Development Adjustments

[Milpool]

If you evaluate the results of stand/semi-stand processing objectively with respect to speed and tone reproduction you’ll find that is generally not how it works.

There also isn’t really a way around the uniformity problems that arise when agitation is not frequent enough. People don’t tend to notice it if the image is busy enough but if the image has areas that received uniform exposure (open sky for example) you can get into real trouble.

I'm drawn to stand development because it's interesting how I can under or over-develop a photo but still somewhat save it in development. I wouldn't only use this method, but it does seem like a great use for corner cases. Not ignoring the drawbacks, exploring the benefits.

Also open to learning new things. Is there another method I can explore that would let me shoot different ISOs on the same roll?

When you do a normal development with Rodinal (1:50), are the scenes you've captured generally in the same lighting conditions?

 

[pentaxuser]

I used Ilfosol 3. There isn't a lot of info about using this for stand development, so I was curious. Once I tried it out, the results were new so I need some help understanding what's going on.

Can I ask what dilution do you use or will you use for stand development It looks as if Ilford doesn't recommend a greater dilution than 1+14 but the usual way stand works is that you need a developer such as Rodinal that works at very high dilution such as 1+100 so that it exhausts itself over say the extended time but is still a "live but only just " at this high dilution

Rodinal we know works with as low as 3ml stock but this isn't true of Ilfosol or is it

That leaves using it at 1+14 but with what agitation to keep the highlights in check Is it enough to reduce the agitation of a 1+14 dilution to say 1 agitation every 15 mins to replicate all the benefits said to be attributed to stand, semi stand or EMA but generally lumped under the banner of stand development

pentaxuser

 

[Augustus Caesar]

OK, once more with feeling:

Stand development is not a recommended procedure. No mfr recommends it.

 

[Lachlan Young]

If you evaluate the results of stand/semi-stand processing objectively with respect to speed and tone reproduction you’ll find that is generally not how it works.

There also isn’t really a way around the uniformity problems that arise when agitation is not frequent enough. People don’t tend to notice it if the image is busy enough but if the image has areas that received uniform exposure (open sky for example) you can get into real trouble.

It's also apparently not obvious to a lot of people that any developer capable of producing strong & real adjacency effects does not react well to conditions of a low level of or nil agitation.

 

[pentaxuser]

I wrote my post to you toejam as you may have answers to my questions but if not then that's OK However just a thought on my part, you may want to write to Ilford and ask it about what happens if you increase the maximum dilution to beyond 1+14 At least then you are in a position to decide if a higher dilution can be risked with reduced agitation

Best of luck with whatever you try and let us know what happened when you did

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

@pentaxuser - further dilution reduces the strong adjacency effects (Ilford use words to the effect of 'less optimal image quality') which are engineered-in to the developer to ensure at least equal sharpness to dead standstill conditions, but allowing for sufficient agitation to get truly even development. None of this is new or earth shattering information

.....{moderator redaction in the interests of site harmony}

In other words, anything less than sufficient agitation for properly even development (and this can be seen by the MK.1 human eyeball, never mind a densitometer) is a bad idea. End of story.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

@pentaxuser - further dilution reduces the strong adjacency effects (Ilford use words to the effect of 'less optimal image quality') which are engineered-in to the developer to ensure at least equal sharpness to dead standstill conditions, but allowing for sufficient agitation to get truly even development. None of this is new or earth shattering information

.....{moderator redaction in the interests of site harmony}

In other words, anything less than sufficient agitation for properly even development (and this can be seen by the MK.1 human eyeball, never mind a densitometer) is a bad idea. End of story.

Oh yes! Absolutely!

 

[Milpool]

Often it seems to me people are determined to seek out bad information and screw up a relatively simple process.

It's also apparently not obvious to a lot of people that any developer capable of producing strong & real adjacency effects does not react well to conditions of a low level of or nil agitation.

 

[chuckroast]

I'm drawn to stand development because it's interesting how I can under or over-develop a photo but still somewhat save it in development. I wouldn't only use this method, but it does seem like a great use for corner cases. Not ignoring the drawbacks, exploring the benefits.

Also open to learning new things. Is there another method I can explore that would let me shoot different ISOs on the same roll?

When you do a normal development with Rodinal (1:50), are the scenes you've captured generally in the same lighting conditions?

I have done extensive testing with (semi)stand and intermittent agitation. You definitely have bromide drag going on here. There are two highly probable culprits:

1. Not getting the film reel well off the bottom of the tank
2. Using a plastic reel with high walls along the wind

This and much more is covered in the notes I've been keeping here:

tundra/Stand-Development

gitbucket.tundraware.com

It is absolutely possible to get bromide free and consistent negatives with this method, but you have to be merciless with this sort of detail. (At least for the film/developer combos I tried, which were many.)