Looking into trying Rodinal and have a few questions.

[Ornello]

Most films changed. As you said already.

So what? How does that invalidate the relative standing of the developers? It doesn't!

 

[timor]

If emulsion changed, action of developer changed. And TriX underwent substantial change.
Whit this kind of "pixel peeping" one has to be careful. It goes far beyond any usefulness. If you are a specialist in astrophotography, maybe different story, but in pictorial photography if you need 22x enlargement from 35mm you switch to medium format to be better of.

 

[Ornello]

If emulsion changed, action of developer changed. And TriX underwent substantial change.
Whit this kind of "pixel peeping" one has to be careful. It goes far beyond any usefulness. If you are a specialist in astrophotography, maybe different story, but in pictorial photography if you need 22x enlargement from 35mm you switch to medium format to be better of.

Tri-X has remained essentially the same product since its introduction (with minor improvements to the manufacturing process, according to EKC, quoted earlier), and Rodinal has remained essentially unchanged since at least the 1950s. The article shows that the characteristics of Rodinal are that it produces more grain, less speed, and poorer sharpness on all films except the very slowest, where developers hardly matter.

Just face it, Rodinal sucks.

 

[timor]

Just face it, Rodinal sucks.

One man opinion.
Here is another man opinion:
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html

 

[Ornello]

Just face it, Rodinal sucks.

One man opinion.
Here is another man opinion:
Rodinal - Oldest Commercial Developer

I am familiar with this article. Rodinal still sucks, and I have the data to back that up.

 

[timor]

Sometimes is good to be so certain...

 

[Ornello]

Sometimes is good to be so certain...

Did you read the entire article, and notice how thorough and precise their technique was? It sure beats anecdotal BS.

Rodinal is just about the worst developer for anything but the very slowest films.

You would make a very poor scientist. You disregard evidence and deny anything that contradicts your prejudices. Rodinal sucks!

 

[timor]

I have some experience with research methodology. Sample used in that research was statistically invalid. Nor any real data on resolution was revealed. Just opinions. But maybe this is close to reality. I will not enlarge small frame 22 or more times 13 is good enough for me. At this magnification and use of slower films Rodinal even in this research looks like on par with anything else. Plus it may introduce a distinctive look if used skilfully. Like Ralph Gibson did it.
To clear things up I am not using Rodinal for long time now, but this is for totally different reasons than those pointed by you.

 

[Ornello]

I have some experience with research methodology. Sample used in that research was statistically invalid. Nor any real data on resolution was revealed. Just opinions. But maybe this is close to reality. I will not enlarge small frame 22 or more times 13 is good enough for me. At this magnification and use of slower films Rodinal even in this research looks like on par with anything else. Plus it may introduce a distinctive look if used skilfully. Like Ralph Gibson did it.
To clear things up I am not using Rodinal for long time now, but this is for totally different reasons than those pointed by you.

As they said, they could not try every film with every developer...they would still be going! It was a survey of the common developers at that time, which really have not changed that much.

 

[timor]

I have some experience with research methodology. Sample used in that research was statistically invalid. Nor any real data on resolution was revealed. Just opinions. But maybe this is close to reality. I will not enlarge small frame 22 or more times 13 is good enough for me. At this magnification and use of slower films Rodinal even in this research looks like on par with anything else. Plus it may introduce a distinctive look if used skilfully. Like Ralph Gibson did it.
To clear things up I am not using Rodinal for long time now, but this is for totally different reasons than those pointed by you.

As they said, they could not try every film with every developer...they would still be going! It was a survey of the common developers at that time, which really have not changed that much.

It is not the number of films and developers, that could be 3 only. One slow, one medium and one fast in three developers. It is the number of repetitions of test needed to statistically eliminate variances inherently embedded in every scientific tests. With film, as we know it, each batch might be different. Same with developers. This is why in the past photographers were buying large quantities of film with same emulsion number and developers from same batch. First five or so rolls was sacrificed usually for testing before commercial work could be comenced with any measure of confidence.

 

[Ornello]

I have some experience with research methodology. Sample used in that research was statistically invalid. Nor any real data on resolution was revealed. Just opinions. But maybe this is close to reality. I will not enlarge small frame 22 or more times 13 is good enough for me. At this magnification and use of slower films Rodinal even in this research looks like on par with anything else. Plus it may introduce a distinctive look if used skilfully. Like Ralph Gibson did it.
To clear things up I am not using Rodinal for long time now, but this is for totally different reasons than those pointed by you.

As they said, they could not try every film with every developer...they would still be going! It was a survey of the common developers at that time, which really have not changed that much.

It is not the number of films and developers, that could be 3 only. One slow, one medium and one fast in three developers. It is the number of repetitions of test needed to statistically eliminate variances inherently embedded in every scientific tests. With film, as we know it, each batch might be different. Same with developers. This is why in the past photographers were buying large quantities of film with same emulsion number and developers from same batch. First five or so rolls was sacrificed usually for testing before commercial work could be comenced with any measure of confidence.

None of that is relevant here. The developers generally performed the same with all the films. Microdol-X gave less speed and fine grain. Acufine and Microphen produced more speed. Rodinal produced less speed, more grain, and poorer sharpness. What else is there to know?

Acufine, D-76, and Rodinal were matched with all the films, and the characteristics were consistent. Rodinal always gave the least speed, worst grain, etc.

The procedures were very rigorous, and described in the article.

And as I already mentioned, very slow films are so sharp and fine-grained that it's really hard to get bad results from them.

 

[gsgary]

My Rodinal loves any make and type of film

 

[Ornello]

My Rodinal loves any make and type of film

Some of my best friends have used Rodinal.

 

[gsgary]

I'm a Rodonaphile

 

[timor]

I have some experience with research methodology. Sample used in that research was statistically invalid. Nor any real data on resolution was revealed. Just opinions. But maybe this is close to reality. I will not enlarge small frame 22 or more times 13 is good enough for me. At this magnification and use of slower films Rodinal even in this research looks like on par with anything else. Plus it may introduce a distinctive look if used skilfully. Like Ralph Gibson did it.
To clear things up I am not using Rodinal for long time now, but this is for totally different reasons than those pointed by you.

As they said, they could not try every film with every developer...they would still be going! It was a survey of the common developers at that time, which really have not changed that much.

It is not the number of films and developers, that could be 3 only. One slow, one medium and one fast in three developers. It is the number of repetitions of test needed to statistically eliminate variances inherently embedded in every scientific tests. With film, as we know it, each batch might be different. Same with developers. This is why in the past photographers were buying large quantities of film with same emulsion number and developers from same batch. First five or so rolls was sacrificed usually for testing before commercial work could be comenced with any measure of confidence.

None of that is relevant here. The developers generally performed the same with all the films. Microdol-X gave less speed and fine grain. Acufine and Microphen produced more speed. Rodinal produced less speed, more grain, and poorer sharpness. What else is there to know?

Acufine, D-76, and Rodinal were matched with all the films, and the characteristics were consistent. Rodinal always gave the least speed, worst grain, etc.

The procedures were very rigorous, and described in the article.

And as I already mentioned, very slow films are so sharp and fine-grained that it's really hard to get bad results from them.

Now you are discrediting regular scientific methods just to prove your point. And the point is you don't like Rodinal. That's fine, everyone is entitled to have own little world in which he feels safe. Don Quixote did.