- Banned
- #91
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.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.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.
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.
Huh? I tried it a long time ago, when it was all the rage (and it was part of the fad to print on Agfa Brovia grade 4). The results were not very good. I found Neofin Red, and then Acutol. Acutol was a great developer. Now, we have FX-39, which is so far superior to Rodinal that it's laughable. I was using Adox KB 14 (ASA 20) and Tetenal Neofin Blue for a while, but then I got tired of the limitations of such slow films. FP4 in Acutol and Tri-X in UFG were the best combinations I could find in the early-mid 1970s. I worked in a camera shop, and had access to a great many products to try. I was always testing.
Funniest quote from a customer:
"Can you help me? I shoved my ASA."
Last edited: