Timor, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are coming from the perspective of printing photos. I agree that for that work, precision and accuracy are vitally important to create the highest quality of negative possible. However, for those of us who scan our negatives, the process is much more forgiving.
Well noticed, James, about me, wet printing.
Preparing negative for that is maybe somewhat different, than for scanning. I don't scan, I can't tell. However I don't think it is in general that much different. The rules are the same: capture maximum of dynamic range, capture maximum of detail, achieve maximum sharpness inside the DoF and achieve minimum of grain unless grain is desired.
Maximum DR is easy, enough to have something totally black and totally white and we have span from zone 0 to 10. Problem is, how many zones we captured in between. Rodinal is not the best in doing that, it is too contrasty, it was made for materials, which were lacking contrast comparing with modern negative materials. With too much contrast something will go missing, will be it detail in shadows or in highlights depending on exposition. However it is good for negs shot in soft light conditions with not much of DR span, 4-5 zones. I achieved best results pairing Rodinal with Agfa APX 100, but that was before I discovered real capabilities of HC 110. I was never really impressed with negs from stand in Rodinal, they seems to be way too thick. Yes, they look great when I look at them against light, but under enlarger problems associated with over development were well too obvious. In scanning it is maybe not too bad as scanner software is correcting some of them and after that there is always PS to "correct" a bit more. You James, maybe not notice it that much as your film of choice has thin, tabular emulsion, but HP5 with thick, silver rich emulsion will suffer from strong physical development which is a good part of Rodinal stand method. Much better for HP5 is Stoeckler, very simple, two bath, also fully"automatic" developer, yet one, which gives real compensation, better retention of detail and smaller grain. However it, as Rodinal stand, is devoid from any control over what it is actually doing. Another belief is, that Rodinal stand will correct deficiencies of the exposure. Well, grain not exposed to light will be not developed, however base fog may be mistaken for part of image. Consequently grain over exposed will be overdeveloped and base fog will only exaggerate that fact. In general the idea is to achieve negative as thin as it is possible without loosing any detail in any zone. Doesn't it sounds like something perfect for scanning ? It is certainly close to perfect for printing.
What I mean with all this here is' if we are here to waste some film, let's waste it with honor, trying to understand the process and to control it for the results we want to achieve, not, what comes out.
