TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I’ve used it many times, although typically, I used D76 more. I think I have D76, HC110 and Acufine in my darkroom now, but there may be some Rodinal in my cabinet somewhere. There may even be an old package of Microdol somewhere. I don’t shoot as much film as I used to, so developer tends to get old and dark (oxidized) long before it’s exhausted from use in spite of my dark collapsible “accordion” containers.

Nicholas J DeSciose

Yes, 50 years ago

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

I never saw this stuff.....we had D-76 and Accufine and that was about it in '68. Sorry

User ID

Readily available restrainer.
Can add it to anything.

Alafoto Loc: Montgomery, AL

I used Tri-X, often exposed at ASA/ISO 320 in D-76 for quite some time as a newspaper photog and for my own personal use. Got negs that I liked...easy to print. I seem to remember in my home darkroom diluting it 1:1 and pouring it out after use. Using replenisher was just one more bottle to store in limited space and I didn't do that much black and white anyway.

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

You left out a rather critical part of this, the development after the initial pour is static. It is alright but there are better methods for static development. I used it doing sheet film development. With static development you use the principle that as the film developers there is a release of chemicals from the surface of the film that fall back and retard further development. So for flat sheet film this is a good strategy. For roll film it is not recommended as streaks may occurs as the inhibiting chemicals released during development falls down the surface of the film and so causes streaks.

Static development was used by some of the greats like Ansel Adams to control development of films, especially glass plate negatives (glass does not float).

Any standard MQ developer can be used for this purpose with sheet film in a horizontal tray.

I believe you found this from a blogger who wrote about photography and when you back up you will find his rather quaint presentation on the 'history' of how photography came into being. His take is poorly informed and he failed to research a decent understanding of photography's evolution. Not surprising at all because to date there is no well written history for photography.

There is much in photography that is not well understood. There is a universal developer that actually exists, it is T-Max Developer RS, but it too is not well understood as is the two T-Max films marked as TM 100 and TM 400. But then most of the world of photography films and processing is stuck back in pre World War Two time call MQ films (Plus-X and Tri-X, and D-76 and HC-110 developers). With Tabular Grain Technology from Eastman Kodak there is no point in static development, nor Rodinal Developer.

But I'm wasting my time here as all of this is so beyond the reality of modern photographic practices. So ignore this post and carry on the great sleep of traditional photographic practices.

DJon41 Loc: Utah

Same here. It was cheap enough. All we ever used.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yes. https://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=&Developer=Rodinal&mdc=Search&TempUnits=C&TimeUnits=D

Some swear by it. Others swear at it.

I no longer develop film, as I don't use film cameras. But if I did, I'd use Ilford ID-11, Kodak D-76, Acufine, and Microphen. Throw in Kodak HC-110 and T-Max developers on occasion...

Denny45acp Loc: Sparta,Michigan

Me too the grain has a sharper edge in Rodinal than D76. Some fine grain Developers gave softer edges. Less detail. I used tri-x at asa 500.

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

Yes Sir. My college photo buddy and I refined the use of Rodinol to the point that our instructors thought that we had switched from 35mm to 2 1/4 roll film. Like you we used a syringe or pipet, distilled water (of course) and also at 1/100 dilution . Yes temperature as well as agitation were critical. Times were not 1 hour. My old notes showed Panatomic-X 12-16 min at 20c, Ilford Pan-F 18min at 20c, Plus-X 18min. If you need more times and film, I have them.

Hanson

Thanks for stirring up a lot of memories. I still have a bottle of Rodinal from some 30 years ago (unopened). Don't know if it is still usable. At that time most often I used Microdol-X and PanF and Plus-X combination for the finest grain. Rodinal was not known for finest grain though, but it had some very unique properties.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Yes, stand development could involve letting the image stand in the developer overnight.

Denny45acp Loc: Sparta,Michigan

You all know there is a different ence between fine grain film and fine grain developer

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

When you speak to experienced darkroom folks, everyone has their favourite developer. I always had my favourite developer/film combinations for various kinds of work. I tried and experimented with many packaged and "scratch" developer formulas over the years- some common and others kinda exotic. In the end, I decided to standardize on certain film/developer combinations for more consistent and predictable results and ease and efficiency in printing.

Rodinal was one of my experiments but, at the time, I found it produced coarse grain on 35mm film and was not available in large enough quantities for producing large batches of film in a commercial lab setting.

For portraiture, I mixed my own Pyro developer from scratch. It had a staining effect on the areas of less n density and produced incredible shadow detail in low-key portraits- great for medium and large format film. Negative print on Medalist, Ektalure and Opal; papers yielded "salon" quality. 3 separate stock solutions were mixed and combined shortly before processing to avoid oxidation during storage.

General work, photojournalism, and some commercial work were Tri-X in Ehtol UFG or Acufune exposed at ISO 800 or 1200 with extended developing time. Great speed and range and tight grain.

Commercial work where maximum sharpness was required- Panatomic-X in Ethol UFG or Acufine at ISO 100. Print form medium from negative looked lie the came form 4x5 film. Prints for 4x5 film look lie stuff or 8x10. Especially good for big enlargements and photomurals.

Sadly, Verichrome Pan (Rollfilm) was underappreciated and discontinued. That emulsion in D-76 1:1 had incredible gradations of time and enormous latitude. It was not considered a "professional: film, it had no retouching surface but it had an extremely fine grain structure.

So, film and development choices are subjective but there is one common denominator that maximizes quality in negative production, that is precise and meticulous processing technique.

Here's the drill:

Maintain exact solution temperature in each bath- pretend you are processing colour slide film. Differences in temperature for one chemical to the next causes minor reticulation that negatively impacts acutance and grain structure.

Use distilled or demineralized water to dilute chemicals- it cut down on oxidation and certain metallic impurities in the water that affects developed efficiency and longevity.

Be careful not to use too much acid in the stop bath. Too much acidity also causes minor reticulation.

Minimize wet-time. Avoid using stop bath, fixer or hypo eliminator as a holding bath- adhere to exact recommended times.

Avoid too vigorous agitation- that tank is not a Martini shaker. Gentle rotation and up and down movement for 5 seconds every 30 seconds is sufficient. Over agitation causes overdevelopment, streaks, hanger marks, and again, minor reticulation.

Mix fixer carefully to avoid over-acidity. Use a rapid fixer to cut down on wet time/

Use a hypo-clearing agent but do no over-immerse- stick to the exact recommended time.

Was in temperature-controlled running and filtered water.

Use a wetting agent such as Photo-Flo, Do no over-immerse, 30-second to 1-minute is usually sufficient.

Avoid heat drying.

There are all kinds of myths about using old, exhausted, somewhat oxidized developers. for softer or smoother results. Fres or properly replenished develop and fresh other chemicals in the line produce better and more consistent results.

For those interested in Rodinal, here's a very comprehensive link:

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html

Paul Diamond Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA

I used Rodinal, but not often. Got much better results with Acufine and some other more 'modern' developers that gave higher apparent ASA results as well as greater tonal range for shots 'pushing the envelope' for performance when you had no right to expect the results you achieved. Great fun. "Finer grain and a speed boost" compared to Kokak's 'recommended' developers - well worth the investment.