Rodinal instead of Ilfosol 3 - can I use Ilford Stop and Fixer?

J

Jetstream Rider

Messages
69
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been developing film for a while and I shoot Ilford film mainly - so I have always used Ilford chemicals as I thought that I might as well stick with what the manufacturer has designed to work with their products. Ilfosol3 does have quite a short shelf life though and I keep not using up a bottle before it needs to be binned. As such I thought I would give Rodinal or X-tol a go (or a mix of the two - I know this is contentious with some, but have seen some great photography recently developed that way, so thought I would try it). The benefits being that the shelf life is better, the developer is highly thought of and it would make stand developing better (I do this occasionally).

The question is, can I still use Ilfostop and Hypam Rapid Fixer? - I assume the fixer would be ok, but would the stop work in the same way? If not, what stop and fixer are recommended?

Many thanks.
 
I personally use rodinal to develop and Ilford rapid fixer. I don't personally use a stop, but unless I am missing something, I see no reason why the combination you state in the question could not work. I've used Rodinal on Ilford and non-Ilford film as well, with no issue. Mixing the developers is not something I have ever really heard of, though that doesn't mean much. Surely by doing this, you're introducing a new variable with it's own tolerances on accuracy? What advantages does mixing the developers bring over using either of them individually?
 
Yes, you can. Stop baths are used to instantly (more or less) stop development and preserve the acidity of the fixer (assuming you're using an acid fixer; and the only way you won't be is if you make your own.)

Fixer removes undeveloped silver halides, and usually adds in a hardening chemical.

Neither have anything film specific in.
 
Last edited:
Afterword.

If using Rodinal for stand development, take a look at "The Film Developing Cookbook" for a helpful additive.
 
Using your usual stop and fix is fine. The choice of Rodinal may be an issue if you're aiming for fine grain as it gives high acutance but can give grainy negatives; OK if you like grain. Ilfosol 3 is fine grain developer, which Rodinal is not, and gives good sharpness. The plus side, as you say is that it keeps well. One other Ilford developer that you could consider trying is the highly concentrated Ilfotec LC29 as this give fine grain.
 
Thanks very much all - to answer a couple of questions:

Surely by doing this, you're introducing a new variable with it's own tolerances on accuracy?
Click to expand...

Yes I am, the plan is though to get a "house standard" and keep using that - I do the same with paper to print on, of the thousands available, there is one that I chose and am planning to stick with. I want to do the same with film - maybe 2 mono films to use, a high and a low ISO and maybe 2 colour ones (I don't develop those myself yet).

The choice of Rodinal may be an issue if you're aiming for fine grain ...
Click to expand...

This was the point of using X-Tol too, apparently (according to people I have never met on the internet), it gives the benefits of the contrast that Rodinal gives, but the smaller grain of X-Tol - avoiding the lower contrast of X-Tol by itself. I am yet to be convinced by my own experiments, but the work of the chap I saw who develops like that was really good, so I wanted to give it a go before finalising my "house standard". I'll check out L29 for longevity. Apparently Ilfosol3 just (fairly) suddenly stops working - am keen to avoid that, although when it is in date I can't see anything wrong with it.

I'll check out the cookbook - thanks. Does that have coffee developer and that sort of thing in it? While messing around is fun, I want to produce a body of work that is fairly homogenous and so want to try keeping things standard before going too bonkers. I do stand development if stuff was shot a while ago, or on an exposed film (like in a second hand camera) where the date is unknown.
 
"The Film Developing Cookbook" doesn't cover caffenol - from memory, as it's some years since I read it (cover to cover), and I just checked the index without finding it. The same applies to Haist's "Modern Photographic Processing" and Jacobson and Jacobson's "Developing" 18th ed. I'm pretty sure I have read a book that covers it; probably one of the alternative/non mainstream processes books that covers other non standard developers like red wine and urine.

I'm more the theoretical type, who wants to know how and why developers work, to make an informed choice. In my case, the best dilution for Rodinal for a particular subject. But I've always found knowing more than the required minimum both interesting and helpful in solving problems.
 
Other alternatives are Ilford DDX which generally gives great results and has a slightly longer shelf life IIRC and Kodak HC-110 which lasts a long time and is very economical (and is what Ansel Adams used). TBH if you refrigerate and exclude oxygen from the bottle a lot of developers can be used for a lot longer than the quoted open-bottle shelf life.
 
sirch said:
Other alternatives are Ilford DDX which generally gives great results and has a slightly longer shelf life IIRC and Kodak HC-110 which lasts a long time and is very economical (and is what Ansel Adams used). TBH if you refrigerate and exclude oxygen from the bottle a lot of developers can be used for a lot longer than the quoted open-bottle shelf life.
Click to expand...
Developers are toxic and should not be stored in a domestic fridge.
 
john.margetts said:
domestic fridge
Click to expand...
Domestic fridge or food fridge?

The DDX Safety Data sheet has:
H317 May cause an allergic skin reaction.
H318 Causes serious eye damage.
H341 Suspected of causing genetic defects.
H351 Suspected of causing cancer.
H400 Very toxic to aquatic life

TBH the gone-off food in our fridge is probably far more hazardous and the Dev might be the only thing keeping it in check ;)
 
Thanks all for your help.

I'm more the theoretical type, who wants to know how and why developers work, to make an informed choice.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty techy too - however, with the billions of combinations of things you can do, I could easily get lost trying them all and never actually coming out with a benchmark. I'll check out the book for interest and general education, but I want to actually start producing an exhibition or similar, so I want to try getting things as standard as I can (my own home standard) and when that is cracked I can branch out to some more esoteric stuff.

Cheers all.
 
sirch said:
Domestic fridge or food fridge?

The DDX Safety Data sheet has:
H317 May cause an allergic skin reaction.
H318 Causes serious eye damage.
H341 Suspected of causing genetic defects.
H351 Suspected of causing cancer.
H400 Very toxic to aquatic life

TBH the gone-off food in our fridge is probably far more hazardous and the Dev might be the only thing keeping it in check ;)
Click to expand...
Domestic fridge/food fridge - the same difference. Developers should be stored well away from food and food utensils. As your quote of the safety Data Sheet says, the ingredients are severally carcinogenic, mutagenic and allergenic. Not things you want near food.
 
I've found "The Film Developing Cookbook" online, but also "The Darkroom Cookbook" by the same author. I assume one is about developing film and the other printing on papers and substrates? Does anyone know if they are effectively the same thing? "Developing" is 2019, "Darkroom" is 2016. "Darkroom" covers more alternative stuff (which I am into), and I know one doesn't need a darkroom for develpoing film - just wondered if anyone knew the overlap? Thanks.
 
Not entirely convinced that the distinction isn't valid. I can accept that a domestic fridge will be different from an industrial one, but I don't see that a fridge sold for domestic purposes can't be used for purposes not envisaged by the salesman. I have a larder fridge (no ice box) in my darkroom. It's a domestic fridge, but used for film (and formerly paper) and nothing else.
 
Jetstream Rider said:
I've found "The Film Developing Cookbook" online, but also "The Darkroom Cookbook" by the same author. I assume one is about developing film and the other printing on papers and substrates? Does anyone know if they are effectively the same thing? "Developing" is 2019, "Darkroom" is 2016. "Darkroom" covers more alternative stuff (which I am into), and I know one doesn't need a darkroom for develpoing film - just wondered if anyone knew the overlap? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Different books. I have both. For your purpose, FDC is the one to go for. DC has less information on developers, and covers stop baths, fixing, print developers, digital negatives etc. etc.
 
Last edited:
If you'd like any book titles for alternative processing - whether general books or specific ones, let me know. There is a big darkroom thread on here, which has book lists. You should be able to find it from the sticky about resources.
 
StephenM said:
Not entirely convinced that the distinction isn't valid. I can accept that a domestic fridge will be different from an industrial one, but I don't see that a fridge sold for domestic purposes can't be used for purposes not envisaged by the salesman. I have a larder fridge (no ice box) in my darkroom. It's a domestic fridge, but used for film (and formerly paper) and nothing else.
Click to expand...
OK. The really important thing, once we have stopped being pedantic, is that photographic chemicals should not be stored nestling up to your lettuce, tomatoes, steaks, bacon or anything else consumable. If you have a separate fridge that never has food in it, fine.
 
Thank you. I do have a Jill Enfield book (complete Guide to Alternative processes) and Christopher James book too - both good. Any recommendations?
 
Take a look here:

Alternative Photographic Processes: A Bibliography

Here is a general bibliography on alternative photographic processes. I will keep adding to it as I come upon more resources and, over time...
decisivemomentum.blogspot.com decisivemomentum.blogspot.com

Today's alternative processes were yesterday's mainstream ones. For older works, the Internet Archive is invaluable. As an introduction, try this link as a gateway


Edit to add. If you go to the Light Farm site, you'll find a list of older, recommended books. Some have links to download them. Many without links can be found on the Internet Archive very easily.
 
Last edited:
Today's alternative processes were yesterday's mainstream ones.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I print Pt/Pd and Cyanotype - am hoping to do some Tintype soon too, but certain events have put a big delay on that.

Thanks for the links.
 
I've been looking at LC-29, HC 110 and DDX - none of them has a good shelf life (best 2 years airtight) and all are relatively expensive. Rodinal is much cheaper and lasts pretty much forever. I think I'll give it a go and see what the grain comes out like. Definitely worth a punt.

The Caffenol Cookbook might be useful
Click to expand...
I've downloaded that, thanks. Now I'm going to have to try it. So much for keeping it simple.
 
Just be aware that there's Rodinal and Rodinal. After Agfa pulled out, other people made it - the formula is published - but 3 points.

1 Many people have reported that the alternative formulation doesn't have the same shelf life.

2. The last Rodinal made by Agfa had a different formula to the published one (but see "The Film Developing Cookbook" for a relevant quote from an Agfa chemist).

3. One of the Rodinals claims to be made according to the last formula used by Agfa. You'll see that clearly marked on a couple of the places that sell it.

Edit to add. Rodinal as per Agfa gives amazing sharpness but is NOT fine grain. There was a very interesting comparative review with large blow ups of fine detail in a wireless mast in the very first issue of "Silverprint" magazine (after I think the first issue it became "Ag"). It doesn't worry me as 6x4.5 is my smallest size, and I'm basically a LF photographer.
 
Last edited:
From the Massive Dev Chart under R09:

The commercial version of Rodinal, as previously manufactured by Agfa, is currently sold under the following names:
  • Adox Rodinal
  • Compard R09 One Shot
  • Blazinal (in Canada)

If you have an older bottle, it may have one of these names:
  • Adox Adonal
  • Agfa Rodinal
  • Compard R09 New
Click to expand...
and

If you are unsure of whether you have one of these products, then check to see whether it is manufactured by Agfa, Adox, Compard, Maco / Hans O. Mahn. If one of these companies is listed as the manufacturer, then it is identical to Agfa Rodinal.
Click to expand...

I'm going to buy a bottle from Silverprint and they say it is identical, so I'm happy with that. Thanks again though.
 
As a general piece if advice - only experiment if that's your main interest. I'm conservative by temperament, which is why I've only used 2 developers since the mid 1960s, and only swapped to Rodinal because Unitol was discontinued. I've become slightly more adventurous with film, having currently got 3 different ones in stock, but 99% of my black and white in the last 20 or more years has been either PanF or FP4. I've mentioned that to make my bias for not changing more palpable.
 
I'm going to be very boring now, but there's identical and identical. The developing times and results may be identical, and I don't question that. What I question is the keeping properties, since that seems to be a major reason for your choice. Silverprint's site under Rodinal R09 mentions the keeping properties, but I wonder if this refers to Agfa Rodinal - was R09 made in 1997? I've certainly seen more than one report (OK, on the internet, so reliability unknown) of a newer Rodinal having more of a 6 month than 6 decade shelf life. Even in this section of this forum. So be careful. I'd buy the Adonal myself, when my Agfa stock runs out...
 
Last edited:
Jetstream Rider said:
I've been looking at LC-29, HC 110 and DDX - none of them has a good shelf life (best 2 years airtight) and all are relatively expensive.
Click to expand...
HC 110 is well-known to have a very, very long shelf life, even when opened. I've been using mine since about November 2018. I've taken the precaution of dropping marbles in to help exclude air, but after a couple of chats with other folk, I'm probably going to lose a fair amount of the syrup coating the marbels when I get towards the end. Many folk just use the bottle to the bitter end, see for example this tweet from CarlosLM: View: https://BANNED/analogfilmphoto/status/1339423032448745472
(@analogfilmphoto on twitter).

My only issue is that the most common Dilution B is 1+31; my Rondinax takes 200 ml of solution, so that requires 6.2 ml of HC 110. Getting that out of a 1 litre bottle without marbles in it (ie a dropping level) must be ... interesting!

I think @simon ess of this parish uses HC 110 and gets fantastic results from it. Much finer-grained results than Rodinal...
 
ChrisR said:
My only issue is that the most common Dilution B is 1+31; my Rondinax takes 200 ml of solution, so that requires 6.2 ml of HC 110. Getting that out of a 1 litre bottle without marbles in it (ie a dropping level) must be ... interesting!
Click to expand...

My go to developer is hc-110.
For those who feel the need to be precise, obtaining for example 6.2 ml of syrup would indeed prove to be a challenge.
I measure with an egg spoon which holds +/- 3ml
So in your case two spoonfuls.
No it’s not precise but I get results that are pretty consistent.
 
Its easy to measure 6.2 ml - weigh 62 ml, divide by 10 and then you know how much 6.2 weighs (or 620 and divide by 100 for better results) - use a scale that is accurate to 0.1 gram (cheap online) and use a dropper to add to your diluting jug. That way you don't lose any to sticking to the sides of a measuring vessel - if you put too much in, use the dropper to take some out - add your water. Easy. Takes into account what gets stuck in the dropper too, as you are measuring what actually goes in the jug.
 
I may be wrong but I doubt 6.2ml of HC-110 will weigh 6.2g, I haven’t looked at the spec sheet for that particular developer but I would have thought the density is greater than that of water.
 
It doesn't matter - the technique above takes that into account - that is why you weigh an easy to measure amount, to find out how much 6.2ml weighs. That takes the density into account.
 
Jetstream Rider said:
It doesn't matter - the technique above takes that into account - that is why you weigh an easy to measure amount, to find out how much 6.2ml weighs. That takes the density into account.
Click to expand...
(y)
 
Jetstream Rider said:
Its easy to measure 6.2 ml - weigh 62 ml, divide by 10 and then you know how much 6.2 weighs (or 620 and divide by 100 for better results) - use a scale that is accurate to 0.1 gram (cheap online) and use a dropper to add to your diluting jug. That way you don't lose any to sticking to the sides of a measuring vessel - if you put too much in, use the dropper to take some out - add your water. Easy. Takes into account what gets stuck in the dropper too, as you are measuring what actually goes in the jug.
Click to expand...
I can't quitework out if you're taking the micky or serious! Inclined to think the latter, given you're a film tog, after all... ;)

Actually easuring the 6.2 ml in my 10 ml syringe is pretty easy, and I squoosh up the diluted dev in the syringe a few times to make sure I don't lose any. Trying to get the temperature in the rough ballpark of 20 c drives me crazy!
 
Jetstream Rider said:
Its easy to measure 6.2 ml - weigh 62 ml, divide by 10 and then you know how much 6.2 weighs (or 620 and divide by 100 for better results) - use a scale that is accurate to 0.1 gram (cheap online) and use a dropper to add to your diluting jug. That way you don't lose any to sticking to the sides of a measuring vessel - if you put too much in, use the dropper to take some out - add your water. Easy. Takes into account what gets stuck in the dropper too, as you are measuring what actually goes in the jug.
Click to expand...

Appreciate the reply and I have little reason to doubt your method / explanation.
It has registered somewhere in one of the few cells of grey matter I still have but tbh for me personally, given how there are so many other areas that are guaranteed not to be precise ( shutter speeds, aperture, filter factors, metering and possibly even the speed film itself), I’ll continue to measure with my 3ml egg spoon .

I do know at least one other film tog who is scrupulous about measurements, temperatures and duration so it’s not like you’re alone in your ways.
I do however also know other ( slackers?? Lol) like myself that head for somewhere close but still get decent and consistent results.
 
I don't actually do that - I was just giving an example of that fact that you can do it that way if you want to.

It think the key thing is photography is to do what you want to do and what works for you. Is film or digital better? The key answer is "who cares, I enjoy this".

Rodinal or Caffenol, TriX or Velvia? - there is no answer. Do what works for you.

(my own solution would be to use a syringe, or a measuring cup, or a dropper, or whatever came to hand). If an egg spoon works for you - great stuff.


Since starting this thread I have tried some caffenol - excellent results. Loving it. Have also tried Rodinal - also like it. More experiments to come.
 
Jetstream Rider said:
I don't actually do that
Click to expand...

Oops, sorry! :facepalm::sorry:

Yes you are 200% correct that photography is about what you want from it and not what others expect ( unless offering a service to others of course).

It's a good job really cos if I wasn't happy with the prints that i end up with, nobody else would be and I'd end up printing none!:wideyed::help::LOL:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top