Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dan, I agree with you. The combination Delta 400 and Rodinal is one of the worst ones I ever came across, the prints look real muddy. After testing the combo, I never used it. I sometimes use Rodinal with Delta 100 and I like the resulting sharp grain, it gives a nice bite to the prints. However, for Delta 100, Xtol is generally my favorite, but sometimes it is too smooth. For HP5 I prefer Rodinal but I use this combination mainly for artificial light. For natural (low) light I prefer Delta 400 in Xtol 1+1. (More or less the same situation as above with Delta + Xtol giving smoother prints than Rodinal and .....) Really low light? Fuji 1600 shot at 3200 and developed in Xtol 1+1. Much sharper and less grain than the two _so-called_ 3200s on the market. I have not tried Fuji 1600 in Rodinal yet. Has somebody else out there? I am pretty well settled down with the above, the only film I now need to find a good developer for is Tech Pan (shot at at least 64 and giving continous tones). Chris > >It is indeed Rodinal here, as well, and a few recent rolls of Delta 400 in >Rodinal 1+25 show more than adequate grain! I am not a fanatic about grain >at all, but this tended to look like oatmeal! >I don't recall Tri-X showing this much grain with Rodinal, and wonder if it >is a factor of the thin emulsion, and a fairly reactive developing agent? >There seems to be a little more 'fogging' as well when compared to Tri-X in >either Rodinal or D-76. > >Any other experiences, thus? > >Dan