Best 120 for landscapes & Rodinol developing

OK what format Medium Format? And Tripod I expect so let me say If it is larger than 6x6 without cropping then about any ISO 400 is fine. If smaller than that Then ISO 100 and I have found that The T grain films are not all that great with Rodinal except if you do long stand at high dilutions.
Others will disagree with me on that last personal observation but ehy that is why we are here.
I have been playing with the new Rollei Films the 80s and the 200S and I have to tell you that in Rodinal with high dilutions and Stand development the grain is not existent in 35mm and the MF stuff I did in Diafine was silk smooth but sharp.
I would say give some of the 80s a try at box speed and 1-150 or 1-200 for an hour full or slightly semi stand. I though would try a rool first for your camera and metering as they are way different or exactly like mine.. so there you go. :-)

I really like Fuji Acros, but I'm concerned about the long term plans of Fuji, given their recent paring down of their line. It is superb in Rodinal, but so is TMax 100. Some colleagues have caused me to reconsider picking products with long term viability (if that can be done these days in an ever shifting film market). I have been using a lot of TMax lately using a Rodinal/XTol mix for stand development, and getting excellent results. But I think TMax is fine in Rodinal, if that's what you want to use. I also like TMax in HC-110 with higher dilutions and processing times, as a compensating developer. So many films and developers, so little time.

With any process and film, it takes a little time to dial in the proper use. It's also worthwhile checking out people's portfolios and seeing what they shoot with (both on PNet and Flickr).

Michael I agree with you as I though have had bad problems with Rodinal and T grain films have found that that with high dilutions and stand they can have a place but mostly it was the Ilford Delta films that gave me the best results and the Kodak films at lower dilutions hated rodinal... but I said I love those who disagree and get good results... The Fuji film is good and the ACROS seems to love Rodinal as from what I understand it is a cross like the old Foma 200T and that the Neopan 400 was even closer in the 120 and that the same chemical process that killed the Foma 200T was the same one that killed the 120 Neopan 400.

I don't know about best but I also like Acros 100 in Rodinal. For 120 shots, its just what I like. Its smooth but sharp and has nice contrast for easy printing.
I would also try Pan F 50... If thats still made. That and Rodinal is one of the classic combinations.

I'll second the suggestion of the Rollei Retro 80s. I've been waiting for a while for Freestyle to get my entire order in stock so I can get more of this stuff. The 35mm is my go to film for anything on a tripod now. With my Pentax 6x7 I don't do anything not on the tripod so I use this almost exclusively.

One suggestion, it's not the easiest to work with in high contrast light. It's usable if you know what you're doing, but if you can shoot in anything less than high contrast, give it a try, it gives amazing skies, and the negatives are so easy to print from.

Personally I rated mine at EI 40-60 depending on the condition and adjusted development. I use WD2D+, but would expect it to respond in a normal manner to Rodinal, XTol, D-76, or HC-110.

Lars Have you seen my postings of using the 80s at 125-200 in Diafine. If not I have used the 35mm and the 120 and examples are there on my Flickr Web site.
I find that even with MF I can hand hold much better at the higher speed and that it tames the contrast and there is still no to little grain in 35mm and MF that is using anything from a TLR to a Texas SLR like my Arax 60 or my Old Kiev 88 or even my Kiev 6c. The Rollecord is one of my favorites with the 80s 120.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jokerphotography/

Thanks for the responses. One other question I have is this, let's say I shoot with Ilford Pan F 50, develop in Ilford Perceptol or R09 and then use the CanoScan 9000 Negative scanner to upload and print my images at my lab will I be wasting all that time and effort or should I definitely print them myself in the darkroom? Any opinions?

How about send the negatives to the lab that prints them and let them use the best method.

If you Develope you should at least scan or proof print to see what you like... But to each there own as Rodinal may scan on another person/labs machine total diff from you.

I always definitely print in my darkroom for serious B+W work. Its cheap, fun and digi prints just don't look as nice. For less exacting stuff like your average snap shot or something you just want to print and look at, then digi will be fine. If I was to do a digital print though, I would just send the negs in to my local shop and get them to do it on their Fuji Frontier or whatever it is they use. They can also do tints for me to sort of simulate toning. It saves a lot of work preparing the digi file and then colour balancing it etc.