit with my Rollei i.r. film and use this development again.
Another image from the same excursion: