Ok Guys- In the past, you have been very helpful w/ my numerous questions, and I most appreciate this. Here's the deal. I have shot 120 Pan F (vacation pics from Colorado--lots of rocks and water)at various exposures (on, +1, +2)and developed in Rodinal 1/50 @68degrees for 12 minutes. The idea was to overexpose and under develop to get both shadow detail and highlight detail. I agitate for the 1st 30 sec, then for 5 sec every 30 seconds. My sense is that this is too contrasty as the highlights are blown out (moving water). Would decreasing agitation help this problem? Do I have to increase total time? I'd like to stick to Rodinal for this project...but..the other developer I do have access to is D 76. Thanks in advance. Deb

-- Debra Rozin (PhilnDebra@aol.com), November 04, 1999

Answers

Moving water is going to have some specular highlights in it -- reflections of the sun that go pure white. It give the water some sparkle. Have you tried printing the first roll yet? What kind of enlarging set up -- condenser -- cold light?

Make a "proper proof sheet" where you expose the paper until the clear film edges JUST match the black of the paper with no film over it. That will show you how the negs will print through a cold light enlarger.

If you still think they are too contrasty, try multiplying the original developing time by 0.7. That ought to move the highlights down about a stop lighter. Dont change anything else in your procedure. The agitation sounds right.

-- Tony Brent (ajbrent@mich.com), November 04, 1999.

Vigerous agitation=bad. Gentle Agitation=good.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), November 05, 1999.

Debra,

Stay with Rodinal. After experimenting with many rolls of Pan F+, I have been able to control the highlights with dilutions of 1+ 50 and 1+ 75 at 68 deg. for 5.5 minutes and no agitation. The developer against the highlights becomes exhausted while the other area continue to develop. The tonal range is excellent.

I decided to try this "stand" development from using FX-2 developer according to the instructions for 55 minutes! It produces very good results. So I then tried a stand development using Kodak X-tol with Pan-F+. It produced beautiful negatives also. I compared enlargegements of a controlled subject and decided that in a close competition, Rodinal won in sharpness, tonal range, and shadow and highlight detail. I can't say enough about Rodinal for slow film. I wish that Ilford made Pan-F+ in 4x5 so I could use this great combination. For that I use PMK to control the highlights. It's an even more amazing developer. But it's not as simple to use.

Good Luck.

-- Greg Rust (kgeicrust@aol.com), November 05, 1999.

Do NOT decrease agitation. If the film is too contrasty, either decrease the development time or increase the dilution.

Let me take a poke at agitation. Agitation CANNOT be too vigorous or violent, of course as long as things aren't being physically damaged.

"Gentle" agitation is often otherwise known as insufficient agitation, usually recognized by blotchiness, unevenness, lower density in a line along the center of a strip of negs, streamers of higher or lower density from sprocket holes and other really bad things.

Ideal agitation would be the removal of the film from the solution and plunging it back in many times during the total agitation period; that's the way it's done in a rotary processor. Another way of achieving essentially the same thing is nitrogen burst, in which nitrogen is blasted into the tank, but that's limited to high-volume hardware.

When using an ordinary rollfilm tank, use a double-reel tank. Put film on one reel and put it in the bottom of the tank and put an empty spacer reel on top. Use just enough solution to cover the bottom reel; do _not_ fill the tank. Follow the usual inversion routine. You could use two reels in a four-reel tank, three reels in a four-reel tank etc, as long as you leave a big air space at the top.

The way this works is that when you invert the tank the effect is as if you lifted the film reel out of the solution, then when you right the tank you plunge it back in. The entire surface of the film receives fresh developer.

As for your Pan-F in Rodinal, the change I'd make would be going to Rodinal 1:75 for the same development time. Of course you must run a test roll to be sure it's what you want rather than testing on "real" film. By going to a higher dilution the film will have a bit less highlight density and the grain will be slightly finer.

Water frothing over rocks has lots of specular highlights; you might say that it's all specular highlights. So what looks like a black spot on your negs may actually print just fine, so make some prints before changing film development.

For more than you'll ever want to know about the effects of agitation, see _Controls in Black and White Photography_ by Dr. Richard Henry.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), November 05, 1999.

The more agitation you give a film the more density your highlights are going to have. The idea behind waterbath development or stand development is to limit the amount of fresh developer in the highlight areas of the film against the working developer in the shadow areas. The developer gets used up fast in the highlight areas and keeps working in the shadow areas. The more agitation you give a film the more fresh developer you bring to the highlight areas thereby encouraging more density in the highlight areas. And when taking pictures of moving, splashing water you have to give much less exposure and development to the film because the spashing, cascading water builds up those specular highlights on the film to the point that there are no shadows left in the water to help deliniate the texture of the water anymore. Your eyes keep readjusting to the changing scene but not the film. It just continues to record specular highlights. And soon that is all that is on the film. White (density) areas of paper. You can't tame these dense areas by decreased development or decreased agitation. Keep the exposure short and then decrease the development. Normal situations call for increased exposure to provide adequate shadow densities and then decreased development or dilute deveolpers to control the highlights. But moving water is different. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), November 05, 1999.

I disagree totally with John Hicks about gentle agitation. Slow and easy is the secret of Rodinol, so it doesn't come out looking like Weegie's Super XX in Dektol. You will get better shadow detail, less highlight blocking, better value separation without excessive contrast, and more uniform results roll to roll. As you can see, I'm a great fan of Rodinol, but for Pan F Ilfosol is a much better developing agent both for grain and sharpness.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), November 05, 1999.

My times for Rodinal and Pan F+ are found at http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Developers/Times_Rodinal/times_rodin al.html. I use a dilution of 1:100, and I give gentle agitation for 10 seconds out of every minute.

-- Ed Buffaloe (edbuffaloe@unblinkingeye.com), November 05, 1999.

Wow! Thanks for all the input. A few comments. After devoloping my first of several rolls of PanF/Rodinal as mentioned, I did a "quick print". That is how I discovered I had troubles with highlights. Though I can burn them down, it is a very difficult print to make, what with all the dodging involved. Now a question. What exactly is "stand" devolping. Sounds like no agitation. Really? Absolutely no agitation? Seems there would need to be "some" in order to dislodge nitrogen (?) and properly develop the other areas of film that are not so dense (ie-everything but the very specular moving water). Thanks in advance for your kind consideration of my questions. Deb

-- Debra Rozin (PhilnDebra@aol.com), November 05, 1999.

I don't like depending on insufficient agitation and developer exhaustion to control contrast; it's way too inconsistent and results in what's probably not wanted, reduced highlight contrast to the point of blocking.

Much better imho to try to keep the curve shape straight and use a shorter development time to accomodate the high SBR.

But if you must: Rodinal 1:75 to 1:200, changing the agitation cycle to 10 seconds every minute rather than 5 seconds every 30 seconds. Beware that unevenness, streaks and sprocket-hole streamers are likely. Also add about 10g/liter sodium sulfite to help keep the EI up with such a weak solution; no point in ending up with an EI 6 film.

Alternatives that put a strong shoulder in film are split developers and FG-7/TG-7.

It might be easier to simply burn in the excessive highlights using a #0 filter.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), November 06, 1999.

You still havent told us about your enlarging setup. This is just the situation in which a cold light enlarger "shines." Once you have your process tuned in, it will hold detail in those high values that a condenser system tends to block up into a solid white mass.

-- Tony Brent (ajbrent@mich.com), November 06, 1999.

Please excuse my igonorance about the kind of condenser head on my enlarger. Let me tell you what I know. It is a Bessler 23CII. The bulb looks like an incandescent bulb. Hope this is enough description to answer the question. Thanks. Deb

-- Debra Rozin (PhilnDebra@aol.com), November 06, 1999.

> incandescent bulb

OK, you have a condenser enlarger.

This means a couple of things....

You'll need to develop your negs to generally lower contrast than those who use a diffusion enlarger. Not tremendously so; the difference is a 10% to 20% reduction in development time.

A silver neg printed with a condenser head is subject to a phenomenon called the Callier effect. This is a disproportionate decrease in transmitted light compared to increasing density.

That certainly doesn't mean the condenser head isn't any good. It just means you need to compensate for it.

In the old days that compensation sort of took care of itself; films had what's called a shoulder in their curve shape. Or iow, the rate of density increase was _lower_ than the rate of exposure increase.

So the effects essentially canceled each other out.

Modern films usually have no significant shoulder in most common developers until an extremely wide range has been spanned. I routinely find HP5+ and Delta 100 to have a pretty much straight curve shape through the 14-stop range I test for.

The result of using a modern straight-line film and a condenser head is often highlights that are a bear to print simply because the already-dense highlights are made apparently (to the paper) even denser by the Callier effect.

So what can you do about it?

Some will suggest buying a diffusion head such as a dichro or cold-light; either would avoid the Callier effect although imho a dichro makes a lot more sense.

But don't go spending money yet.

Try using a modern-style paper such as Ilford Multigrade IV. This type of paper has been developed to accomodate the newer types of film; for the same exposure time and normal shadow and midtone densities, you'll get a little more highlight density.

You'll still probably have to burn in those highlights. Nothing wrong with that, really; just about all prints need to have some burning or dodging.

So try burning the highlights with a #0 filter, not enough to make them go grey but just enough to get a slight texture so it's not all paper-base white.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), November 07, 1999.