Can I use different ISO when I do stant development?

[19nat105]

Hi to all of you ,
As I am new here, and as this is my first post, I thought I should start with a silly-tricky question..
I usually shoot either Tri-X or T-max but always with Rodinal 1:100 and stand development for 1-1,5 hour.
I love the way stand development works and I really do like the smooth grain and the nice contrast that I get.
I apply the same development method and time even when I push it 1 or 2 stops and I get the same results as if I had used the suggested times from dev chart.
So the question is: Can I change the ISO in the same roll of film if I am going to develop it with the above stated method? If not,why? It's like developing 2 different ISO films in the same tank.

Thanks in advance
P.S I you think the question is too silly, do not be afraid to insult me. I am thickheaded.

 

[bdial]

No question is too silly.

The short answer is the ISO of the film is what it is, changing the camera's setting will only under expose or over expose it, depending on what you set.

Lots of people recommend that you determine a personal "EI" or Exposure Index by testing and to do that, you use the manufacturer's ISO as a starting point. That allows you to determine the most effective speed for a particular film used with your equipment, processed in your choice of developer using your personal method, whatever it is. So, for example, you may determine through testing, and just shooting, that you get the best results with Tri-X exposed at 320 instead of Kodak's ISO of 400, or you might find you like the results you get exposing it at 600 (not as common, but possible).

But just because you extend development. I.E. "push" the film in processing, won't turn it into an ISO 1600 film, it's still an ISO 400 film but underexposed by 2 stops. Changing the speed mid roll (to some faster speed) just means that those shots will be underexposed compared to the others on the roll.

 

[Alan9940]

As bdial has already pointed out, you really can't change the ISO of a film; it's basically "baked" in. However, over all my years of testing a few different films and developers, and determining my own personal EI based on densitometer readings, I've found that the speed of some films can be affected slightly by push/pull development and/or minimal agitation/stand development techniques. I've never seen even a full stop either way which has always made "speed enhancing" developers suspect to me. But, then again, I've never personally tested those combinations. Bottom line...personal testing is the only way to truly find out what you need to know, if you're so inclined.

 

[MattKing]

But just because you extend development. I.E. "push" the film in processing, won't turn it into an ISO 1600 film, it's still an ISO 400 film but underexposed by 2 stops. Changing the speed mid roll (to some faster speed) just means that those shots will be underexposed compared to the others on the roll.

Welcome to APUG.
One point about terms. The ISO of a film is the number determined by the manufacturer, according to ISO testing criteria. If you use a different setting on your meter, you are using a different Exposure Index - "EI" for short.
Everything bdial says is correct. I quoted the above portion to emphasize that "pushing" doesn't make the film more sensitive to light - a film where the shadow areas receive too little light remains an underexposed film. What "pushing" does is change the contrast of those parts of the film that got a bit more light than the shadows. That increase in contrast sometimes makes the results more pleasing, even if some other parts of the scene (the brighter highlights) may lose some quality.
The complicating factor in the OP's question is that stand and semi-stand techniques also modify the film's response. Where a film may be designed to give predictable contrast over a range of lighting conditions, stand or semi-stand development distorts that predictability by compressing detail - sometimes in attractive ways, and other times in ways that make it hard to create pleasing prints. If one exposes different frames to differing amounts of light, the distortions added by stand or semi-stand development may manifest themselves in different ways. As an example, where stand development may compress detail in the highlights for the frame metered at an EI of 200, the same stand development may end up compressing detail in the for the frame metered at an EI of 800.
The EI 200 frame may lack "sparkle" while the EI 800 frame may have really lifeless looking midtones.

 

[Pioneer]

I tried this with TMX100. It didn't work out.

One roll was exposed at box speed, the other at EI400. What I found was the Rodinal developed each film the way I exposed it during stand development. The film exposed at ISO 100 looked good (saying nothing of composition or content ). The second roll looked underexposed.

Keep in mind, I can rescue (to some extent) an under developed film by over developing it. For example, just the other day I mistakenly exposed one of my TMX100 films at EI400. When I get around to developing this film I will over develop it. TMX100 is somewat forgiving (though two stops of underexposure is pushing it) so the negatives will likely turn out pretty good. They won't be as easy to print but if there is a particularly good photograph in there it can be done.

You would think that stand development would work great on the under exposed film. After all, I have to over develop anyway...right? It doesn't seem to work that way though. Normal over developing includes normal agitation, just a few more minutes of it. Stand development relies on the developer sitting against the surface of the film developing the highlights quickly and then slowing down or stopping because you have not introduced fresh developer through normal agitation. Meanwhile your shadows will continue to develop more detail since the development action is slower in those areas. But, because you are not agitating the solution, the development action occurs differently than normal development.

In simple terms, if you shoot in very high contrast situations, stand development is one technique by which you can reduce the contrast of the negative (within reason of course.) But it isn't a very good technique for increasing or reducing the development action for the entire roll of film (pushing or pulling development.)

However, if I use FP4+ and expose it normally, and I also have HP5+ which I expose normally, I can put both rolls in the Rodinal and develop them and they should develop properly (assuming all other variables are considered as well.)

Hope this helps.

EDIT - You should know that there are probably as many opinions about stand development as there are photographers. Some hate it, some love it, other have never used it and have no opinion. The reality is you should do some of your own experimenting and decide what you like or don't like. You may find that you do not mind the results when you under or over expose on the same roll of film. And to be truthful, if you are using a hybrid process where you film negative is transferred to digital, you may find that my dislikes are not even an issue for you.

 

[19nat105]

Thank all of you for your quick response.
Of course by "changing the ISO", I meant the EI and not the actual film speed. My thoughts were that, if I use the same method for either a 1 stop or 2 stops pushed TMAX400, why couldn't I mix them in the same roll.But your replies covered me. I think that I heard you screaming "young man, if 36exp are too many for you, get yourself a bulk loader".

 

[pentaxuser]

. My thoughts were that, if I use the same method for either a 1 stop or 2 stops pushed TMAX400, why couldn't I mix them in the same roll

Kodak says that TMax400 can be exposed at 800 with the same development times as for 400 so yes in that sense you could expose at both speeds on the same film and develop for the same time. Certainly when I tried it at 800 it seemed to give me very good negs that were not noticeably lacking in shadow detail.

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

My thoughts were that, if I use the same method for either a 1 stop or 2 stops pushed TMAX400, why couldn't I mix them in the same roll.

Kodak says that TMax400 can be exposed at 800 with the same development times as for 400 so yes in that sense you could expose at both speeds on the same film and develop for the same time. Certainly when I tried it at 800 it seemed to give me very good negs that were not noticeably lacking in shadow detail.

The difference between what 19nat105 is thinking about, and pentaxuser is referring to, is that Kodak's recommendation refers to normal processing.
Essentially they are saying that, for T-Max 400 under-exposed by one stop - metered at an EI of 800 - the quality reductions that flow from push processing are more consequential than any improvement one may achieve as a result of a one stop push increase of contrast.
One further point - stand or semi-stand developing techniques aren't equivalent to push development, even if both involve an increase in development time.

 

[Leigh B]

You would think that stand development would work great on the under exposed film.

Why?
Film speed is based on minimum usable exposure (shadow detail).

If it's underexposed, there's no latent image to be developed.
Your choice of developer or method of its use do not change that fact.

- Leigh

 

[Cholentpot]

I shot a roll of Ultrafine Xtreem 400 at speeds ranging from 200-1600 on one roll and developed it at 1:50 in rodinal for an hour with a flip at 30 min. Negs scanned just fine and I made a few prints off of it.

I'd say try it and see what happens.

 

[Pioneer]

Well of course you are right Leigh.

But in the case I was presenting we weren't discussing film that had not been exposed enough to even produce a latent image. It may not be your experience, but I personally have found that even under exposed film often turns out to contain a lot more detail in the shadows than I would have expected.

I would also like to point out that you seemed to be very careful to quote just the small section of my post that proved the specific point you were interested in making.

Each of us comes to photography with different perspectives so we post those perspectives in ways different than others. Some of us have odd thoughts that don't always conform to what others have been taught. So that's what I posted. In this case my odd thought turned out to be wrong, which I thought I was very honest about in the post. Thank you for backing me up and reinforcing my point.

Of course, on the flip side, some of my odd thoughts have worked out and occasionally I post about those as well.

I hope you are enjoying the evening.

 

[Pioneer]

I shot a roll of Ultrafine Xtreem 400 at speeds ranging from 200-1600 on one roll and developed it at 1:50 in rodinal for an hour with a flip at 30 min. Negs scanned just fine and I made a few prints off of it.

I'd say try it and see what happens.

Thanks for pointing that out Cholentpot. Maybe I'll have to repeat this experiment a little more thoroughly.

 

[Leigh B]

Hi Dan,

Yes, of course we all have different training and different experience.

That's the strength of internet fora, and the weakness.

And, any answer must be crafted to the audience. I might answer a particular question from a novice differently than the same question from an experienced craftsman.

- Leigh

 

[Cholentpot]

Thanks for pointing that out Cholentpot. Maybe I'll have to repeat this experiment a little more thoroughly.

I have tried this with Tmax100 and have not had good results. I found that pushing Tmax100 doesn't work for me. Overexposing a stop or two however gives me great results.

 

[LAG]

Can I change the ISO in the same roll of film if I am going to develop it with the above stated method? If not,why? ...

ISO in heaven how we love you, all
We lift your name in every roll
May your kingdom, be established in our shots
As your people declare your mighty data sheets

EI Almighty, who reigns forever more
Blessed be the Lord, Blessed be the Lord:
Tri-X through those who offend, he will forgive you
Rodinal though those who stand, he will compensate you

With all our heart.

 

[Cholentpot]

ISO in heaven how we love you, all
We lift your name in every roll
May your kingdom, be established in our shots
As your people declare your mighty data sheets

EI Almighty, who reigns forever more
Blessed be the Lord, Blessed be the Lord:
Tri-X through those who offend, he will forgive you
Rodinal though those who stand, he will compensate you

With all our heart.

- Kodak, HC:110

 

[macfred]

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

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I always give a stop more exposure for stand-development, for the shadows, but not for semi-stand... and I only do full on stand if I've got a back up negative.

 

[Cholentpot]

I always give a stop more exposure for stand-development, for the shadows, but not for semi-stand... and I only do full on stand if I've got a back up negative.

I've never had luck with full stand. I always get drag.

 

[LAG]

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

Excuse me

Everything that we read is interesting - or almost everything I must add -, however that importance should lie on what we’re reading, is it serious? Is it correct?

Without offending anyone and with the best English I can, this article - having a minimum of knowledge - is full of errors (I invite you to look for them) and false ideas and preconceptions about Film Photography, there's a lot of missing information, and it is another example of how the film/chemical relationship is simplified and breaking into pieces once again, in this particular case even just to find a half-way solution with the required d-g-t-l scanning stage.

Stand development:

In my view, it makes me rather sad to read everything that surrounds a Time & Temperature development (whose history is as old as Photography itself) in such a trivial way, it fills me with great disquiet to read about the use of Rodinal (whose history is almost as old) especially for new people to come (I am not pointing to anyone here). Not only with this article of course, every time I hear or read the word “Stand”, the unawareness and boldness is too harsh and crazy. Today something has touched me to write. I apologize.

Many years ago our needs were different, and the developing process was not done on a whim (…). When there was water shortage, we developed film with whiskey or juice, or with the water from the nearest river without any quality & temperature consideration. When there was chemical shortage, the proportions had to be adjusted for using its minimum and the mixtures were minimal. And when we had to set up the process like that and we had long to wait for the outcome whatever the place and moment, that time, the waiting time (not wasting time), was a learning time, or it was time to take the next photograph for instance. We had no other chance. We had no scanner (thankfully or not) to fix problems afterwards. We also had to wait for the moment to enlarge our adventurous negatives that we loved differently, negatives that we had managed differently, despite all this, things went out right.

Is the developing process easy? we do not have doubts about it!, now & then, but it is a process that should take time of attention and lots of learning, far from watching TV at the same time. To each his own of course.

Now, water, chemicals, films, people, needs & times do change, everything does, and going back to the past to remember – or to work with - is more than great, sure it is, and if we want that to be on a whim, or we need to do any kind of experiment, it’s good as well, but please we should respect (and know why) Photography, we should love (and know why) what we’re doing.

One last consideration: The past does not make us be better, and just being that older either, the difference is having had the time to learn and have done it.

We made a virtue out of necessity. we did "stand", but didn't “stand” still.

Best regard!

p.s. I would like to know where has the guy from the article bought Tri-X 100

"... Take that one step further, if you can soup a roll of Tri-X 100, and a roll of the same film pushed two stops in the same tank… "

​

 

[darkosaric]

Welcome to APUG .

When I use toy cameras (Diana, Holga...), or box cameras - I have only one shutter speed, and limited f stop to choose. So on the film I will regularly have multiple frames that are very different exposed - from under to over expose for a couple of stops. I have found out that best way to handle this (at least for me) is semi stand development - 1 hour in Rodinal 1+100, with 30sec agitation on start and 30sec after 30min, with hard bumping the bottom of the tank with a palm, to avoid air bubbles on the film.

 

[LAG]

... Stand development:

By the way, one curiosity, in Spain like many other things that are not done well, some "snobs" have called "Desatendido" to this process of Time and Temperature. It is more or less something like "Neglected or Unattended" ... Funny huh?

 

[LAG]

Welcome to APUG .

When I use toy cameras (Diana, Holga...), or box cameras - I have only one shutter speed, and limited f stop to choose. So on the film I will regularly have multiple frames that are very different exposed - from under to over expose for a couple of stops. I have found out that best way to handle this (at least for me) is semi stand development - 1 hour in Rodinal 1+100, ...

Well, as you well know, that is compensating effect that you can also get with some other process (Time & Temp & Developer)

 

[darkosaric]

Well, as you well know, that is compensating effect that you can also get with some other process (Time & Temp & Developer)

Yes, I know. But this method that I use is for me cheapest and most convenient. Once when I find some method that works for me - I seldom change it.

 

[Petraio Prime]

All manufacturers of sensitised goods recommend intermittent agitation development. Stand development was used in the days of plates (late 19th-early 20th century), which were placed in a perfectly horizontal position in trays full of developer. Streaking will inevitably result if you attempt it with roll films held vertically.