Figuring Out Stand Developing

yeknom02 · Aug 17, 2010

O great masters of silver,

I want to try out stand developing. Partly because I like the idea of letting something soak in chemicals untouched for multiple hours, and partly because all the results I've seen from other stand-developing photographers have blown me away.

1. What kind of film should I try this on? I've got some Fuji Acros, Tmax 100, HP5+, and Tri-X. (Maybe other stuff, I can't remember...) In every case, I prefer shooting at box speed, at least to start out so that things don't get too crazy. I'd also like to try it mainly on 35mm - is this possible, or will I suffer a grain explosion?

2. Keeping in mind I have HC-110 and Rodinal in my cabinet, how do I figure out what dilutions and times I need to start with? Most of my current developing times are straight from the Massive Development Chart, which has yet to let me down. But mostly everything there calls for agitation at ten seconds every minute. Is there a simple (or complex) formula for calculating stand times given "normal" times for a certain film/developer combination?

Thanks,
-Dan

Kirk Keyes · Aug 17, 2010

There are many long and excellent threads here that you can search and find on stand development.

brucemuir · Aug 17, 2010

From what I understand,
stand development is a technique used to suppress highlights when the scene you're shooting has a long dynamic range.
With minimal agitation the developer exhausts in the highlight areas but continues in the shadows due to less exposure/developer activity.

I would think you would use this in certain high contrat lighting situations rather than finding a film and using it all the time.

What exactly were you blown away by in your friends work?

yeknom02 · Aug 17, 2010

brucemuir said:
What exactly were you blown away by in your friends work?

I wish that what I've seen was from friends, so I could just ask them, haha. Mainly, though, it seems that the stand-developed images I see have more of a gradual progression of tones, and that there are even more tonal values. Kind of like a 16-bit image as opposed to an 8-bit image (if you'll pardon the computer-speak).

Some examples of what I've seen on Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timeshare/4544212869/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allmodjohns/2671268615/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13111789@N00/3462873463/

Of course, I could also just be insane and this is all a figment of my imagination...

Athiril · Aug 17, 2010

Stand developing, for something useful, I used here:

More shadow detail than my 30D, and the reflective wet highlights were blown out by several stops on my 30D (which has a 10 stop dynamic range) have all information on the negative.

I could overexpose it I think too for better shadow detail.

Shanghai GP3, Rodinal 1+100 1 hour stand.

Nicholas Lindan · Aug 17, 2010

Useful for very high contrast scenes. Tends to produce flat results with normal scenes. I am not sure it has any advantage over waterbath development.

Note that it isn't really 'stand' development - it is really very low agitation development. If you filled the tank with uber-dilute developer and went out for the evening you would find under-developed splodgy negatives with all sorts of strange artifacts. Figure on 10 inversion cycles over the development period. Some get good results with less, some get uneven results with more - there are all sorts of minor variations that people make, often without being aware of them.

That said, you are pretty much on your own. Note that experimenting with short lengths of film won't be of much use as the developer is so dilute in stand development that it exhausts. If there is an excess of developer to film the exhaustion won't happen.

Stand development is trendy and all sorts of claims are made for it. Claims for 'adjacency effects' are most common.

Google for "adjacency effect" and there are 1000's of entries. Do an image search and there are lots of graphs but not one example photograph. Draw your own conclusion.

I should mention that photos of adjacency effects do exist in textbooks - so if you like taking shadowgrams of razor blade edges and examining them with a scanning microdensitometer ...

yeknom02 · Aug 17, 2010

Michael R - I think you're leading me more toward the answers I'm looking for... results are everything and procedure is just a technicality. I'm not entirely sure what "compensating" development is. In fact, some pages I've seen don't really distinguish it from stand development.

[Note: unfortunately, I don't have the means to make printed enlargements. Stupid apartment.]

climbabout · Aug 17, 2010

Here is a great thread with an example in it.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Tim

Thomas Bertilsson · Aug 17, 2010

TMax 400 records 13 stops of information in a linear fashion without any fancy developing. Just make sure you expose enough to capture the shadows, and find out how long you need to develop the film for.
You don't need stand development to do what you did in the example.

Athiril said:
Stand developing, for something useful, I used here:

More shadow detail than my 30D, and the reflective wet highlights were blown out by several stops on my 30D (which has a 10 stop dynamic range) have all information on the negative.

I could overexpose it I think too for better shadow detail.

Shanghai GP3, Rodinal 1+100 1 hour stand.

juan · Aug 17, 2010

I use extreme minimal agitation because my summer temperatures are so high. Lengthens the development time so that expansion and contraction can be used.
juan

Steve Sherman · Aug 17, 2010

Michael R 1974 said:
Stand development, is a more extreme extension of compensating procedures. Instead of extending the agitation intervals to several minutes, you almost eliminate agitation entirely, which also means you need a very long developing time. Typically people will give continuous initial agitation for a minute or two, and then they might let the developer stand for say 30 minutes without agitation, then agitate at the 30 minute mark, followed by another 30 minutes of standing (this is just an illustrative example).

In a perfect world, what it would accomplish is full development of the shadows and greatly reduced development of the brightest highlights. Unfortunately the world is not perfect, so that when you do this, you will always lose at least some film speed, you will definitely lose some shadow contrast (often referred to as "muddyiness"), and while the brightest highlights become more easily printable, overall highlight contrast is reduced as well. This is inevitable to some extent due to what you are effectively trying to do - compress a much wider luminance range into the same printable range.

Once again, the best thing about these forums is the free exchange of information by photographers who have experimented, whether by trial and error or educated approaches and then implement a technique and continue to refine a methodology which yield real world results.

Unfortunately, there are those who make erroneous statements such as the above. Clearly the gentleman quoted here has not used the techniques and methods that I and many other quite knowledgeable photographers have refined and used without adverse results.

So let me say emphatically that while Reduced Agitation Development is not for everyone the process does yield Maximum film speed, increased adjancecy effects ( otherwise known as the much sought after micro contrast ) all the while compressing (controlling ) highlight contrast.

So, in conclusion, for the 25 + plus years I have been making black and white negatives in both extremely flat lighting as well as quite contrasty lighting situations the process is truly a "magic bullet"

Thanks Tim for including the link to a previous discussion of some very notable photographers who weighed in on the technique.

Cheers

Athiril · Aug 17, 2010

Nicholas Lindan said:
Useful for very high contrast scenes. Tends to produce flat results with normal scenes. I am not sure it has any advantage over waterbath development.

Note that it isn't really 'stand' development - it is really very low agitation development. If you filled the tank with uber-dilute developer and went out for the evening you would find under-developed splodgy negatives with all sorts of strange artifacts. Figure on 10 inversion cycles over the development period. Some get good results with less, some get uneven results with more - there are all sorts of minor variations that people make, often without being aware of them.

That said, you are pretty much on your own. Note that experimenting with short lengths of film won't be of much use as the developer is so dilute in stand development that it exhausts. If there is an excess of developer to film the exhaustion won't happen.

Stand development is trendy and all sorts of claims are made for it. Claims for 'adjacency effects' are most common.

Google for "adjacency effect" and there are 1000's of entries. Do an image search and there are lots of graphs but not one example photograph. Draw your own conclusion.

I should mention that photos of adjacency effects do exist in textbooks - so if you like taking shadowgrams of razor blade edges and examining them with a scanning microdensitometer ...

Rodinal works for a pure stand evenly, havent found any others to do that at all.

I figure on 4-5 inversion cycles for my 'normal' development, and it works great with other developers I use.

Athiril · Aug 17, 2010

Michael R 1974 said:
In a perfect world, what it would accomplish is full development of the shadows and greatly reduced development of the brightest highlights. Unfortunately the world is not perfect, so that when you do this, you will always lose at least some film speed, you will definitely lose some shadow contrast (often referred to as "muddyiness"), and while the brightest highlights become more easily printable, overall highlight contrast is reduced as well. This is inevitable to some extent due to what you are effectively trying to do - compress a much wider luminance range into the same printable range.

I must live in a perfect world then, I do not have such problems.

Athiril · Aug 17, 2010

Thomas Bertilsson said:
TMax 400 records 13 stops of information in a linear fashion without any fancy developing. Just make sure you expose enough to capture the shadows, and find out how long you need to develop the film for.
You don't need stand development to do what you did in the example.

You were at my scene with a spot meter taking notes of the contrast ratio and my exposure, were you?

I shoot TMY, not a huge fan of it, I also dont believe "standard development" from TMY would have hold those wet spots that were reflecting flash in my experience with TMY.

Stand development isn't fancy, it's less fancy than development with agitation as you dont have to pay attention to it for the developing time and do things.

yeknom02 · Aug 17, 2010

Steve Sherman said:
So let me say emphatically that while Reduced Agitation Development is not for everyone the process does yield Maximum film speed, increased adjancecy effects ( otherwise known as the much sought after micro contrast ) all the while compressing (controlling ) highlight contrast.

... in both extremely flat lighting as well as quite contrasty lighting situations the process is truly a "magic bullet"

So why, if it's a "magic bullet," is it also "not for everyone?"

I have now experienced what I believe to be responses that are polar opposites (one adamantly against stand development and the other lauding it), so I am once again clueless. I will, of course, check out the other post that was linked earlier.

-Dan

Athiril · Aug 17, 2010

yeknom02 said:
So why, if it's a "magic bullet," is it also "not for everyone?"

I have now experienced what I believe to be responses that are polar opposites (one adamantly against stand development and the other lauding it), so I am once again clueless. I will, of course, check out the other post that was linked earlier.

-Dan

It's neither a bullet nor magic.

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 17, 2010

yeknom02 said:
I have now experienced what I believe to be responses that are polar opposites (one adamantly against stand development and the other lauding it), so I am once again clueless.

I think the signature line of one of our fellow APUG members ('darinwc') may be particularly appropriate here:

"Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no."

Ken

Thomas Bertilsson · Aug 18, 2010

Of course I wasn't there.

All I'm saying is that I can control very high brightness range with using Xtol and standard development just fine, the kind of brightness range that involves shooting directly into the sun. The sun itself will have a hot spot, naturally, but reflections in water surface, for example, have definite gradations up to paper white.

There are more than one way to skin a cat, and yes, I have done this with standing development also.

Athiril said:
You were at my scene with a spot meter taking notes of the contrast ratio and my exposure, were you?

I shoot TMY, not a huge fan of it, I also dont believe "standard development" from TMY would have hold those wet spots that were reflecting flash in my experience with TMY.

Stand development isn't fancy, it's less fancy than development with agitation as you dont have to pay attention to it for the developing time and do things.

Steve Sherman · Aug 18, 2010

Reduced agitation development

As with most discussions on the internet it becomes a he said she said where
listeners are left to believe those who make the most compelling argument.
There in lies the reason I rarely get involved in discussions on Reduced
Agitation development any longer. However, when you see someone make
completely false statements it begs for one more time to try and educate the
masses.

Sadly, there is another post within this discussion by someone other than Michael R who sites a number of "bullet points" which to my experience and working methods every single point he puts forth is the exact opposite of my findings.

I've included two unmanipulated scans of identically exposed 7x17 negatives
of a scene in Utah which was taken in the middle of an overcast day of
subject matter which by a light meters calculation contained only 3 stops of
grey tone, yes even the dark rocks only metered three stops apart from the
light sandstone erosion. One tray processed negative was processed for 23
minutes in ABC Pyro, a pyro known to be a very aggressive developer and
the one used by Edward Weston for much of his work. The other negative was
processed with Pyrocat HD using a regime of 2 minutes initial agitation and
then left alone for 30 minutes with an agitation of 20 seconds at the 30
minute mark and then left for another 30 minutes until pulled to the stop bath
and fixer cycle.

The difference in the two identically exposed negatives is striking even on
a computer screen. For a more detailed discussion on the topic see the
April May 2005 issue of View Camera magazine for a full article I wrote on
the technique.

As I said the process is not for everyone, it involves considerable time to
process sometimes only one negative at a time so obviously if one were to
shoot a large amount of sheet film the process can become a burden,
thankfully I do not shoot large amounts of film.

As far as the "magic bullet" goes, all things are relative. That said, I
have been making large format black and white negatives of the environment
for 25+ years and can attest the traits you strive for in a final print will
always be influenced by Film Speed, Micro Contrast and the taming of
highlight detail, all of these components are directly and significantly
effected by Reduced Agitation forms of development.

As Climb about suggested, read the link in it's entirety on this technique.

Finally, as I've said all along the process to me is more about the creative
possibilities it affords than any increase in sharpness or contrast,
certainly that is a discussion all on it's own.

2F/2F · Aug 18, 2010

Try it. It can lead to some very fun results. It looks quite unique. Learn what it looks like and what it does so you can decide for yourself when and when not to use it...and whether or not to tell exactly who to piss off.

Ian Grant · Aug 18, 2010

Steve, I'm not sure quite how much effect is caused by stand development, and how much by the choice of developer itself. My own experience with Pyro (Pyrocatechin & Pyrogallol) developers is that even with normal Inversion agitation (or dish processing) there's already a high degree of edge effects from the tanning properties of the developer.

I don't disagree that they can be enhanced by stand development but would like to see a real comparison made. There's downsides with smaller formats, acutance developers and edge effects were something I investigated quite thoroughly in the 70's, and the formula has more immediate effect than agitation. The disadvantages of relying on agitation can be uneven development.

Some disagree that Pyro developers have any benefits at all, dismissing the tanning/edge effects etc. Usually the same people on many Forums.

Ian

Thomas Bertilsson · Aug 18, 2010

Steve, those are nice examples that seem to well illustrate why you like standing development, or reduced agitation development.

How would the same negative look if you used the same chemistry as you did with standing development and processed in a tray using agitation intervals that are maybe 5m?

I used standing development in the past. You helped me understand the process once. The last couple of years and few hundred rolls I have been using more standard development, but I use agitation as a tool to alter tonal reproduction. A low contrast scene will receive agitation every 30s, and a high contrast scene receives agitation every 5m. Development time varies with it. I use Xtol to process the film, and am able to tame very high contrast scenes and make them easily printable at the printing stage.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the original poster might try for him/her self and find out if it works or not with their work flow. I proved to myself that I can get the results I want from any lighting scenario without standing development, and I thus omitted the risk of uneven development to a much larger degree. Somebody else might look at my negatives and prints and shake their heads with dislike, thinking I don't know what I'm doing.

I know that I'm happy with my negatives, and how they print. That matters to me, as it should matter to others that their negatives work for them.

Attached picture is a direct scan of a straight G2 print that was sepia/selenium toned. 35mm TMax 400 in Xtol. Ilford MGWT / Ethol LPD. I love that modulation of highlights right at the edge of blocking up. The contrast was pretty high, and I gave a stop of extra exposure to get the tree trunks and branches. I slowed agitation down to 10s every 5 minutes, and processed for 15 minutes.

- Thomas

Steve Sherman said:
As with most discussions on the internet it becomes a he said she said where
listeners are left to believe those who make the most compelling argument.
There in lies the reason I rarely get involved in discussions on Reduced
Agitation development any longer. However, when you see someone make
completely false statements it begs for one more time to try and educate the
masses.

Sadly, there is another post within this discussion by someone other than Michael R who sites a number of "bullet points" which to my experience and working methods every single point he puts forth is the exact opposite of my findings.

I've included two unmanipulated scans of identically exposed 7x17 negatives
of a scene in Utah which was taken in the middle of an overcast day of
subject matter which by a light meters calculation contained only 3 stops of
grey tone, yes even the dark rocks only metered three stops apart from the
light sandstone erosion. One tray processed negative was processed for 23
minutes in ABC Pyro, a pyro known to be a very aggressive developer and
the one used by Edward Weston for much of his work. The other negative was
processed with Pyrocat HD using a regime of 2 minutes initial agitation and
then left alone for 30 minutes with an agitation of 20 seconds at the 30
minute mark and then left for another 30 minutes until pulled to the stop bath
and fixer cycle.

The difference in the two identically exposed negatives is striking even on
a computer screen. For a more detailed discussion on the topic see the
April May 2005 issue of View Camera magazine for a full article I wrote on
the technique.

As I said the process is not for everyone, it involves considerable time to
process sometimes only one negative at a time so obviously if one were to
shoot a large amount of sheet film the process can become a burden,
thankfully I do not shoot large amounts of film.

As far as the "magic bullet" goes, all things are relative. That said, I
have been making large format black and white negatives of the environment
for 25+ years and can attest the traits you strive for in a final print will
always be influenced by Film Speed, Micro Contrast and the taming of
highlight detail, all of these components are directly and significantly
effected by Reduced Agitation forms of development.

As Climb about suggested, read the link in it's entirety on this technique.

Finally, as I've said all along the process to me is more about the creative
possibilities it affords than any increase in sharpness or contrast,
certainly that is a discussion all on it's own.

c6h6o3 · Aug 18, 2010

Steve Sherman said:
As Climb about suggested, read the link in it's entirety on this technique.

Finally, as I've said all along the process to me is more about the creative
possibilities it affords than any increase in sharpness or contrast,
certainly that is a discussion all on it's own.

Steve:

How did they print? The semi-stand one looks a lot denser than your usual.

Steve Sherman · Aug 18, 2010

2F/2F said:
Try it. It can lead to some very fun results. It looks quite unique. Learn what it looks like and what it does so you can decide for yourself when and when not to use it...and whether or not to tell exactly who to piss off.

With this one you're right on point.

More later, running out now

Anscojohn · Aug 18, 2010

I was working as a stringer for an outfit doing convention photogaphy in the middle 1960s. We had an example of "stand" development and didn't even know it. We souped 120 GAF Super Hypan in a six foot enamel tank of Permadol developer, about a hundred rolls at a time on metal racks. The tank was sunk partially into the darkroom floor, but we still needed a step ladder to get the film in. One day a roll slipped off the SS film clip and resided in the bottom of the tank for about a week until one of the printers noticed a roll missing from the printing sequence and the lost sheep was dragged out and fixed. Although some holes had been eaten into the film (not just the emulsion), some Farmer's Reducer and we actually had negs that could be printed.

So I can say one thing from personal observation: stand development probably doesn't hurt anything. I must also say that I was once taken to task by a teacher and expert via APUG when I observed that in fifty years or so of darkroom work (and with the exception of a brief mention in Sussman's book) I had never met nor heard of anyone who did stand development. I was informed that I just hung with the wrong people, or words to that effect. BTW, I no longer stand to soup film. My arthritis necessitates a comfy chair in the darkroom.

Figuring Out Stand Developing

yeknom02

Kirk Keyes

brucemuir

yeknom02

Athiril

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

yeknom02

climbabout

Thomas Bertilsson

juan

Steve Sherman

Athiril

Athiril

Athiril

yeknom02

Athiril

Ken Nadvornick

Thomas Bertilsson

Steve Sherman

Attachments

2F/2F

Ian Grant

Thomas Bertilsson

Attachments

c6h6o3

Steve Sherman

Anscojohn

Figuring Out Stand Developing

Advertiser

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency