Looking into trying Rodinal and have a few questions.

[Ornello]

D 76 was formulated for motion picture industry, proved to be inconsistent and inside 2 years was replaced by D 96. So, the several tons Kodak still had in warehouses Kodak sold for bargain price to still photography suckers that proved to be a success. Remember, that at the time most amateurs only contact printed, Leica was still in the beginnings.
I have no knowledge of astrophotography. How this effect is important there ?
On the other hand what apertures are you using for printing ?

D-96 is merely a variant of D-76. The main advance of D-76 was the use of borax as an accelerator, instead of sodium or potassium carbonate. The combination Metol + Hydroquinone + Borax was a breakthrough in developers.

Kodak D-96 motion picture negative developer (the official formula)
Water (50C) 750 ml
Metol 2 g
Sodium sulfite (anh) 75 g
Hydroquinone 1.5 g
Potassium bromide 400 mg
or
Sodium bromide 350 mg
Borax (decahydrate) 4.5 g
WTM 1 l
pH at 27C =8.6
Specific gravity at 27C = 1.068

For enlarging I use a Leitz 50mm F/4.5 Focotar-2, usually at f/6, which seems to be the optimum aperture.

 

[timor]

Up to the event of D76 and subsequently D96 developers used in motion pictures were of staining variety. With good picture quality (better, than D76), but inconsistent densities in each development they were no good for color film production. D76 should improved that, but it didn't for the same reason. Problem was dropping pH with each use. D96, which you call D76 development, at the end all MQ developers can be called that, eliminated that and still it is a standard motion picture B&W developer. However in some cases something else is used. Plus I am not sure how close to the real thing is any official Kodak formula, for example they don't include sequestering agents.
I wasn't aware that Focotar has marked aperture f/6. Maybe you meant f/6.3. I am sure it is best lens one can get, albeit little slow. Anyway, with f/6.3 you shouldn't get any noticeable diffraction even with 15x enlargement.
Going back to the picture you gave us the link to. Is it your work ? Tel us more about it like film, process, power of enlargement (or % of the frame), scanning and PP after the scanning.

 

[Ornello]

Up to the event of D76 and subsequently D96 developers used in motion pictures were of staining variety. With good picture quality (better, than D76), but inconsistent densities in each development they were no good for color film production. D76 should improved that, but it didn't for the same reason. Problem was dropping pH with each use. D96, which you call D76 development, at the end all MQ developers can be called that, eliminated that and still it is a standard motion picture B&W developer. However in some cases something else is used. Plus I am not sure how close to the real thing is any official Kodak formula, for example they don't include sequestering agents.
I wasn't aware that Focotar has marked aperture f/6. Maybe you meant f/6.3. I am sure it is best lens one can get, albeit little slow. Anyway, with f/6.3 you shouldn't get any noticeable diffraction even with 15x enlargement.
Going back to the picture you gave us the link to. Is it your work ? Tel us more about it like film, process, power of enlargement (or % of the frame), scanning and PP after the scanning.

The aperture I use is between 5.6 and 8, around f/6 to 6.3. There are no half click-stops on this lens.

The photo was from a test of films and developers made about 10 years ago. I am not sure which combination this is, but I think it's Neopan 400 or 1600 in Acutol. Printed, then scanned. I don't recall the details. It is an extreme blow-up, of course.

 

[timor]

What about the size of negative and is it scan from the neg or print ? Is that whole frame ?

 

[Ornello]

What about the size of negative and is it scan from the neg or print ? Is that whole frame ?

No, it's a tiny part of a 35mm frame. Scanned print. I never scan negatives. Who would do something so idiotic as that?

This image is Neopan 1600 in Acutol 1+14 for 7.5 minutes. The other is a different combo, but they were taken the same day at the same position. This is the full frame. As you can see, the grain is very unobstrusive.

 

[timor]

What about the size of negative and is it scan from the neg or print ? Is that whole frame ?

. I never scan negatives. Who would do something so idiotic as that?

Ha ha ! MOST scans negs and PP in PS. But I don't own film scanner nor PS. That's why I am interested in what you are saying. And "tiny" is not good enough, percentage would be much better. Otherwise I cannot even have an opinion.

 

[Ornello]

What about the size of negative and is it scan from the neg or print ? Is that whole frame ?

. I never scan negatives. Who would do something so idiotic as that?

Ha ha ! MOST scans negs and PP in PS. But I don't own film scanner nor PS. That's why I am interested in what you are saying. And "tiny" is not good enough, percentage would be much better. Otherwise I cannot even have an opinion.

Color negs, yes, but B&W no way. The Callier effect makes them look very grainy and contrasty. You can see the area of the whole image, which I just uploaded.

 

[timor]

You can see the area of the whole image, which I just uploaded.

Looks good.

 

[timor]

The fact is that Rodinal is not a very good developer, despite its popularity. The use of strong alkali causes clumping of the crystals, giving a rather grainy appearance.

Going back to that issue of silver clumping. Elaborate on that. That issue comes back over and over for years. You are blaming high pH for that, how do you see it ?

 

[Ornello]

The fact is that Rodinal is not a very good developer, despite its popularity. The use of strong alkali causes clumping of the crystals, giving a rather grainy appearance.

Going back to that issue of silver clumping. Elaborate on that. That issue comes back over and over for years. You are blaming high pH for that, how do you see it ?

Read this, but see the other articles too, especially the one about T-grains:

photo technique magazine » Grain Clumping – Fact or Fable?

The fact is that Rodinal has a harsh, high ph accelerator with no solvent, and this makes the graininess worse than it would be with a lower ph accelerator and some solvent (sodium sulphite).

 

[timor]

I know that article since long ago. It says clumping doesn't happen. Excessive grainless could be "achieved basically with any developer. I've seen worst, what you are showing in your samples achieved with D76. On the other hand my Agfa 100 (APX) developed in Rodinal showed no grain in 8x10 prints. I used Rodinal for about first 20 years of my photography passion and was happy with it. It always is the way you are using stuff.

 

[Ornello]

I know that article since long ago. It says clumping doesn't happen. Excessive grainless could be "achieved basically with any developer. I've seen worst, what you are showing in your samples achieved with D76. On the other hand my Agfa 100 (APX) developed in Rodinal showed no grain in 8x10 prints. I used Rodinal for about first 20 years of my photography passion and was happy with it. It always is the way you are using stuff.

I don't use D-76. The two samples were Neopan 400 in Acutol and FX-39. Again, these are small sections.

With slow films, developers make little difference as far as graininess is concerned. With medium and faster films, Rodinal clearly trails behind other choices, giving less speed, more grain, poorer sharpness, or all three (note results on FP3 and Plus-X, and on HP4 and Tri-X). See attached article from Leicafotographie from 1967 or so.

 

[timor]

This data is at least 40 years old.

 

[Ornello]

This data is at least 40 years old.

So what? Most of the developers are basically unchanged. Acufine, Microphen, D-76, Rodinal, etc....

It is clear that Rodinal gives poorer definition and more grain on Tri-X than any other developer tested. Tri-X is basically the same, too.

 

[timor]

Most films changed. As you said already.