How does Semi-Stand Relate to N, N-1, N-2.. etc?

I'm very eager to get into semi-stand development. I've been reading all the threads I could find on here about the topic. I understand what semi-stand, minimal agitation and stand development do, but I'm a zone system user and I'm wondering how it relates to the zone system.

I understand that one of the benefits of semi stand is contraction. But what if your scene is a normal 5 stop range? And you want your zone VII to be zone VII? Do you have a time, dilution, agitation pattern for N development? Do you change the procedure for N-1, N-2.. etc? What about expansion?

I'm looking for a place to start. Thanks

brian steinberger said:

I'm very eager to get into semi-stand development. I've been reading all the threads I could find on here about the topic. I understand what semi-stand, minimal agitation and stand development do, but I'm a zone system user and I'm wondering how it relates to the zone system.

I understand that one of the benefits of semi stand is contraction. But what if your scene is a normal 5 stop range? And you want your zone VII to be zone VII? Do you have a time, dilution, agitation pattern for N development? Do you change the procedure for N-1, N-2.. etc? What about expansion?

I'm looking for a place to start. Thanks

Click to expand...

Brian. If you do a search on this site you will find multiple threads on stand, semi-stand and minimal agitation. One is active now, (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Sandy King

brian steinberger said:

I'm very eager to get into semi-stand development. I've been reading all the threads I could find on here about the topic. I understand what semi-stand, minimal agitation and stand development do, but I'm a zone system user and I'm wondering how it relates to the zone system.

I understand that one of the benefits of semi stand is contraction. But what if your scene is a normal 5 stop range? And you want your zone VII to be zone VII? Do you have a time, dilution, agitation pattern for N development? Do you change the procedure for N-1, N-2.. etc? What about expansion?

I'm looking for a place to start. Thanks

Click to expand...

Tough question.
I guess the first response question is... why? I shoot PanF at EI 25 in very harsh California lighting situations. Mostly 6x6. I then use very dilute 1:200 Rodinal, stand processed for 90 minutes. Why? I like the graphic effect it gives me. The highlights are not burned out, the shadows fill nicely, the edge effects are quite nice.

If your process is so contained, down to 5 stops +- one or two... wouldn't you be using your tried and true developer combinations?


What are you looking for in attempting to bridge these two exposure/development concepts?

tim in san jose

This isn't magic. You just do the work to test your film, then adjust times as you (normally?) would in a typical development. The compensation effects are just another dimension in working with film. tim

I am also interested in knowing if anyone has curves somewhere that show the difference between normal development and compensating development.

Patrick Gainer seems to have doubt about both the clarity of the vocabulary and the actual existence of the phenomenon itself:
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D6iF

mhv said:

I am also interested in knowing if anyone has curves somewhere that show the difference between normal development and compensating development.

Patrick Gainer seems to have doubt about both the clarity of the vocabulary and the actual existence of the phenomenon itself:
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D6iF

Click to expand...

If by compensation one understands highlight compression I agree with Patrick. In fact, I have some curves of TMY that show the very opposite, i.e. a more flaring curve with TMY developed in Pyrocat-HD 1.5:1:200 with Extreme Minimal agitation than when developed in Pyrocat 2:2:100.

However, there is a kind of compensation that takes place at the micro-contrast level that appears quite real to me. Unfortunately this can not be seen by looking at the curve.

Sandy

sanking said:

If by compensation one understands highlight compression I agree with Patrick. In fact, I have some curves of TMY that show the very opposite, i.e. a more flaring curve with TMY developed in Pyrocat-HD 1.5:1:200 with Extreme Minimal agitation than when developed in Pyrocat 2:2:100.

However, there is a kind of compensation that takes place at the micro-contrast level that appears quite real to me. Unfortunately this can not be seen by looking at the curve.

Sandy

Click to expand...

Wouldn't the shadows raise up a bit as well, or this is not something you have observed? Based on AA's definition, the highlights are developed less and the shadows, more. Also, would it be similar to the effect of water-bath development, given that in theory both processes rely on the local exhaustion of developer?

mhv said:

Wouldn't the shadows raise up a bit as well, or this is not something you have observed? Based on AA's definition, the highlights are developed less and the shadows, more. Also, would it be similar to the effect of water-bath development, given that in theory both processes rely on the local exhaustion of developer?

Click to expand...

Reduced agitation will often give slightly greater film speed because the shadows do in fact develop more density. However, if you increase development time it should be possible to create curves of the same shape and CI with constant agitation and reduced agitation.

Sandy King

My objection to the concept of compensation is not that it doesn't exist, but that in the long run, the real compensation has to be done in the printing. If you develop a wide range scene to normal contrast, your highlights will be blown unless you burn them in while printing. If you compensate in film development so the the highlights are directly printable, They don't look much like highlights because the midtones that should set them off are dull. Then you resort to grade 3 or 4 paper and still have to burn in the highlights. Meantime, if you simply reduce development time of the film to keep highlights within paper range, you lose film speed. So you resort to compensating development that starves hungry highlights one way or another while force feeding the shadows. You still have to do some burning or dodging in the printing. It's just a law of nature that white paper has a limited brightness range, while the eye adapts to several times that brightness range as it roams around a wide range scene. Somehow, we have to fool the eye that is looking at a print into thinking it is seeing a white that is whiter than the white of the bare paper. Painting artists learn how to do this. They can show you a sunrise that makes you want to squint to protect your eyes. Enough lecturing from me.

gainer said:

My objection to the concept of compensation is not that it doesn't exist, but that in the long run, the real compensation has to be done in the printing. If you develop a wide range scene to normal contrast, your highlights will be blown unless you burn them in while printing. If you compensate in film development so the the highlights are directly printable, They don't look much like highlights because the midtones that should set them off are dull. Then you resort to grade 3 or 4 paper and still have to burn in the highlights. Meantime, if you simply reduce development time of the film to keep highlights within paper range, you lose film speed. So you resort to compensating development that starves hungry highlights one way or another while force feeding the shadows. You still have to do some burning or dodging in the printing. It's just a law of nature that white paper has a limited brightness range, while the eye adapts to several times that brightness range as it roams around a wide range scene. Somehow, we have to fool the eye that is looking at a print into thinking it is seeing a white that is whiter than the white of the bare paper. Painting artists learn how to do this. They can show you a sunrise that makes you want to squint to protect your eyes. Enough lecturing from me.

Click to expand...

This is very, very interesting. So what is your approach for high contrast scenes? Do you just shoot it normal, dev. normal and then burn your highlights in?

I would think that with semi stand that since you're gaining film speed and shadow detail while at the same time compressing highlights based on the SBR that the midtones would be "sandwiched" between being pushed up by the shadows and brought down by the highlights. I could understand midtones becoming muddy when using N- dev. with traditional agitation.

Again, this is a very interesting thread. I'd be interested to see Steve Sherman's repsonse to your post.

I would like to see a true comparison of different approaches to photographing a wide range scene. What has to be done between the actual scene and an artistic rendering of it. A transparency would have the best chance of showing a scene with more than 6 f-stops between significant shadow and significant highlight. I have used stand and several variations of semi-stand or extreme minimal agitation. What we usually hope for is more apparent sharpness due to enhanced edge effects. I have seen many photos with obvious edge effects that were attributed to the processing method, but no actual comparison between the results of that method with a more traditional method. I remember Steve Sherman showed a photo here that was sharp from head to toe and said he had made a duplicate exposure that he intended to process differently, but never saw the result of the other process. A lot has happened to me in the meantime, so maybe I just missed it. My oldest daughter gave me a Round Toit, which is a circular wooden plaque inscribed simply "TOIT" so I couldn't say "Sorry. I never got around to it". I meant to hang it on my wall, but I never got around to it.

I think Sandy said it. Compensating development was originally intended to make up for the loss of film speed with reduced development. It doesn't absolve anyone from the duty of manipulating the dickens out of a negative in order to make an artistic print. As long as the SBR can be captured on film without hitting the ceiling, I use mostly normal development. I am not particularly attracted to very wide SBR. Once in a while I would like to be able to capture what I see on both sides of a window. I have not been able to do so without dodging, burning or both. The best bet would be to expose two negatives, one for the inside and one for the outside, develop them both normally, and superimpose them during printing. I haven't tried it yet, even though I have a Round Toit.

I got sidetracked. Is reduced contrast in the highlights really what we want? I would think that would be reserved for those films that have a rising characteristic curve. White clouds on a blue sky are best handled by a filter that darkens the blue sky. Anyway, I still would like to see a real comparison of all the ways we have proposed to handle wider than normal scene brightness range. Maybe I can find my Round Toit.

and another thing. All that compensation tends to kill local contrast throughout the negative. i.e. all those little specular and less specular highlights in the mids to shadows get killed. Result is a flat looking print and there is nothing you can do about that.