stand development

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have done stand development off-and-on for over thirty years with Rodinal, and have never, ever achieved the so-called 'edge effect' mentioned in many testimonials, even using condenser enlargers such as the Leitz Valoy or my favorite, a Focomat IIA. Never. And I use lenses that render grain as sharply as anyone would dream of.

 

In addition, IMHO, stand development is most compatible with medium-speed films, my favorite being Agfa 100. It is just so right - for me.

Edited November 3, 2013 by pico

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Pyrogallol]

This is an old topic, but I will add my thoughts.

I have used Rodinal for several years now and like it as it lasts right to the final dregs in the bottle and gives me good printable negatives.

I do not use the no-agitation method but do leave it for the final minute of development (8 minutes for FP4) to build up a little edge effect.

In fact I use the exact opposite method with sheet film as I develop them, 5x4 upto 10x8, in a print drum designed for colour paper on a Durst print roller base, so the film gets constant agitation. It works ok for me.

[tobey bilek]

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

 

The the mistakes are all in the question, beginner, experimenting, multiple film,  two developers,  agitation that does not work.

 

Trust me you will never get to excellence skipping around.  One film, one developer,  one agitation scheme and keep it up until you can achieve excellent results 100% of the time.  Then try short strips of something else to see if it is better.    Honestly DDX and Delta 100 or 400 really can not be bettered.   Current Delta 400 works best in Ddx or Xtol, no others.   

[Michael Hiles]

In my experience Tobey is right. Don’t start experimenting with unconventional techniques until you have lots of solid experience with a tried and true technique.

 

What you should do is test for your actual/personal film speed, and for a development time that produces a good print on grade 2 or 2.5. There are standard tests – they are easy to find. You might likely find that Tri-X should be exposed for 200 ASA for example, notwithstanding what Kodak says. 

 

Learn to walk before you try figure skating.

[Bill Clark]

I find this is a good article on stand developing:

 

http://jbhildebrand.com/2011/tutorials/workflow-tutorial-2-stand-development-with-rodinal/

 

What works for me is:

 

6 ml of stock to

600 ml of water.

 

Develop 1 hr.

 

Works best with low iso films.

[pico]

I find this is a good article on stand developing:

 

http://jbhildebrand.com/2011/tutorials/workflow-tutorial-2-stand-development-with-rodinal/

 

What works for me is:

 

6 ml of stock to

600 ml of water.

 

Develop 1 hr.

 

One hour is not necessary because the developer (Rodinal at 1:100 dilution) is largely exhausted in 35 minutes or less and exhaustion is what stand development is about.

Edited September 15, 2018 by pico

[jmahto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have done stand development off-and-on for over thirty years with Rodinal, and have never, ever achieved the so-called 'edge effect' mentioned in many testimonials, even using condenser enlargers such as the Leitz Valoy or my favorite, a Focomat IIA. Never. And I use lenses that render grain as sharply as anyone would dream of.

 

In addition, IMHO, stand development is most compatible with medium-speed films, my favorite being Agfa 100. It is just so right - for me.

Can I ask why you don't want to do stand development all the time?

EDIT: Please ignore my question. I went through the entire thread and understand that it is not the best development method in general. I will try it some time just to satisfy my curiosity

 

The reason for me asking is that OP has asked exactly my question and I am also thinking about trying out different development methods. Just exhausted one bottle of DD-X and ordered another. I will try to gather more experience with my current method but wondering about greener grass on the other side.

Edited September 16, 2018 by jmahto

[adan]

The only real downside to stand development (once one gets used to it) is the risk of "bromide drag" or other uneveness of development. As I said on the previous page (and years ago), development is a chemical reaction, and the chemical byproducts can change the behavior of the developer. The bromide given off by the film's silver bromide as it converts to metallic silver in developing can migrate to other parts of the film and cause streaks or splotchiness.

 

As we know, water with chemicals dissolved in it is heavier than pure water (salt water is heavier/denser than fresh water). Under the pull of gravity, areas of developer will tend to separate by weight/density and streak down the film.

 

Take a look at this image, with glowing bright "streaks" upwards from the bridge tower - bromide drag or something similar.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/spiritusmentis/38731194452

 

The "holes" in 35mm film can also produce such streaks or smudges (no chemical reaction there at all, just unused developer to migrate randomly). And that is why standard agitation every 30-60 seconds (while requiring more attention than just leaving the film to "stand" in developer) is recommended by the industry.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mkberquist/19672866476