Jump to content
fatihayoglu

Question(s) about stand development

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

I am thinking about stand development for 1 hour with Rodinal (1+100). I am guessing this is the most common and used developer and ratio. I understand the chemistry side of development. I also have an understanding of agitation regime, ie 1 full minute agitation at the beginning and that's all. 59 minute stand development.

My question is around having 2 rolls in my Paterson tank with different EI values. Let's say they are HP5 at 400 and HP5 at 800. Would that work? As 800 one is a stop underexposed, the shadows will be opened slowly with stand development part where highlights will be developed during the full agitation part.

Many thanks,

Fatih

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stand development will compress tones to an extent, but the 800-rated roll will still be 1 stop underexposed and lack shadow detail. Stand-development cannot bring out what isn't there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, convexferret said:

Stand development will compress tones to an extent, but the 800-rated roll will still be 1 stop underexposed and lack shadow detail. Stand-development cannot bring out what isn't there.

I know that, however I don't mean complete black out areas here, I am talking about dark grey areas, ie shadows etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the shadow areas will develop quickly on contact with the developer, and brighter zones progressively more slowly.  The highlights are the last to develop. Standing (not agitating) means that the solution adjacent to the film becomes depleted of active ingredient thus taming the highlights. If you agitate, the highlights develop more.

With stand development you need to ensure there is sufficient active ingredient in the 1:100 for the two films.

Pete

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I often shoot at different ISO on the same roll. The only dodgy film I've found is Kodak trix . So one film at 400 and another at 800 should be ok. Interesting keep us posted.

DM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stealth3kpl said:

I think the shadow areas will develop quickly on contact with the developer, and brighter zones progressively more slowly.  The highlights are the last to develop. Standing (not agitating) means that the solution adjacent to the film becomes depleted of active ingredient thus taming the highlights. If you agitate, the highlights develop more.

With stand development you need to ensure there is sufficient active ingredient in the 1:100 for the two films.

Pete

 

I thought the highlights on the positive which are the darker areas on the negative develops first and deplete the active indigent hence less agitating will let them develop less. 

 

How much should I have you reckon in 600ml solution? Normally I use 1+50 Rodinal in 600 tanks and that’s about 12ml.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, fatihayoglu said:

I thought the highlights on the positive which are the darker areas on the negative develops first and deplete the active indigent hence less agitating will let them develop less. 

No. The shadows (clear on the negative) develop quickly, and the highlights (dark on the negative) build slower over the development time. This is how the highlights can be controlled by agitation and/time.

1 hour ago, fatihayoglu said:

How much should I have you reckon in 600ml solution? Normally I use 1+50 Rodinal in 600 tanks and that’s about 12ml.

I don't know. If you look for the Rodinal instructions online, it there will be a minimum amount recommended for each film. If there are two films, you'll need twice that amount.

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stealth3kpl said:

No. The shadows (clear on the negative) develop quickly, and the highlights (dark on the negative) build slower over the development time. This is how the highlights can be controlled by agitation and/time.

The exposure determines the shadows, and the development controls the highlights.

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Stealth3kpl said:

No. The shadows (clear on the negative) develop quickly, and the highlights (dark on the negative) build slower over the development time. This is how the highlights can be controlled by agitation and/time.

I don't know. If you look for the Rodinal instructions online, it there will be a minimum amount recommended for each film. If there are two films, you'll need twice that amount.

Pete

Ok sorry, yes highlights have more silver thus slower developing and faster use of adjacent chemicals. Shadows have less silver, thus developing fast and slower use of adjacent chemicals. According to Adox, each film should have minimum 5ml developer so I’ll keep 1+50 for my small Paterson tank which requires 10ml Rodinal and 590ml water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking in spatial domain frequency response, what stand development does is essentially to compress the low frequency response and exaggerate high frequency response. In another words, the global contrast is significantly compressed while the micron contrast is exaggerated, and the amount is essentially the same across all frames. 

A similar effect is by contrast masking. The major difference is the amount of the effect can be separately controlled frame by frame. 

I have read many posts talking about the magic of stand development, but I have rarely found posted images as impressive as expected. My own pictures certainly fall into this category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Speaking in spatial domain frequency response, what stand development does is essentially to compress the low frequency response and exaggerate high frequency response. In another words, the global contrast is significantly compressed while the micron contrast is exaggerated, and the amount is essentially the same across all frames. 

A similar effect is by contrast masking. The major difference is the amount of the effect can be separately controlled frame by frame. 

I have read many posts talking about the magic of stand development, but I have rarely found posted images as impressive as expected. My own pictures certainly fall into this category.

They say, more flat negative, with decreased grains and improved sharpness. You haven’t got similar results?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, fatihayoglu said:

They say, more flat negative, with decreased grains and improved sharpness. You haven’t got similar results?

Stand development? It indeed increases micro-contrast but i didn't notice the decrease of grain visual effect. (PMK does). But micro-contrast is not sharpness. The main difference is the tonal appearance.  Is that pleasing? you have to look and judge for yourself. To me it's like listening a stereo that is murmuring the main song but with exaggerated blowing breath of the player.  

Edited by Einst_Stein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

Stand development? It indeed increases micro-contrast but i didn't notice the decrease of grain visual effect. (PMK does). But micro-contrast is not sharpness. The main difference is the tonal appearance.  Is that pleasing? you have to look and judge for yourself. To me it's like listening a stereo that is murmuring the main song but with exaggerated blowing breath of the player.  

I wonder then what the hype around stand development as I keep seeing people comment on grain size and sharpness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The theory behind the stand development is to use the thin developer chemistry to reduce the development of the exposed area (because there is not enough chemistry to participate the reaction) and to increase the development at the boundary of strong exposure and less exposure proximity ( if you don't need it, can I borrow it?). Thus compresses the global contrast and increases the micro/local contrast. 

Because normally a film (negative) with higher dynamic range (thinking it is the global contrast for now) in the interesting area is usually more difficult to print (thus dodging and burning, or contrast mask), compressing the global contrast conceptually helps. On the other hand, micro-contrast may have the illusion of sharpness, so increasing the micro-contrast is also desirable. But these are healthy only if the effect have reasonably proportion, and normally requires properly controlled, image by image (like contrast mask) or area by area (like dodging and burning).  

Stand development did both, but blindly applies across the whole roll. Besides, people are talking about fixed concentration, fixed agitation pattern, and fixed development time for all film. It essentially "normalized" the personality of all films and all exposure control. Do you believe it? try it then decide for yourself. but be knowing what you want.      

Edited by Einst_Stein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, fatihayoglu said:

I wonder then what the hype around stand development as I keep seeing people comment on grain size and sharpness.

The hype mostly comes from people who haven't tried anything but stand development, so naturally they will be excited by grain and sharpness (they probably mean acutance) they have nothing else to compare it to. When did 'one size fits all' ever work better than a tailored approach? I'm probably doing a tank of film this afternoon with stand development, a tank of half used rolls at various ISO liberated from the back of the drawer and I can't even remember whats on them or how I exposed them. So I don't really care as long as something is developed, but that's about the best excuse for stand development that I can think of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So my understanding with stand development is, it normalizes each frame to a level. It can work, I guess, if the negatives are poorly exposed, or having too much variance in between them, or too contrasty, like shooting quickly without checking too much in the streets. Otherwise a good, calculated development should be best?

Edited by fatihayoglu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/30/2020 at 9:19 AM, fatihayoglu said:

They say, more flat negative, with decreased grains and improved sharpness. You haven’t got similar results?

More flat yes. Decreased grain definitely no. Stand gives increased grain. Either because it's using Rodinal (which is a grainy, non-solvent developer), or because if using a general purpose developer, it's diluted so much that the concentration of sulfites (that break up the grains and give smaller grain) is too low to have any solvent (i.e. low grain) action. Stand gives sharp grain though (due to the same lack of solvent action, grains are sharply defined). This is also improved by what is called "edge effects" that increase the perception of sharpness.

Edge effects happen on boundary areas between dark/bright transitions. The unused developer from the dark area (which is unused because the dark area doesn't have much silver to develop), goes and "overdevelops" the bright area right along the border. It looks like a bit of a halo. It improves the perfeption of sharpness, but some people don't like it cause it looks overdone/fake to them, as if the image was oversharpened. (Btw sharpening, as in unsharp mask, works under the same principle as edge effects, exaggerating the boundary areas).

You don't need stand to get edge effects btw, just a longish dev time and reduced agitation. Stand development is just an extreme version of that.

If you want flatter negatives and lower grain, a pull is the best way to get them. Shoot at half the ISO, develop for 15% less time. Here's how PanF+, considered a contrasty film, looks after 1-stop pull.

Edited by giannis
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also to demonstrate edge effects, here's another one. PanF+ again. Look closely at the guy's black trousers and shirt. Notice a bit of halo?

That was developed in Perceptol 1+3, with reduced agitation. I find it gives fine grain and edge effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, giannis said:

More flat yes. Decreased grain definitely no. Stand gives increased grain. Either because it's using Rodinal (which is a grainy, non-solvent developer), or because if using a general purpose developer, it's diluted so much that the concentration of sulfites (that break up the grains and give smaller grain) is too low to have any solvent (i.e. low grain) action. Stand gives sharp grain though (due to the same lack of solvent action, grains are sharply defined). This is also improved by what is called "edge effects" that increase the perception of sharpness.

Edge effects happen on boundary areas between dark/bright transitions. The unused developer from the dark area (which is unused because the dark area doesn't have much silver to develop), goes and "overdevelops" the bright area right along the border. It looks like a bit of a halo. It improves the perfeption of sharpness, but some people don't like it cause it looks overdone/fake to them, as if the image was oversharpened. (Btw sharpening, as in unsharp mask, works under the same principle as edge effects, exaggerating the boundary areas).

You don't need stand to get edge effects btw, just a longish dev time and reduced agitation. Stand development is just an extreme version of that.

If you want flatter negatives and lower grain, a pull is the best way to get them. Shoot at half the ISO, develop for 15% less time. Here's how PanF+, considered a contrasty film, looks after 1-stop pull.

Can I see some uneven development along the top edge from the sprocket holes ? Insufficient agitation ?

i usually do not agitate for the last minute of my 8 minute Rodinal development in the hope that it will give a bit of edge definition.

Edited by Pyrogallol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy