Topic: Rodinal Positive??

[jharr]

Okay, someone help me out here because I am really confused.

I bought 400ft of Recordak Dacomatic on the cheap. Not knowing much about it, I thought I would run a quick test and see if I was going to get anything or if I had 400ft of Christmas streamers for the tree. So I put a few strips into a contact printing frame with some step wedges on top and took it outside. Exposure was between 3 and 10sec in full sun. I tray developed the strips in 1:100 Rodinal for about 5min under safety light. I know that is short, but under the red light it looked like the strips were going completely black, so I stopped and cleared for about 5min. Now here is where it starts getting weird. The images are positive, like a b/w slide! How in the world could that happen??

Sorry for the digipic, but it was expedient. The actual step wedge is on the right, the film image is on the left. Any ideas??

Thanks,
James

[astrobeck]

I think it solarized.

Really hard to tell from the image posted, but your description indicates that's what happened. 

[LT]

I think it is Solarised too. 3 seconds in full sun seems like a massive over exposure to me .... The film is very slow but if rated at ei 3,  the sunny 16 rule would give 1/3 second at f 16,  which would be more like 1/500 or shorter at f0 wouldn't it?

[Photo_Utopia]

With most reversal processes of yore you just took the film from the developer  and exposed it to light to reverse it (E4 worked this way)
Now we have chemicals that fog the film, with your example I'm guessing the red light is either the wrong wavelength or too close to the tray for safe darkroom work or somehow the film was exposed to white light before fixed.

It is actually quite hard to fog wet film, I tried to fog a sheet of film on purpose once and its harder than you would think. Film loses some sensitivity once wet, apparently...

[Peter84]

I bought the same stuff on ebay haven't tried it yet but I've done some research on the web and originally it seems to be a microfilm rated asa 6.

Hungry Mike has already tried some see a bit of a conversation we had here:

One of the other things I thought might work, based on my readings, is a developer called H&W Control (http://www.frugalphotographer.com/info-formulary-general.htm).   I haven't tested it or made it as I can't get one of the ingredients in Canada (it is controlled here): Hydroquinone (there isn't much of it in the formula but it is a common ingredient in developers).

Here's a sample on Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/threepinner/8238687549/

Supposedly, it is similar to the developer of Bluefire from Adox (http://www.adox.net/Products.htm).

[Francois]

My guess: it's duplicating film!

These were positive films used to duplicate negatives and slides.

[jharr]

Thanks all. Both theories are completely plausible. I did expose the crap out of it, not thinking about solarization. Also, my safelight is probably not safe enough to do tray work.

I shot a roll in my FTn yesterday at iso6, so we'll see what normal stand development in a tank does to it. Any predictions as to whether caffenol will work with this stuff?

James

[astrobeck]

I will predict yes on caffenol working...since it will develop kodachrome, and color films, (albeit in funky renditions) it should easily develop this stuff.

Have fun and good luck!   

[Hungry Mike]

A little different from my results:



That's at 12iso, xtol 1:1 @ approximately 3 minutes, developed under safelight. Maybe needs a little longer? I found it definitely did not like rapid fixer.

Here's a link to an image of the can with details of the type of film:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/akuerik/9354488752/#

[jharr]

So what fixer are you using for this, Mike? Those shots look pretty good.

[Peter84]

Shot a test roll today, brewed up some Xtol, to bad it only comes in sachels to make 5 liters.
I think I'll try it for 5 - 6 min developing time and normal fixing time with my ilford rap fix 1:4, I'll keep you posted

@hungrymike: did you fix it in pure fixer? pure as in how I take my scotch? That's strips a film clear in seconds... I tested it

[Hungry Mike]

Oh I forget exactly what it is now but it was a Kodak rapid fixer of some sort (whatever was cheap). I fixed that image with a diluted fixer, about 1:4 for about 3 minutes. I had done a strip test, under safe light, in undiluted fixer and the emulsion seemed to be stripped right off in that stuff.

[Francois]

I had done a strip test, under safe light, in undiluted fixer and the emulsion seemed to be stripped right off in that stuff.

Yikes!
And I thought those eastern Europe films had a soft emulsion!

[Hungry Mike]

I don't know how James & Peter found it but I found it extremely easy to scratch. I had to be very careful with loading and handling it. 

I ordered some non-hardening fixer so when I get that I'll see if that makes a difference.

[Francois]

I feel non hardening fixer will just make things worse...

Though you could probably mix a separate hardening bath just for it.

[Peter84]

I feel non hardening fixer will just make things worse...

Though you could probably mix a separate hardening bath just for it.

I only use ilford rapid fixer 1:4.... Not a clue if it is non-hardening or not...

but here is what the recordak dacomatic looks like when left for 6 min in xtol 1:1 shot @ asa6 in my eos300 this is a 30sec long exposure in my living room not to bad I think...

[Hungry Mike]

I feel non hardening fixer will just make things worse...

You think so? I don't know much about the chemistry but I've read that some people prefer non rapid fixer for microfilm. In anycase, I thought I would give it a shot at least once to see what the results are like.

Peter: I think that shot looks pretty good.

[Peter84]

I feel non hardening fixer will just make things worse...

You think so? I don't know much about the chemistry but I've read that some people prefer non rapid fixer for microfilm. In anycase, I thought I would give it a shot at least once to see what the results are like.

Peter: I think that shot looks pretty good.

@Hungry Mike: Thanks Mike 

[Jack Johnson]

I only use ilford rapid fixer 1:4.... Not a clue if it is non-hardening or not...

It's a non-hardening fixer.

I used to use straight sodium thiosulfate in solution, but it's somewhat easier to obtain the Ilford fixer here.

I use it at 1:9, though. My fix times correlate better with my previous set-up. Not certain if it's negatively affecting the quality of my negatives, though. It certainly can't be doing more harm than the photographer. 

[Photo_Utopia]

I had done a strip test, under safe light, in undiluted fixer and the emulsion seemed to be stripped right off in that stuff.

Undiluted as in no water?    My advice with non hardened emulsions is to dilute the fixer say even 1:7 and then use the double the clearing time method for fixation. Better to fix for 10 mins in weaker solution than 2 mins in high concentration.
Also keep the temperature down to 20°C or less a 1975 film probably hasn't got very hard gelatin.

[Hungry Mike]

Undiluted as in no water?   

By undiluted I mean fixer mixed according to the instructions on the concentrate bottle and not further diluted beyond that.

My advice with non hardened emulsions is to dilute the fixer say even 1:7 and then use the double the clearing time method for fixation

I'll give that a go in the next round of developing. Thank you for the advice.

[Francois]

Here is an old fixer solution

Cy yk ko o A Ac ci id d Hy yp po o F Fi ix xi in ng g B Ba at th h
SOLUTION A
Hypo 12 ounces
Water 64 ounces
Dissolve and then add Solution B (Hardener)
SOLUTION B
Water  5 ounces
Sodium Sulphite (powdered) ½ ounce
Acetic Acid No. 8  3 ounces
Alum (powdered)  ½ ounce
The acid fixing bath can be used repeatedly. It keeps well, but will by degrees become alkaline through the
gradual addition of developer, which adheres to the prints and is carried into the fixing bath. The bath should
be discarded entirely when it becomes muddy. If the fixing bath becomes exhausted, it will be frothy, or suds
will remain on the surface when it is violently agitated.

Personally, I would just mix-up solution B and use it as an extra step between the stop and the fixer. Not a chemist but I think this should work to some degree.

[jharr]

Francois, thanks for the formula. I might give that a try. Any idea what "Acetic Acid No. 8" is?

[Hungry Mike]

8% Acetic Acid perhaps?

[Jack Johnson]

8% Acetic Acid perhaps?

I suspect you're right. Most white table vinegar in the U.S. is about 5%, and I hear overseas it's usually 8%.

I still use an acid stop bath, and somewhere I found a calculator to get the dilution right. Now I just have the recipe.

Funny, I took chemistry in college, but I can't remember a thing. And surprisingly, alcohol was not a significant factor in that. Maybe we can get Reinhold to hook up with Khan Academy.

[Francois]

Francois, thanks for the formula. I might give that a try. Any idea what "Acetic Acid No. 8" is?

This is a formula from the late 1800's, so why number it is still anyone's guess.
I would just use regular strength stop bath instead.

Thing is, this formula doesn't seem to be the type of thing that produces a reaction between compounds.
The sulphite is a preservative since it's not used in a developer.
The acetic acid is there in such low quantity that it's probably just to adjust the ph.
The alum is what really hardens the emulsion.

I tried to find a formula that is easy to source. But there are simpler ones using Potassium Chrome Alum... but they require a trip to the chemical store.
If you want one, I'll go through my book and find one.

[jharr]

I think this can all be sourced from Photographer's Formulary. 8% acetic acid is easy enough (8ml glacial aa in 92ml water).

[Hungry Mike]

Forgive the poor scan but I think this result is interesting:


Shot with an OM2n & 50mm f2 (this is a macro lens) at 80ISO. Developed in Bluefire HR for 15 minutes and fixed for 3 minutes with a hypo fixer (a non-hardening fixer) at full strength. Note the scratches - the emulsion is very delicate.

[mcduff]

I am excited that you guys are getting this working, and not because I am expecting mike to let me buy a few rolls from his 400 feet haha.

Seriously, good job on a film that is hard to find info on!!

[jharr]

Forgive the poor scan but I think this result is interesting:

Shot with an OM2n & 50mm f2 (this is a macro lens) at 80ISO. Developed in Bluefire HR for 15 minutes and fixed for 3 minutes with a hypo fixer (a non-hardening fixer) at full strength. Note the scratches - the emulsion is very delicate.

Wow, iso80!!?? That seems way high compared to the other reports of shooting this around iso6. I guess the proof of the pudding is in the eating though. That photo looks to be perfectly exposed and developed. Great job Mike!

[Hungry Mike]

Yes, I was excited & pleased with the results. One thing I didn't mention is that I was using my flakey secondary Om2n which shredded the tail end of the film like it was making coleslaw. Quite extraordinary. No idea how that happened but that particular camera is really bad for chewing film if it is rolled sloppily (and sadly even if it wasn't which is why it doesn't get used that often!)

I got the idea for using Bluefire HR while looking at these links:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/31156504@N03/8238687549/
http://www.frugalphotographer.com/info-formulary-general.htm [the H&W Control recipe]

Bluefire HR has a relatively short shelf life (2 months under ideal conditions) so I might try some more Dacomatic and maybe some other microfilm (I wonder what Kodalith would look like) to see the results. If you got 400 feet of microfilm  Bluefire HR is definitely worth buying!

[Peter84]

Forgive the poor scan but I think this result is interesting:


Shot with an OM2n & 50mm f2 (this is a macro lens) at 80ISO. Developed in Bluefire HR for 15 minutes and fixed for 3 minutes with a hypo fixer (a non-hardening fixer) at full strength. Note the scratches - the emulsion is very delicate.

So I got it working at iso 6 and you got it working at iso 80, that is quite an exposure latitude, last test roll of 6 frames (now drying) I shot at iso 6 and souped in Xtol 1:3 for 15,5 minutes came out not to bad but, first impression, the first test roll was better.

I did scratch some as well while loading it in a cartridge, so that's some thing to keep an eye out for, but what the heck still got 397 feet to go 

[Hungry Mike]

not because I am expecting mike to let me buy a few rolls from his 400 feet haha.

Buy? McD, I'll let you have 30 feet free if you ask nicely!

[Peter84]

So here's the recordak shot iso 6 souped in Xtol 1:3 for 15,5 min, fixed in rap fix 1:4 3 min. Sorry for the dust and scratches..... Next I'll make a test roll from iso 6 to iso 100, see where that takes me,  still got plenty of the stuff to waste!

[Hungry Mike]

That doesn't look too bad Peter! In regards to pushing to 80, give it a try as I'm curious to see what it'd look like in Xtol but I think I managed to get it that high due to the developer I used. Bluefire HR is a variant of H&W Control, a high acutance developer designed for thin emulsions so it actually extends the range of slow microfilm. Here's a vintage ad for H&W Control which gives a fairly clear sales pitch:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/4922598585/#
I love the part about how this developer / film combo will give you large format quality in 35mm!

In anycase, I think that is why I got the results that I did.

[Hungry Mike]

Caffenol-C-L with Potassium Bromide might work well with this film too:

http://caffenol.blogspot.ca/2014/01/happy-new-year.html#links

[jharr]

Caffenol-CL + Bromide INDEED!!

Here is one from my first roll (complimentary pic to the one on the weekend thread) of this exposed at iso 12, stand developed in Caffenol-CL x 60min, fixed in Ilford Rapid Fixer 1:4 x 3min.



I'm glad I like this film since I have 400' of it!! 

[Hungry Mike]

James, that looks good! I don't have much experience with Caffenol but that combo looks decent. Did another round of Dacomatic in Bluefire HR and I have yet to scan them. Will post them when I look through them.  I did try a round of Kodalith (shot at 80 ISO) in Bluefire HR - didn't work out so well!

[Hungry Mike]

Here's a couple from the other weekend:


Untitled by Mike is always hungry, on Flickr


Untitled by Mike is always hungry, on Flickr

OM2n with 50mm f2 macro, shot at 80 ISO, Bluefire HR @ 15minutes, fixed for 30 seconds in stock solution of non-rapid fixer. This film and camera/lens combo is really growing on me. I look forward to more sunny days!

[jharr]

Rather than starting a new thread, I thought I would just update this with a couple of recent shots I made with some Dacomatic film at iso 16. Developed in Adonal 1:100 x 70min. Normally I do a couple of inversions at the half way point, but this time I got distracted and it just stood for the full 70min (after initial 30sec agitation). Now here's the kicker... There was no sign whatsoever of bromide drag! This has been a problem for me with stand developing 35mm film, but this time, nothing. Anyone have any thoughts on that?

dacomatic-013 by James Harr's Photos, on Flickr


dacomatic-015 by James Harr's Photos, on Flickr

[Indofunk]

I love those seed pods! My recent "oops" development was a full 6 hours in rodinal 1:100 and as I remember there was little to no bromide drag. Surprised the hell out of me too

[SLVR]

Adonal is the same recipe as Rodinal?

From what ive found online there is no bromide in Rodinal so there won't be bromide drag without any actual bromide present.

[jharr]

Thanks Satish. That was taken with the venerable Nikkor-P 105/2.5 that I borrowed from a friend. That is a really nice piece of glass. The pods were sort of orange/red, so the orthochromatic nature of this film rocked the contrast. Along with the very pleasing OOF of the lens, I am pretty happy with that photo. That might go on the wall even.

As for the bromide drag, I guess the extra agitation exagerates/exacerbates the problem, but if just left to work the way stand development is meant to work, it is minimized, even on a high contrast microfilm. Good to know.

TinTin, I don't know if it is exactly the same, but I thought it was. I definitely see the drag lines on photos developed with it though.

[SLVR]

I may be incorrect.

I have noticed some sort of drag lines on poorly stored/expired or unproperly exposed films. But when films are taken care of and not abused through the development process I get clean negs from my Rodinal(blazinal) 1:100 1h with 2 inversions at 30min.

[Indofunk]

I once tried a weird dev recipe that I made up myself based on nothing, it was Rodinal 1:82 for 1.5 hours, and there was HEAVY drag on those negs. I think Rodinal 1:100 is dilute enough to be safe, but I generally try to limit it to an hour and invert at 1/2 hour.

[jharr]

I have noticed some sort of drag lines on poorly stored/expired or unproperly exposed films.

That describes 95% of my photos! (5% of the time, I get lucky)

[gsgary]

This developer may be worth looking at http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/2013/03/the-lowdown-on-spursinn-hcd.html

[imagesfrugales]

So what fixer are you using for this, Mike? Those shots look pretty good.

Most films with thin emulsions have a clearing time in regular strenght fixers of only a few seconds and it's easy to overfix. Make a clearing test, dilute your fixer much more than usual and you will have a proper fixing. You can see this behaviour with almost every technical film.

[Ezzie]

Adonal is the same recipe as Rodinal?

From what ive found online there is no bromide in Rodinal so there won't be bromide drag without any actual bromide present.

Not necessarily. A lot of film emulsions contain bromide. Adding bromide to a developer may help avoid drag, as there will be bromide evenly distributed in the soup, rather than it being present only where released from the emulsion.

[Ezzie]

Another risk using Rodinal/Adonal/R09 etc for stand devlopment is halos around dark subjects. This is caused by too little developer in the mix. The highlights exhaust the developer, and scrounge from neighbouring darker areas creating a sort of halo. Which is why one should use no less than 5ml of developer syrup per film, regardless of dilution. Meaning that for one roll of 135, you end up with 500ml of soup when diluting 1:100 , even if you only need 350ml to cover to film.

Or you very well may get this effect:


Hakadal Kirke by Eirik0304, on Flickr