Stand development with Rodinal 1:150 is appropriate for relatively
high-contrast scenes (or N-2,N-1).

Yes, do that. Seriously, Patterson reels are just terrible.

Who told you not to agitate? Who told you to use Rodinal?

I use Paterson tanks and get EXCELLENT results.

Dumbass....

  I've never been much of a fan of stand or stagnant
development. The idea is that the reaction products of
development are allowed to become concentrated in the
vicinity of the image. The idea is that this will restrain
the image development in proportion to its density. Also,
since there is a concentration of reaction products at the
border of a high and low density area the reaction products
tend to restrain development in the low density region just
adjacent to the high density one while relatively fresh
developer diffusing into the emulsion from the low density
region tends to accelerate development on the high density
side. The effect is to strongly exagerate "acutance" or the
conrast of the low to high density areas in a very narrow
line surrounding the border. The width of the line being
controlled mostly by the rate of diffusion in the emulsion.
  This assumes the reaction products of the developer are
restrainers and not accelerators of development. This is
true for Rodinal but may not be for many Metol-Hydroquinone
developers.
  The assumption that the reaction products of development
stay in a small area concentrated around the development
centers is not always true. If the film or plate is exactly
horizontal the effect can work pretty well. However, when
film is vertical, as it usually is in a tank, the slight
variation in density of the reaction products can cause some
movement of the heavier materials before they can diffuse
out into the body of the developer. This can cause
directional streaking below high density areas due to the
flow of restraining chemicals there. There is still some
flow when the film is flat but it tends to move radially
along the surface. There is also an effect known as
"port-holing" due to the relative concentration of reaction
products near the center of large high density areas. This
results in lower density there.
  While stagnant development is supposed to result in high
acutance and a "compensating" effect, that is, the
production of a shoulder or lower contrast for highlights,
it often just produces very non-uniform negatives. While
many claim to get good negatives from this method and tout
it, I am very sceptacle.
  In photographic areas requiring very uniform results,
like sensitometry and motion picture photography, heroic
efforts are made to insure uniform and vigorous agitation.
The two often don't go together: for instance, the sprocket
holes of 35mm film and the spaces between the film windings
on a reel can cause exagerated turbulance in their immediate
vicinity causing increased development there. This sort of
uneveness is quite common and is familiar to those who
process roll and 35mm in tanks. The answer is not to over
agitate. In general the recommendation to invert an
invertible tank about once a second for either 5 seconds
every 30 seconds (Kodak recommendation) or for 10 seconds
once a minute (Ilford recommendation) will result in
reasonably uniform development although one can still find
some non-uniformity. More uniform development requires
constant agitation using some special techniques such as the
spray systems used for motion picture development or brush
development, sometimes used for sensitometric work. Another
method of improving uniformity is the use of bursts of gas
bubbles in sheet film tanks.
  All these efforts would not be necessary if stagnant
development was satisfactory in general applicaton. Its not.
Its a special technique essentially for a special effect.
IMO it should be avoided if one want's consistently good
negatives.

  Rodinal is an OK developer which works for nearly any
film (and is also a good albeit expensive paper developer at
about 1:30). However, Rodinal is probably not the optimum
developer for any film due to its tendency toward
graininess. This is less so with some modern films like
T-Max, which have hard enough emulsions to resist the
tendency of developed grains to migrate and clump, a result
of high pH in the developer. Also, grain is not so important
in large-format negatives. Where the grain can be tollerated
Rodinal is a convenient all-purpose developer with good tone
rendition.