For those interested in stand development...

I just processed an 8x10 sheet of FP4+ in Rodinal 1:200 with a total of 7ml Rodinal to 1400ml distilled water @ 68F. I used a tube (and cap) that held approx 1350ml of liquid. (I will do my testing with my soon to be delivered J&C tubes.) I agitated by rolling the tube approx 1 revolution per second alternating about 5 revolutions in each direction. I did this for 1 minute. I let the tube stand for 45minutes with no further agitation. I stopped in water and fixed in arista oderless 1:9 for 5 minutes. I am amazed at the quality and detail! No weirdness with streaking or uneven development in the large sky area. (I think standing vertical in the tube might be helping here.) I am so excited that I will set out to do the following and would like any input from those that have been down this road...

I'm thinking out loud here:

With Rodinal and FP4+ I will do some thorough testing in hopes of finding plus and minus development times. (keeping papers in mind for enlarging) I will do this by experimenting with initial agitation times as well as temperatures. I will see how long it takes for the developer to exhaust by testing different times. I will test different dilutions from 1:100 to 1:300 using short, avg and long SBRs. I will test the effects of easy vs hard agitation on contraction/expansion. I will report in detail all of my findings in hopes that others who are interested may benefit.

Again, I'm thinking out loud but I am putting my mind to organizing a coherent approach even as I type.

My wish is that I can use this combination with most landscape shooting situations. In the process of doing this I want to learn as much as I can about how all these variables truly interact. I've read so much on these subjects but can't seem to find a thorough, complete and easy to understand dissertation on this subject using the stats from 1 film and 1 developer. (I just glanced over at the scan of the neg and boy am I JAZZED!)

So, in closing, I would greatly appreciate any ideas or guidance as I set out on this fun little expedition!

Thanks to all.

Bob

Bob,

I for one, I'm sure there are others here also, would like to hear/see your findings. I've not been very intersted in "Stand Development" but you've caught my interest.

Bob, a bit of a rush, isn't it? Not sure how it looks but I would wager that shadows are showing full textures like you have not seen with normal agitation and edges look like they have been cut with a razor. Any edge effects where light edges meet dark in the scene?

Since you have had good luck on the first try, don't change more than one variable at a time. Use this dilution and work out a full set of sbr numbers with correct times. Remember, the print is what is important. A print that isn't just "right" is just as valuable as one which is, because you can use the information to build your data and plot the film's curve.

I don't own a densitometer but you don't need one to make the tests, it just takes a bit more film and time without one. If you will be patient, take notes on the shot, development, temperature, print results and see what happens, in about 6 shots you will have a decent enough range of values to make good guesses based on existing data. You build on what you know. A densitometer lets you do it at one time.

I use a graph made on 1/4" graph paper. Left side is the y axis in sbr numbers from 6-12 or whatever, in 1/2" increments. Bottom edge is the x axis with times plotted in similar 1/2" increments. With stand development you may need to tape three sheets of paper together to do the plot as times will be on the long side for the low sbr numbers.

My basic method is to take the shot, guess at the time (based on previous shots which have worked exactly as planned with sbr numbers I already know), then do the print. I evaluate the zone 3 and zone 7 placements and record the results. For example, if the sbr number was 8 2/3 and your time guessed was 55 minutes, how did it print? If the print was about a half stop too flat, you have valuable information. The development time was too short. Make a tick mark at 9+ and 55 minutes. This works well enough to put a french curve into play after a few shots and will give you a curve based on a given paper, film, developer and dilution. It really is that simple. The french curve acts to average out your times, because the guesses are never correct, but the curve is able to relate all of the random points into a single line. This may make the sensitometrists cringe and roll their eyes, but it works.

After a while, it becomes a fun challenge to play with the scenes and look for different light to capture and print. Great job on your first film and can't wait to see the print. tim

I'm going to wait for my JC Tubes to arrive before starting the tests. I want to keep everything consistent including the diameter of the tubes. This way too, I would like to pass all the info on to others so they can duplicate what I'm doing as closely as possible if they choose. This includes using distilled water. I will expose step wedges at iso 125 and begin processing with 1 minute agitation (I'll go into complete detail on everything when I'm done) for 16, 22, 32, 45, 64 minutes. I'll take densitometer readings and plot the numbers. I'll repeat the process with different "Up Front" agitation times then again by changing agitation intensity. Then I'd like to see what happens when developer temperature is changed ie will the contrasts behave the same. Once this is complete I'd like to experiment with semi and quarterly agitation schemes. My hopes are to be able to control the film over a wide range of contrast. I'll start posting results as they come. And again, thanks to everyone in advance for any helpful suggestions.

bob

Someone on this forum pushed Tri-X to 12,800 with Rodinal. Rodinal seems to rock for stand development or even semi-stand.

I have a feeling that single component developers (non-super additive) might have something to do with it.

What is in 510 pyro? I always thought of ABC and pyrochatechol hd as being single component.

Actually i should clarify my 'guess' a little better...

Single component- more edge effects, less compensation
superadditive - more compensation, less edge effects (or what we call infectious development)
If you think about it a superadditive developer would 'stop working' more with less agitation.
I know it's a moutful but I am not sure how to explain it better.

Now that I think about it superadditve should give you more compensation and more edge effects.

I think rodinal has a couple things going for it:
a) it has been around for a long time so people have monkyed with it a lot.
b) it gives you that certain look in a reasonable amount of time

Anyone actually done this? Not that many people play with ABC any more.
Efke 25 works pretty well in weston pyro (3:1:1) at @12. I have thought about trying this with some roll film but I sold all my chem stuff when I moved out here.

jdef said:

Using your own examples, ABC-Pyro, a single-agent developer, is not known for edge effects,

Jay

Click to expand...

avandesande said:

Single component- more edge effects, less compensation
superadditive - more compensation, less edge effects (or what we call infectious development)

Click to expand...

??? Is this not a misuse of the term? Infectious development is what occurs with lithograph developers

All pyro type developers, pyrogallol and pyrocatechin, whether one reducer or two or more, tan or harden the gelatin, which reduces infectious development. This is one of the primary reasons many pyro developers give a sharper look than traditional non-staining developers.

Edge efffects depend on local exhaustion of the developer, and with the proper dilution that will happen with most dilute high acutance developers. If there is any reasearch that shows that single reducer formulas are more effective than formulas with two or more reducers I would like to see it.

Sandy

avandesande said:

Actually i should clarify my 'guess' a little better...

Single component- more edge effects, less compensation
superadditive - more compensation, less edge effects (or what we call infectious development)
If you think about it a superadditive developer would 'stop working' more with less agitation.
I know it's a moutful but I am not sure how to explain it better.

Click to expand...

You should inclue Hydroquinone among the pyro developers - in the right mixtures, it is just as staining.

For edge effects to occur, you need a developer oxidation product that is not an active developer in itself. That eliminates Hydroquinone (the Semiquinone oxidation product is more active than HQ), and probably also Pyrocatechol and Pyrogallol.
I know that metol-only developers work well (FX-1. Beutler's)...