Jump to content

The Leica Forum uses cookies. Read the privacy statement for more info. To remove this message, please click the button to the right:    OK, understood.

Photo
- - - - -

stand development


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Olimatt

Olimatt

    Benutzer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts

Posted 25 November 2012 - 18:12

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)
Hello,

I am a film beginner and experimenting with BW development. I have been sticking to only one developer (DD-X) and trying to learn how it behaves on several films.
I also got some Adonal (Rodinal)... and found today some articles about stand development in rodinal.

What is your opinion on that development technique ? It seems that it is possible to develop the same film at different speeds (pushed up to 2 stops) using the the same development time!? This opens to me a new world of possibilities !

I am grateful for any feedback.

Best Regards,

Olivier

#2 250swb

250swb

    Sponsoring Member

  • Premium Member
  • 6,389 posts
  • LocationPeak District, United Kingdom
  • City / Ort:The Peak District, Derbyshire

Posted 27 November 2012 - 14:32

I have never used stand development with Rodinal, but it does seem to be the 'in thing' at the moment.

Whenever I use the semi stand or stand method it is with compensating tanning developers like DiXactol or 510 Pyro and you can pretty well use the same development time for all films of any speed. The thing about different formulations for Pyro style developers is that they are either very sharp but slightly grainy, or very tiny grain but slightly less sharp, which is why I use them with medium and large format only, both small increase's in grain or slightly less sharpness become insignificant. They aren't so good for 35mm.

But I think Rodinal should work very well, it is a very effective technique for controlling highlights while giving the shadows time to develop. What I have read is that some people seem to get uneven development over long times, say an hour, but from the forums it is hard to determine if this is the user or the technique at fault. If I were you I'd start with a semi-stand version of the formula, and use a film that you know has plenty of highlights that would normally be a problem, then you will see if it works for you.

Steve

#3 pico

pico

    Sponsoring Member

  • Members
  • 10,110 posts
  • Location51°39'16.05" N 5°42'14.47" E

Posted 30 November 2012 - 21:45

Olivier: stand processing does not push ISO, so it is unrealistic to presume that we can put our under-exposures in a batch of nominally properly exposed films and get good results.

#4 250swb

250swb

    Sponsoring Member

  • Premium Member
  • 6,389 posts
  • LocationPeak District, United Kingdom
  • City / Ort:The Peak District, Derbyshire

Posted 01 December 2012 - 09:33

Yes, and Rodinal reduces film speed anyway, even in normal development.

But I think you will find the development times of different ISO films coming much closer together using stand development with Rodinal. It can't be as radical as a Pyro developer, but the principle of the developer becoming progressively exhausted on the highlights and mid tones and carrying on developing the shadows is still sound. But then you still need to decide if you like the look of the negative this produces.

Steve

#5 tobey bilek

tobey bilek

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 3,828 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 02:27

Beginners should follow instructions, seriously. And use one film and one developer like tri x and D76 basic. Master that first.

Stand will get you nice streaks sooner or later.

#6 adan

adan

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 5,837 posts
  • City / Ort:Denver

Posted 08 December 2012 - 19:19

Yes, and Rodinal reduces film speed anyway, even in normal development.


According to whom, and compared to what?

Let's back up and touch on the wider subject of "compensating development" - which applies to both Rodinal and "stand development," independently of each other.

Development is a chemical reaction, with two consequences (at least) beyond converting exposed silver halide into metallic silver.

1) The reagents in the developer get used up by the reaction.

2) The chemical reaction produces byproducts in the developer (bromine or bromine compounds, most usually), which themselves slow (restrain) the developing reaction.

This means that developer in contact with parts of the film with a lot of exposure (highlights) weakens at a given rate, and developer in contact with parts of the film without much exposed silver to react with (shadows) remains potent for a longer time.

The purpose of agitation is to remix the "used" and "fresh" developer touching various parts of the image fairly often, so that the developing is consistent across the whole image.

However, there are scenarios where the differential changes in the local strength of the developer are useful - most commonly, in extending the tonal range (but also creating edge effects between shadow and highlight areas, about which more later). This is called "compensating development" since it can compensate for a high-contrast-range subject or lighting.

On the whole, compensating development tends to produce the highest film speed possible for a given emulsion, in that it gives "full-time" development to the shadows, while the highlights use up the reagents and development comes to a relative stand-still. Film speed is, of course, measured by shadow density for a given exposure - the point where exposure density exceeds unexposed film-base-plus-fog by 0.1.

There are multiple ways to achieve compensating development:

1. "Stand development" - no agitation means the highlights use up the developer in contact with the film and then cease developing, while the shadows only slowly use up their "local developer" and get more actual developing time.

2. Split development - essentially stand development by chemical means. Example, Diafine. The film is put into a bath A of developing compounds minus the required alkali environment, and soak up as much as the gelatin can hold.

Film emulsion, although thin on a human scale, can soak up a LOT of developer molecules as the gelatin swells. It can be noted that Diafine gives a higher speed boost to thick-emulsion films like Tri-X than it does to thinner emulsions like TMax or Tech Pan, that can't soak up as much developer and thus can't benefit as much from compensating techniques.

Then the film is placed in an alkali bath B without additional developing compounds, and the alkali starts the development. With no new source of developing compounds, the highlight development quickly comes to a standstill, while the shadows keep developing in relatively "fresh" developer for maximum film speed.

3. Water-bath development. A favorite of Ansel Adams. Carries the split-development idea further. Put the film in developer and process for a partial development time. Then put the film into plain water without agitation. A certain amount of developer remains soaked up in the emulsion gelatin, and works away, again dying faster in the highlight areas than in the shadows. The developer/water steps can be repeated several times.

4. High-dilution developers. Example, Rodinal at 1:50 or 1:100. In effect, a developer containing its own water bath. With high dilution there are relatively few developer molecules available per ml, so they get rapidly get used up in reactive highlights, and development ceases until the next agitation. While the shadows develop "full-time."

Additonal notes:

Edge effects are a byproduct of compensating development. Where a strong shadow and a strong highlight are side by side, weakened developer from the highlight diffuses slightly through the gelatin into the edge of the shadow, reducing development, and less-used developer from the shadow diffuses into the edge of the highlight, increasing development. The result is like a Photoshop "unsharp mask" - a contrast increase along the edge that is perceived as a "sharper" edge. Fuji specifically added chemicals to the emulsion layers of Velvia to enhance edge effects and apparent sharpness in regular E6 processing.

What WILL decrease film speed are "fine-grain" developers (Microdol-X, Perceptol) - developers containing extra silver solvents, often sodium sulfite . At the same time that the developer is creating metallic silver, the solvent is eating away at it, keeping the grains small (but also reducing the amount of silver overall, thus a thinner negative, unless more exposure was given up front = lower effective film speed). And also reducing edge sharpness as the edges are chewed up by the solvent.

Rodinal is the diametric opposite of "fine-grain" developers. It contains no solvents at all, thus producing full grain, full speed, and high edge sharpness. Some people even add sodium sulfite to Rodinal to soften its acute grain tendencies. Extremely high dilutions of Rodinal may mean the developer poops out in BOTH highlights and shadows between agitations (not enough molecules) - but that just means a longer time or a bit more agitation should be used, not that Rodinal itself somehow reduces film speed.

Most developers (D-76, ID-11) are compromises that fall in between Microdol-X and Rodinal, with a little sodium sulfite to keep grain smooth, without losing too much speed or acutance.

Edited by adan, 08 December 2012 - 19:27.


#7 250swb

250swb

    Sponsoring Member

  • Premium Member
  • 6,389 posts
  • LocationPeak District, United Kingdom
  • City / Ort:The Peak District, Derbyshire

Posted 09 December 2012 - 09:38

According to whom, and compared to what?


According to 'whom'? I said it Andy, and you did quote me, so I would have said it was 'according to me'.

I will not similarly treat you like you don't exist Andy, since you made an effort to reply to the thread. If only you had made a similar effort in researching the film speed of many films when used in Rodinal. And what many experts say is that it reduces effective film speed. Googling brings up many many references, I link to just two (one of which refers specifically to higher dilutions used for stand development), plus a film processing chart for reference

Rodinal - Oldest Commercial Developer

Times/Rodinal

Analogue Photography and Film FAQ: Rodinal


Obviously lindividual differences in practice can also affect film speed, but I am talking about the overall concensus.

Steve

#8 adan

adan

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 5,837 posts
  • City / Ort:Denver

Posted 09 December 2012 - 19:12

From your own links:

What Ed Buffaloe said:

"My practice has always been to use 5 milliliters in 500 milliliters of water for the 1:100 dilution, which may account for the lengthy developing times with some films, but it works just fine. Higher dilutions may cause speed loss, so be prepared to rate your film at about half its normal speed. "

What I said:

"Extremely high dilutions of Rodinal may mean the developer poops out in BOTH highlights and shadows between agitations (not enough molecules)....."

William Brodie-Tyrrell makes a passing reference to "poorer film speed" without providing any detail or examples - but then goes on to say that "it is possible that very dense" (i.e. generously exposed) rolls will have poorer highlight rendition..." - which argues for normal exposure.

The developing chart you link to shows that one can get full film speed - or half normal speed - with various films in Rodinal, depending on the time used. e.g.:

Efke 100 - at either 100 or 50
Agfa APX 100 - at either 100 or 50
APX 25 - at either 12 or 25
Pan F - at rated speed (50)
Tmax 400 - at 250 or 400

What I said: "....- but that just means a longer time or a bit more agitation should be used, not that Rodinal itself somehow reduces film speed."
_________

Ilford (whom, I submit, counts as THE expert when it comes to their own films) lists a whole range of effective speeds for each of their films in each of their developers at different developing times.

http://www.ilfordpho...10204272065.pdf

Almost all those developers CAN be used to process, for example, FP4 Plus, at ISO 50 instead of the rated ISO 125......EXCEPT Rodinal! With Rodinal, they list the normal film speed - or INCREASING film speed to 200. FP4 at ISO 50 in Rodinal is NOT recommended.

They also recommend full film speed (or higher) in Rodinal with Pan F and HP5. No times listed for reduced film speeds.

They do provide times for lower film speeds with Rodinal for the Delta films - but then, they also provide times for lower speeds with those films with almost all the listed developers.

Would you say that Ilfotec HC or ID-11 "reduce film speed" - simply because Ilford's chart lists times for Pan F at ISO 25, or FP4 at ISO 50, or Delta 3200 @ 400 (as options) with those developers?

I'm just not seeing any "overall concensus" - or if there is one, it is that "normal" film speed is the norm with Rodinal, not the exception.

#9 adan

adan

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 5,837 posts
  • City / Ort:Denver

Posted 09 December 2012 - 19:36

It is also of note that Agfa themselves only recommended using Rodinal at 1:25 and 1:50 dilutions.

Original charts and tables here: Using RODINAL

If photographers use it at 1:100 or higher dilutions, they are of course free to do so and use whatever film rating they need - but they are "outside the envelope" and in uncharted territory in terms of what the creators of Rodinal had in mind.

D-76 diluted 1:4 or 1:10, instead of 1:1 or undiluted as listed by Kodak, might also result in reduced film speeds. But that is hardly a characteristic of D-76, just a characteristic of using it other than as designed.

#10 250swb

250swb

    Sponsoring Member

  • Premium Member
  • 6,389 posts
  • LocationPeak District, United Kingdom
  • City / Ort:The Peak District, Derbyshire

Posted 10 December 2012 - 09:26

It is also of note that Agfa themselves only recommended using Rodinal at 1:25 and 1:50 dilutions.

Original charts and tables here: Using RODINAL

If photographers use it at 1:100 or higher dilutions, they are of course free to do so and use whatever film rating they need - but they are "outside the envelope" and in uncharted territory in terms of what the creators of Rodinal had in mind.


The thread is about stand development and I think you have gone off track somewhat in quoting 'official' sites and sources for standard film development at normal dilutions. It doesn't really add anything to the discussion about stand development.

As you dispute the lessons learned by other people in the use of higher dilutions (as well as normal dilutions), and you have opined on the theory of processing with various developers (but without offering a single practical view of your own) I just don't see your point other than in your grinding negativity towards stand development. It sounds as if you think it is the work of the devil. A case in point, you say more than once that Rodinal doesn't reduce film speed, and that a longer time or more agitation should be used etc. This is very easy to understand up to a point, but makes no sense when the whole idea of stand development is not to agitate the film in the developer. I could go on with other instances of you not 'getting it', but life is too short. I do trust you have your own practical experiences of using stand development (not from a manufacturers chart or pure theory), so let's hear those.

Steve

Edited by 250swb, 10 December 2012 - 09:29.


#11 adan

adan

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 5,837 posts
  • City / Ort:Denver

Posted 10 December 2012 - 16:50

The thread is about stand development and I think you have gone off track somewhat in quoting 'official' sites and sources for standard film development at normal dilutions.


Steve, you are the one who introduced standard development to the discussion, You said "Yes, and Rodinal reduces film speed anyway, even in normal development."

Which is exactly, precisely, and soley the comment I responded to.

If you don't want to talk about normal or standard development - don't raise the subject. Especially don't raise the subject with a comment that is demonstrably debatable in accuracy - because you will get debate if you do.

I just don't see your point other than in your grinding negativity towards stand development. It sounds as if you think it is the work of the devil.


Where, anywhere in this discussion, have I expressed or even implied negativity towards stand development? Please quote.

#12 250swb

250swb

    Sponsoring Member

  • Premium Member
  • 6,389 posts
  • LocationPeak District, United Kingdom
  • City / Ort:The Peak District, Derbyshire

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:12

Where, anywhere in this discussion, have I expressed or even implied negativity towards stand development? Please quote.


You seemed to be spending a lot of time talking about anything other than stand development, that is what gave me the impression. As for Rodinal cutting film speed, I have already pointed you to two sources, one that deals with greater dilutions of Rodinal, and one that deals with normal dilutions.

I also suggested you Google this, so you can see for yourself and without me interfering, how a wider group of photographers also proceed from the basis of Rodinal lowering film speed. If you could do that, then I don't have to argue with you, you can argue with them, and as there are more of them your message will be spread wide and not wasted on a deaf ear.

Steve

#13 adan

adan

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 5,837 posts
  • City / Ort:Denver

Posted 12 December 2012 - 18:33

Again, I remind you that YOU changed the subject here. I didn't bring up the effects of Rodinal in normal development, you did. See post #4. Don't blame me for veering off-topic when YOUR hand was on the wheel when we veered.....

I haven't commented on stand development because, on that aspect of the thread, there have been no questionable assertions that required comment.

Yes, you pointed me to two sources - internet bloggers
I pointed you to two sources - development/film-speed charts by professional photochemists at Agfa and Ilford.

There are "sources" - and there are "authoritative sources." Given the choices above, it isn't hard to figure out which is which.

I googled "Rodinal reduces film speed". The first three hits were:

Flickr: Discussing Rodinal reducing film speed? in RODINAL
I want more film speed with Rodinal
does Rodinal dilution influence film speed? - Photo.net B&W Photo - Film & Processing Forum

Hardly universal support for your contention that Rodinal reduces film speed "even in formal development." Some of them do mention stand development or other reduced-agitation techniques in passing.

However, that is neither here nor there. Film development is a chemical reaction subject to scientific analysis. Scientific fact isn't something subject to majority vote on social media, one way or the other (although the global warming deniers would like us to believe otherwise).

I'll take the published results of Agfa/Ilford photo scientists over 10,000 nons(ci)ence opinions pulled from the navel of the internet.

#14 adan

adan

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 5,837 posts
  • City / Ort:Denver

Posted 12 December 2012 - 18:55

Back to Olivier's question: I agree with the previous posts on that subject (including Steve's #2 - although that may surprise him!)

Stand development is a rather specialized technique for solving specific problems with tonality. It is not the best way for a film beginner to start out. There's a reason why D-76 with normal agitation and times is a standard - it gives an excellent "zero point" to learn from. After a few hundred rolls, you'll have enough experience to try branching out to more exotic developers or techniques.

#15 Olimatt

Olimatt

    Benutzer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 00:04

Back to Olivier's question: I agree with the previous posts on that subject (including Steve's #2 - although that may surprise him!)

Stand development is a rather specialized technique for solving specific problems with tonality. It is not the best way for a film beginner to start out. There's a reason why D-76 with normal agitation and times is a standard - it gives an excellent "zero point" to learn from. After a few hundred rolls, you'll have enough experience to try branching out to more exotic developers or techniques.


ok! I will reopen this thread in 1-2 years and stick now to DD-X :)

#16 tobey bilek

tobey bilek

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 3,828 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 13:05

Firstly follow instructions. The manufactures worked them out for best results. As a beginner, you will not have a target to shoot for without learning the proper way.

Stand gives streaks. Look at the leader. Sooner or later you will get the same on a good frame.

#17 Robert Seeney

Robert Seeney

    Benutzer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 69 posts
  • City / Ort:Nottingham

Posted 10 March 2013 - 14:15

I use stand development. I am nowhere near as experienced as other people in this thread so I won't get involved in that debate. I have shot tri-x (pushed 2 stops and normal) and more recently hp5 pushed 2 stops and used rodinal stand for both. I am pleased with the results - another developer may have given me different results of course but for me, it has done the job.

My technique is taken from hildebrands website.

7mL of rodinal plus 700mL of water in a 2 reel Patterson. Several inversions to start with then leave alone for 30-40 mins. 3 gentle inversions and then leave for another 30-40 mins.

Empty the tank of the rodinal solution, fill and empty with water 3 times as a stop bath

Use ilford rapid fix

Ilford wash method

Dry


Works for me - is it better than other developers/methods....no idea- I will try other things in due course.

Rob

#18 gsgary

gsgary

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 1,408 posts
  • City / Ort:Chesterfield, UK

Posted 11 March 2013 - 00:25

I like using Rodinal for stand developing
this is HP5 (120) shot at iso1600 and stand developed for 2 hours

Posted Image

this is HP5 (35mm) at iso3200 stand developed for 1 hour

Posted Image
  • Pintpot and philipus said thank you to this

#19 M.Hilo

M.Hilo

    Benutzer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 11 March 2013 - 09:57

ok! I will reopen this thread in 1-2 years and stick now to DD-X :)


I just saw this thread for the first time and must say I couldn't agree more with Tobey Bilek's (and others too) posts here: to experiment with film developing when you're starting out is not a very good idea.

To master simple basic developing already is quite something to learn. Because you will need to build up experience in printing as well, to realise how it works and how it works best for you. It is only then that you will notice when you've agitated too little, or too much - or when you have not gotten your temperatures right - or when certain photographing conditions deserved a bit stronger development.

We all have our own ways, that's fine of course. To me 'experimenting' with developing would mean to shoot test films only. I would never risk important shots.

I developped my first film in 1977, in Rodinal. Yesterday I developped my most recent film, in Rodinal (Adox). In between (maybe 3000 films) I never used anything else. I like Rodinal because it is always fresh, so it always works the same providing you always do the same.

I guess that means that I find experimenting with film developing never a very good idea, regardless at what point you are in photography. Hmmmm, how conventional.

Edited by M.Hilo, 11 March 2013 - 10:01.


#20 tobey bilek

tobey bilek

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 3,828 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 18:05

Rodinal - Oldest Commercial Developer

Ed is an expert.




0 user(s) are reading this topic