• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Extreme stand developing

since we are talking extreme

i think someone who goes by the name "the turnip"
gave me this formula years ago ...

Mortensen's Glycin variant film developer for use with his '7-D' approach:

Mortensen Glycin Variant:

water 750 ml
sodium sulfite 19 g
Glycin 4 g
sodium carbonate 19 g
water to make 1000 ml

Soft working fine grain developer. He used it to develop negatives to gamma infinity - so about 2 hours or so for any film.

thanks clay !

john
 
Funny, scale that one up and it looks remarkably like Jay Defer's GSD-10, which I have used. Not bad, but not remarkable either.
 

They all suffer, somewhat. No magic bullet. I found using Glycin with other solvents boost the mid tones considerably. Add equal amounts of Metol and Glycin to d23 and it will bring out wonderful milky greys. The negs look darker but the printed result is remarkable.
 
There is of course an ultimate lower limit to dilution. There must be enough developing agents present to reduce the exposed silver halide present in the emulsion. As a matter of practicality the actual limit is before this occurs because the developing rate slows so much as to be impractical.
 
Homeopathic development! Dilute it until it's not there!
 
Shot a test roll and pt it in the can before the stroke of midnight. No pumpkins here. 35mm roll with 600 ml of developer at 1:1000 + a tiny drop of photoflo. I will shake once a day and fix it on Friday.
 

I haven't used glycin because I've not been able to get it here.
I stand develop FP4+ for 1 hour in a mix of RO9 and dilute Xtol. I do so because it gives me negs that print well in alternative processes.
Good source of information is a book Iridescent Light by Michael Axel (published by Blurb).
 

That's interesting, which printing process? At least for salt prints, the basic idea is to get enough density in the highlights so that the darks will have time to print in before the highlights start to show. That seems like the opposite of stand development, where the highlights are held back. Or maybe you are working with processes that don't need a big density range in the negative?
 

No tales. Just a question, did the assistant say what benefits the employer claimed for stand dev at about 4 degrees F? I had heard that Rodinal operates at very low temperatures but fridge temp must be pushing the boundaries a little

It would be interesting to see negatives that "the employer" produced at fridge temps and how long a "stand" it needed

pentaxuser
 

Four degrees Fahrenheit... you sure about that?
 
Old-N-Feeble said:
Four degrees Fahrenheit... you sure about that?
Click to expand...
Sorry, my mistake. We Brits have adopted the sensible Centrigrade scale for many years now but I was trying and failed to think in Fahrenheit. I meant 4 degrees C. Makes me wonder however what Rodinal tastes like as a seriously frozen ice-popsicle. Have I managed the right word here? We call it an ice lolly in the U.K.

pentaxuser
 
Yes, popsicle is the American term... at least for most of this country. Yes, there's a substantial difference between 4 degrees F and 4 degrees C. The latter is still pretty darned cold.
 

I originally read about the tale on some other site about 10 years ago (I think). I only started to think about it a couple years ago when I did that first test. I was only interested to see if it is possible and my underdeveloped test film said it was. The only thing I can remember was the mention of smooth tones. A couple of years ago I did try to find the original post, but I didn't even remember what site it was on. Google was not my friend.

Friday I hope to have some printable result. Although not at 4 degrees F, it should give some insight if it was worth it. It will make the record of how many pizzas can be finished before the developing is done.
 
Kodak developed several formulas for use in the arctic. Since the temperature is well below 0F the developers use ethylene glycol to prevent freezing. They use Amidol. At such a low temperatures you need a very active developing agent to permit reasonable times.
 
mrred said:
originally read about the tale on some other site about 10 years ago (I think).
Click to expand...

It's certainly been discussed in one of the film-related Flickr groups in the past three years or so.
When I was active in those groups, I wondered aloud about how active Rodinal would be at such low temps, but as so often people there were more interested in anecdote than hypothesis and testing.
No reason not to try, of course.
Now if you can persuade michael_r to turn his fridge down to the minimum and reactivate his stand-development testing regime and produce some curves for us ...
 
I don't think he really needs that much persuasion,
 
Well I have learned something here: namely that Rodinal does not stop working at 4 degrees C which was I had assumed had happened to the OP's attempts at 4C such that at that temperature a usable neg would never have developed no matter how long the "stand" was.

If Alan Johnson's belief is correct then overnight in the fridge at say 6 hours should easily be long enough for acceptable negs. Just a pity that we have no advanced knowledge of what the very cold long-stand negs look like

Gerald, were the Artic users actually processing outside? If they were, I wonder how they got round the problem of fixing and washing? I know that Ponting and Hurley on the Scott and Shackleton Antartic expeditions processed bu I think were doing it inside the ship/huts that were there so had reasonable ambient temperatures to work in

Any more info on this processing in the Artic?

Thanks

pentaxuser
 
It was standard practice among us young lads back in the '70s to follow the "available darkness" craze and shoot film at ridiculous "ASA" speeds. Whoever underexposed the most and still got a picture was king. My formula was Tri-X at 3200 developed in D76 1+3. After agitation for 30 seconds the developing tank was left unmoved until about the same time next day. After a standard fix and wash the neg was put out on grade 4 or 5 paper. Results? Not so good but if anyone complained I'd say something like "Be fair, I'll have you know these were shot at over three thou'. You should be thankful to see anything."
 

I did see one photograph of it being done outside. However I don't think that this is the usual case. But the shacks that the scientists were using provided protection from the wind but were kept very cold except where the people lived. Remember fuel was at a premium as everything must be shipped there at great expense.

I should clarify that by artic I meant artic conditions which would include the antartic. You certainly would not want to do any of this outside there because of all the rubber-necking penguins. If you have ever seen the old newsreels they are all sidewalk foreman.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Gerald. It makes sense. Maybe in an unheated room or one relying only on the transfer of heat from the heated living quarters you might be working at low single figures in centrigrade terms. Come to think of it in the 1950s when most U.K. houses only had a fire in the living room and no central heating, places like bedrooms converted-to-darkrooms must have struggled to be warm enough for ordinary developers in the likes of December and January

pentaxuser
 
I dug through my notes and came up with two developers designed for very low temperature processing even to -40F. The two are very similar so I have given only one. Per happenstance 40F is the typical temperature for a refrigerator.

Developer For Very Low Temperature Processing

Solution A:

Water (50C) ................ 500 ml
Sodium bisulfite ........... 100 g
Amidol ..................... 40 g
Caatechol .................. 40 g
Benzotriazole .............. 2 g
Water to make .............. 1 l

Solution B:

Water (cold) ............... 500 ml
Sodium hydroxide ........... 120 g
Potassium bromide .......... 20 g
Potassium iodide ........... 4 g
Water to make .............. 1 l

The working developer should be mixed just before use as it does not keep.

For use down to 30F: mix 1 part A + 1 part B + 2 parts water.
For use down to 5F: mix 1 part A + 1 part B + 1 part ethylene glycol.
For use down to -40F: mix 1 part A + 1 part B + 2 parts ethylene glycol.
 
Last edited:
Well, I took my last attempt out of the can yesterday.....7 days. Most of the film was under developed with big matches of nothing. Some of the emulsion had slid off. What developed was not very dense.

The film was PlusX and the emulsion is as thick as typical Kodak stuff is; not a frail film. So (to me) 1: there is such a thing as too long and 2: even though I use 600ml of solution, exhausted developer is exhausted. The minimum suggest by the manufacture is always off for stand, but there is a real minimum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register