Underdevelopment through Stand development possible?

[RodinalDuchamp]

I am trying to figure out how to under develop with rodinal. This has a very specific application and it will not be for all, most, or some circumstances. I use semi stand development with reasonable success. I have been using increasingly dilute solutions but still have not crossed the threshold at which the film becomes underdeveloped. Currently I am experimenting with 3ml Rodinal to 1000ml H2O for 1 4x5 sheet. This yields a normal development. I have tried developing 2 sheets in the same dilution and yet again the result was normal development. Does anyone know the absolute minimum amount of Rodinal per 4x5 sheet?

I am trying to restrain glaring highlights, an extremely dilute solution may achieve the results I am looking for. My next step is to try 2ml Rodinal to 1000ml H2O.

[RSalles]

Rodinal,

If my memory doesn't threats me, 6.5cc per L of water. I recommend to not diminish the amount of Rodinal but increase water and use the base 6.5cc in a larger container.
Underdevelopment is when you intend to develop for certain grade of contrast and the result is less then intended, you're doing N-* (normal less 1,2,3...) development, which is another story. I arrived to use 1:200 with Rodinal in stand for 2 hrs and got a nice negative. Bear in mind that the ISO speed increases maybe more then 1/3 ISO but YMMV,

Cheers,

Renato

[stiganas]

I use Rodinal 1:500 with good result but I don't know the capacity. I am also curious to find out. I plan to develop 12 test X-ray sheets 9x12 in an Yankee Agitank (this means 3ml of Rodinal for 1.5l working solution).

I tested 1:1000 Rodinal with Arista Ortho Litho Film 2.0 and the result was a bit strange (brown negatives) but still acceptable. I work at 25C or higher.

[Jody_S]

Developing to exhaustion (developer exhaustion) is pretty easy. Keep reducing the amount of developer per sheet until you get the result you want. I think you'll find acceptable results with 0.5-1.5ml / 4x5 sheet. I use something like 2-2.3ml/ 8x10 sheet of double-sided X-ray film (Ilfotec HC, HC-110). Dilution, time and temperature won't matter that much (I've tried 15-30 degrees C, 3-10m, dilution is limited by the capacity of my drum). I make a stock solution, and measure an amount of that to use in drum processing. I can vary the amount of stock I put in the drum to give me compensating development for individual sheets.

Using distilled or de-ionized water will help a lot. I do a pre-wash with warm distilled water as well.

[Michael R]

I am trying to figure out how to under develop with rodinal. This has a very specific application and it will not be for all, most, or some circumstances. I use semi stand development with reasonable success. I have been using increasingly dilute solutions but still have not crossed the threshold at which the film becomes underdeveloped. Currently I am experimenting with 3ml Rodinal to 1000ml H2O for 1 4x5 sheet. This yields a normal development. I have tried developing 2 sheets in the same dilution and yet again the result was normal development. Does anyone know the absolute minimum amount of Rodinal per 4x5 sheet?

I am trying to restrain glaring highlights, an extremely dilute solution may achieve the results I am looking for. My next step is to try 2ml Rodinal to 1000ml H2O.

From a sensitometric perspective, restraining highlights with this method will not really do anything you can't do by simply reducing development time. Less contrast, less emulsion speed, no magic.

[RodinalDuchamp]

Yes I am open to time adjustments too but the idea here is to maximize compensation less time may not achieve the same result.

[Michael R]

You should really test it for yourself. Dilute Rodinal/stand/semi-stand is one of those things - claims are made, tempers flare, war breaks out. Ultimately, however, it is largely myth and hyperbole.

[RodinalDuchamp]

I am currently testing. I'm at 3:1000 and still normal results. I will take Jody's advice and give 1ml-1000 a shor

[Steve Sherman]

From a sensitometric perspective, restraining highlights with this method will not really do anything you can't do by simply reducing development time. Less contrast, less emulsion speed, no magic.

With all due respect Michael R you are 100% incorrect in the above comment.

I am not familiar with Rodinal so I cannot speak to that question, I can however, speak to PyroCat and Ilford Films and can assure those interested, Semi-Stand, Extreme Minimal Agitation or Reduced Agitation forms of Development will yield FULL film Speed, MAXIMUM mid tone contrast while restraining highlight DENSITY to a greater degree than any other form of film development, naturally, each contrast scenario dictates it's own set of times, dilutions and agitation cycles.

Once you have arrived at a set of times / dilutions as scores of photographers I have shared the technique with you'll be able to photograph in virtually any lighting condition that presents itself !

See this link if you would like to read more about the evolution of Semi-Stand film development. http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/2...vie-photo.html

Cheers !

[Michael R]

Hi Mr. Sherman,

I believe we've disagreed on certain aspects of this process before so it isn't worth arguing about. My comment above concerned Rodinal since that is what OP is using. Different developers will behave differently (Pyrocat is entirely different than Rodinal in formulation). The film itself is an important variable. In any case, testing is required, not only to evaluate whether or not the process "works", but to establish a process which yields as many of the benefits of minimal/semi-stand procedures as possible while avoiding things like uneven development. Lots of variables involved.

Best,
Michael