Stand development

[rpopescu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Move from http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/291555-let-lesson-you.html

 

 

Tobey,

 

This is completely off-topic here of course, but stand and semi-stand development really does work.

I've no idea how you've tried it and why you've gotten sproket, but I do this:

- developer: Kodak HC-110 or Ilford Ilfotec HC (I have and use both);

- ratio: 1:119 (6ml developer for 720ml solution);

- temperature: 20 C;

- tank: Paterson for two 135 rolls or one 120 roll;

- process: agitate the first minute, then leave to rest for 60 (normal exposure) to 90 minutes (pushing).

 

I've developed for 60 minutes T-Max 400, Tri-X 400, Agfa 100 APX, Ilford HP5+ in 135 format, and Tri-X 400 in 120 format. I've also developed for 90 minutes some Tri-X 400 in 120, with really excellent results concerning highlight detail preservation and very good details in the shadows. No streaks, drag, tides, waves etc.

 

The only comparatively unsatisfactory results I've had with Delta 3200 in 135 shot at ISO 3200; I should have developed these for at least 90 minutes, or maybe even two hours, with a twist mid-way. The photos were very usable and moody due to the prominent graininess, but I do think I could have gotten better results with longer development here.

[rpopescu]

I meant "why you've gotten streaks" not "sprocket" there...

[tobey bilek]

All kinds of people claim it works. I have tried diluted HC110 and diluted Rodinal and it does not come out to my satisfaction. Images without smooth tones seem ok, but a sky or building facade invariably leaves streaks across the short dimension.

 

I really fail to see how I could do anything wrong, time, temp, and leave it alone except for an agitation in the middle.

[Michael Hiles]

In what way(s) is stand development superior to using something close to the manufacturer's recommendations?

[semi-ambivalent]

In what way(s) is stand development superior to using something close to the manufacturer's recommendations?

 

I don't think "superior" is the word to use here. Stand and s-s development offers some things in exchange for other things. Stand development and Rodinal has acquired a sort of cult status so it's easy to hear as much of either side of the argument as you'd care to hear. You can check out here if you'd like to:

Flickr: Discussing Tri-X EI 3200 in Rodinal 1:100 for 120 minutes in RODINAL

 

Mr. Miller has posted or linked to some amazing images using stand development and Rodinal. That's one person who likes it.

 

s-a

[rpopescu]

All kinds of people claim it works.

 

What exactly do you mean by "all kinds" of people?

 

If you're willing to provide the necessary details of your workflow perhaps we can help, by carefully comparing all the parameters.

 

I'm attaching a photo taken with an M6 on Tri-X 400 in evening shade against a strongly lit background (60 minutes stand), and linking to another one taken on a Rolleicord on Tri-X 400 in full summer sun (60 minutes stand) and another one in very dark conditions (90 minutes stand).

 

The second photo has ample opportunity to show the kind of streaking you're talking about: plenty of sky, traversed by thin contrasting lines, and the prison buildings are pale with very dark windows.

 

 

The first mention of semi-stand that I have encountered is in Ansel Adam's The Negative; I'm not saying he invented the technique though - I've read that it goes back to the 19th century.

 

Regarding the superiority of (semi-) stand development, start by considering what it is: a way to preserve highlight detail while increasing shadow detail, by using a dilution that allows the developer to spend itself completely on the more exposed negative areas (thus preventing overexposure of highlights) and giving more time for it to work on the under-exposed areas.

Normal development with comparative highlight detail would result in less shadow detail, while pushing to bring out the shadows would result in losing highlight detail.

 

Another advantage is that you can use it with different films, shot at different ISO ratings, in wildly varying conditions, provided that you use a suitable developer in a suitable concentration. In 135 format I've developed together in the same tank Tri-X 400 and Agfa APX 100, and Tri-X and HP5+, each time for 1 hour using 6ml of Kodak HC-110.

 

Speaking from a personal point of view, I've switched to stand development for two reasons: I take plenty of photos in bad light using hand-held cameras, and regular push development leaves me with blown highlights (such as they are) and increased graininess. Stand development helps with both issues.

Furthermore, I really appreciate the simplicity of doing the same thing every time regardless of film types (even mixed kinds) and shooting conditions.

 

A caveat: apparently not all developers are suitable (I've read that T-Max is ill-suited for it, but without an explanation).

I have no experience with Rodinal (and do not plan to either) but I've also read that it seems prone to bromide drag (which may very well be the streaking Toby sees); there are however specific ways to counter that by adding some other chemical to the developer.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[gsgary]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This shot is from a bulk load of 18 years out of date Tmax100 shot At 400 stand developed in Rodinal and 12g sodium sulphite for 1 hour

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/296908-looking-you-looking-me.html

[semi-ambivalent]

What exactly do you mean by "all kinds" of people?

 

If you're willing to provide the necessary details of your workflow perhaps we can help, by carefully comparing all the parameters.

 

I'm attaching a photo taken with an M6 on Tri-X 400 in evening shade against a strongly lit background (60 minutes stand), and linking to another one taken on a Rolleicord on Tri-X 400 in full summer sun (60 minutes stand) and another one in very dark conditions (90 minutes stand).

 

The second photo has ample opportunity to show the kind of streaking you're talking about: plenty of sky, traversed by thin contrasting lines, and the prison buildings are pale with very dark windows.

 

 

The first mention of semi-stand that I have encountered is in Ansel Adam's The Negative; I'm not saying he invented the technique though - I've read that it goes back to the 19th century.

 

Regarding the superiority of (semi-) stand development, start by considering what it is: a way to preserve highlight detail while increasing shadow detail, by using a dilution that allows the developer to spend itself completely on the more exposed negative areas (thus preventing overexposure of highlights) and giving more time for it to work on the under-exposed areas.

Normal development with comparative highlight detail would result in less shadow detail, while pushing to bring out the shadows would result in losing highlight detail.

 

Another advantage is that you can use it with different films, shot at different ISO ratings, in wildly varying conditions, provided that you use a suitable developer in a suitable concentration. In 135 format I've developed together in the same tank Tri-X 400 and Agfa APX 100, and Tri-X and HP5+, each time for 1 hour using 6ml of Kodak HC-110.

 

Speaking from a personal point of view, I've switched to stand development for two reasons: I take plenty of photos in bad light using hand-held cameras, and regular push development leaves me with blown highlights (such as they are) and increased graininess. Stand development helps with both issues.

Furthermore, I really appreciate the simplicity of doing the same thing every time regardless of film types (even mixed kinds) and shooting conditions.

 

A caveat: apparently not all developers are suitable (I've read that T-Max is ill-suited for it, but without an explanation).

I have no experience with Rodinal (and do not plan to either) but I've also read that it seems prone to bromide drag (which may very well be the streaking Toby sees); there are however specific ways to counter that by adding some other chemical to the developer.

 

popescu,

 

I've seen examples of bromide drag in my own work and some people swear by a 2 minute pre-wash in plain water. I've been doing that now and have seen no more issues with it but my workflow is hardly scientific. For whatever reason, stand development raises a lot of hackles in some people, but it's really just another way of doing film, right?

 

I've never mixed film when developing but I just scored a 4-reel Nikor tank so I'll be trying it soon. I've also never tried stand with HC-110, and you've put that on my list too.

 

s-a

[Michael Hiles]

I don't think "superior" is the word to use here. Stand and s-s development offers some things in exchange for other things. Stand development and Rodinal has acquired a sort of cult status so it's easy to hear as much of either side of the argument as you'd care to hear. You can check out here if you'd like to:

Flickr: Discussing Tri-X EI 3200 in Rodinal 1:100 for 120 minutes in RODINAL

 

Mr. Miller has posted or linked to some amazing images using stand development and Rodinal. That's one person who likes it.

 

It seems that Mr. Miller salvaged a film that was underexposed by 4 stops. The picture he posted looks good - but it doesn't look outstanding without the story.

 

I see nothing to generate rude comments, but equally nothing to cause me to test it.

[gsgary]

Here's one from the same roll as my other post 1 hour stand Rodinal + 12g sodium sulphate, also shot with new Voigtlander 50F1.5 asph

 

[rpopescu]

I see nothing to generate rude comments, but equally nothing to cause me to test it.

 

Cheers for the civilised comment

 

The principal raison d'être of stand development is the compensating effect; it make sense therefore to only use it if you have a need for such an effect.

 

However, there are other less important reasons you might want to try it: the ability to mix different films; developer economy (6ml of HC-110 for two 135 film rolls); general convenience (do the exact same thing each time).

On the other hand it does lengthen the duration of the entire process, even though you obviously don't have to baby-sit the tank during the hour.

[rpopescu]

[...]1 hour stand Rodinal + 12g sodium sulphate [...]

 

Gary,

 

Is the sodium sulphate for preventing bromide drag?

[gsgary]

Gary,

 

Is the sodium sulphate for preventing bromide drag?

 

Not sure i read about it reducing grain but i think i gives it a lovely glow

[chris_livsey]

The purpose of adding Sodium Sulphate or Sulfate to a developer is to reduce the swelling of the emulsion. This is usually seen in modifications to formulas for use in "tropical" climates ie at higher than usual temps. where swelling and, in extreme, separation of the emulsion from the base can occur.

It would be added to "stand" formulas for the same reason, to reduce swelling due to the prolonged time of immersion. It would have no effect on "drag" or streaking that I could see. That is probably affected by how much initial agitation is given and if a halfway agitation, often quoted as gentle, is given.

That is a balance between loosing the compensation effect by exhausted developer in the highlights being removed by agitation and preventing/reducing streaks/drag from physical effects of the reels, adjacent film etc. You would not get streaks and drag from a dip and dunk stand technique but for most that is not a practical route

It could be used with Bisulphate as well as a buffer, to maintain a pH, but that is unlikely in these formulas as I see no Bisulph and is mentioned for completeness.

 

Having said all that it does pop up in odd formulas such as Anchell & Troop's TD-201, Film Developing Cookbook. I don't know the rationale for that as the technique for that is two bath for 3/4 mins per bath constant agitation so swelling is unlikely. It may be buffering with the metaborate (Kodalk) but whatever, it works.