How much does exposure really matter with stand developing?

[jonbrisbincreative]

I've been surfing the internet, reading photography forums about stand developing and whether to get an RB67 or an RZ67 instead of working today (one of the bad things about working at home). After reading up on the stand development process quite a bit, it seems that, given development times and developer concentrations are the same for any brand and ISO of film and any amount of pushing or pulling, it seems that, as long as you are within roughly 3 or 4 stops of the correct exposure, it probably doesn't make a lot of difference what shutter speed you use. Is that an accurate assumption?

I ask because I'm considering the older, heavier, and cheaper RB67 for environmental portrait and docu-street-style photography. I'll have my micro-four-thirds camera either on my neck or in my bag as well, and there's even a possibility of trying out the new ambient light meter attachment for my iPhone. I'll use the digital camera for a light meter to get a basic reading of the scene but if I'm stand developing B&W film, it doesn't seem that exposure latitude is very narrow, so it's more about DOF than it is "nailing" exposure within a half-stop.

How do you folks doing MF meter when you know you're going to be stand developing everything?

 

[jonbrisbincreative]

One of the tutorials I've read indicated you could change your target ISO mid-roll. I took that to mean that, since the stand development time for ISO 400 pushed to 1600 was the same as shooting ISO 400 +0, then you're effectively shooting ISO 400 underexposed by 2 stops, therefore you essentially have 4 stops of leeway (-2 to +2) around the base ISO of the film you're using.

Am I misunderstanding what the poster is getting at? With stand development, do you change development time or developer concentration to push or pull like you do with "traditional" processes?

 

[edcculus]

Also, you can get MUCH closer than 4 stops in either direction with an RB67. Getting exposure right without a built in meter is pretty darn simple. The light meter app for the iPhone works incredibly well. I "THINK" its equivalent to a 15 degree spot? It even has an incident meter attachment now called Luxi. And if you are really looking to nail your exposures for landscape, there are some good quality spot meters that can be had for less than $100 if you look around.

I'm a complete amateur compared to most people here, but any development technique should be used as a tool for specific situations. Not as a crutch because you are too lazy to try to meter a scene.

That being said, with properly processed B&W film, you can probably get a printable negative unless exposure is WAY off, or you completely blow out highlights or fill in shadows.

 

[ic-racer]

I've been surfing the internet,...as long as you are within roughly 3 or 4 stops of the correct exposure, it probably doesn't make a lot of difference what shutter speed you use. Is that an accurate assumption?

I have predicted a new 'dark ages' in the next 50 years, due to the internet. Perhaps sooner?

You need a 'correct' exposure to get shadow detail. Anyone interested in how film responds to light and development should read this : http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uplo...en_motion_education_sensitometry_workbook.pdf

 

[jp498]

You can meter infrequently and you'll be fine, as long as the exposure is not too short, and light conditions aren't massively changing. B&W film can handle it without us obsessing over perfect exposure, even with normal developer.

 

[Xmas]

All stand does is increase the dynamic range of film in the same (or similar) way as D23 or POTA.

Box speed on meter still required cause...

If you underexpose a stop you won't have any zone1 shadows.

Unless you like the pushec film look.

With a large camera like a RB or RZ you might as well carry a separate meter spot, domed incident, zone whatever technique you employ.

You normally have the camera on tripod... release in one hand meter in other or leave camera to incident meter off brides nose.

whatever.

I carry a separate meter for 35mm.

 

[jonbrisbincreative]

Also, you can get MUCH closer than 4 stops in either direction with an RB67.

The RB is what I decided to go with since it's still quite a bit cheaper than the same setup in RZ (about 1/2 the price). KEH had a "bargian" grade body, finder, and back (which is actually what eBay camera sellers usually describe as "mint"!) and a 90mm and 180mm lens that I picked up. $65 for the 180/4.5 C. I couldn't pass that up. I can even make a little on this setup by selling it on eBay if I want to upgrade later.

Getting exposure right without a built in meter is pretty darn simple. The light meter app for the iPhone works incredibly well. I "THINK" its equivalent to a 15 degree spot? It even has an incident meter attachment now called Luxi.

This is very likely the direction I'll be heading. I have it with me always and I'm using it always, whether I have another camera in my hand or not. I like to get the "Instagramy" shots that I can post to social media but still use a high-resolution camera for the keepers.

I'm a complete amateur compared to most people here, but any development technique should be used as a tool for specific situations. Not as a crutch because you are too lazy to try to meter a scene.

That being said, with properly processed B&W film, you can probably get a printable negative unless exposure is WAY off, or you completely blow out highlights or fill in shadows.

I would probably not characterize my question as an attempt to "slack off". I was just noting that stand development differs significantly from traditional development in how the developer actually interacts with the emulsion which is why the long development times don't differ from one roll to the next. If that's the case, then even if I obsess over "proper" exposure, my development method will, in some ways, counteract the effort I put into getting an exposure onto the emulsion--an exposure that would turn out completely differently by using a 1:50 solution and developing with constant agitation and normal development times.

I'm not trying to shirk my duty as an artist to craft the best product I can. Quite the contrary. I'm just thinking through the implications of a development process that seems to neutralize variations in ISO, push/pull adjustments, and even minor variations in frames that are exposed for highlights and don't contain detail in the shadows (or the reverse). It seems that, for a given ISO of film, pull or push adjustments are only really effective if using a much stronger developer solution and plenty of agitation to get fresh developer into contact with the emulsion evenly across the frame. Since the whole idea of stand development is to develop the different zones of the exposure in a way that can't be achieved when agitating, it seems to follow that "pushing" ISO 400 to 1600 in stand development doesn't actually do what we think it does if we're still thinking in terms of normal development techniques that continually develop all zones of the exposure throughout the development time.

There's a point at which the film emulsion you are using will stop recording information because the highlights are completely blown and there's a point at which you have to give it enough light to start recording details. If the purpose of stand development is to bring out as much of this information as possible from both ends of the film's capabilities, then it seems logical (though whether it is or not is what I was trying to get at that under or over exposure of a stand-developed negative (and by that I mean, very precisely, deviation from the rated "norm" of the emulsion) will matter a lot less when the developer interacts with the different tonalities in the exposure at different rates throughout the frame than it would for negatives in which subtle details at the highlight end of the film's capability to record that information is subsequently developed out by contact with fresh developer.

If I am to accurately and consistently expose a negative that will be stand developed, then I was simply wondering if spending extra time to achieve a "perfect" exposure according the light meter would be essentially wasted and if I should instead focus on making sure that as much of the contrast of the scene as I want to capture is recorded onto the film I'm using based on the rated ISO.

 

[jonbrisbincreative]

You can meter infrequently and you'll be fine, as long as the exposure is not too short, and light conditions aren't massively changing. B&W film can handle it without us obsessing over perfect exposure, even with normal developer.

This has been my experience as well. I started out many years ago with a Canon AE-1 (which I still have and use) developing high school basketball pics in the middle of the night so I can drop them off at the paper. I was, to be honest, not very careful with exposure or developing times or temperatures simply because I was a) too busy at the time to make any changes to the camera; it's hard enough to do sports with manual focus lenses without having to add in the complexity of changing exposure values (which wasn't useful anyway because gyms don't change in lighting), and b) too tired when I got home and had to develop the negatives to really care about a few seconds one way or the other on development times (I also had no idea at all what temperature my developer was at; whatever temperature it was in the room, I guess!).

With digital, I do actually obsess over exposure much more than film because digital breaks down immediately in overexposure where film degrades gracefully at the extremes of its range. What appeals to me about stand developing MF film is being able to record a wider range of values as well as well as a more zone style approach to exposure.

What have we been doing to our digital images as they've gotten sharper and better anyway? Intentionally degrading them with filters, vignetting, etc... I'm not saying that's inherently bad since I do it myself on almost every image. But the thing that's drawn me out of digital into experimenting with film again (and MF in particular) is the idea that I can think about an image more holistically because I have wider latitude to capture the complete range of tonalities in the image I'm after.

 

[Steve Smith]

Also, you can get MUCH closer than 4 stops in either direction with an RB67. Getting exposure right without a built in meter is pretty darn simple. The light meter app for the iPhone works incredibly well.

Within the normal range of daylight, you can get much closer than within four stops without any type of meter.


Steve.

 

[Tebbiebear]

I ask because I'm considering the older, heavier, and cheaper RB67 for environmental portrait and docu-street-style photography.

I'm just curious here, you have actually handled an RB before right? I LOVE my RZ but the Mamiya RB/RZ series cameras would be just about my last choice for street photography and environmental portraits. If you have a method figured out then that is great, but I have always found my RZ to be exceedingly heavy and awkward for any kind of hand held usage.

 

[jonbrisbincreative]

I'm just curious here, you have actually handled an RB before right? I LOVE my RZ but the Mamiya RB/RZ series cameras would be just about my last choice for street photography and environmental portraits. If you have a method figured out then that is great, but I have always found my RZ to be exceedingly heavy and awkward for any kind of hand held usage.

I haven't handled the RB yet. I've got one coming this week.

I understand how people say that the RB and RZ are too big and heavy to use outside a studio but a modern DSLR with battery grip and telephoto zoom is just as big and heavy. I also plan to take this RB into the mountains and to Europe when I travel. If I can manage a trip to Ecuador next year with a friend who grew up there I'd like to take this beast into the jungle as well!

IMO there is a resurgence of wet plate collodion and other alternative processes because we are drowning in safe, easy, low-barrier-to-entry images. The most striking street photography I've seen was made when the photographer's life intersected with the subject's in a real way. Small, light, and unobtrusive might be convenient but it too often lulls the photographer into disconnecting from their subject and thus leaving the viewer out to dry.

Give me a big, slow, obtrusive box any day and let everyone else more interested in their battery-draining touchscreen tech than their photography capably handle deluging the world with safe and forgettable.

 

[MattKing]

I'm not sure that you are going to get what you want from stand development.

Stand does tend to minimize the effects of over-exposure, but it really doesn't give you much when you under-expose, unless featureless shadows are what you are looking for.

 

[Xmas]

I haven't handled the RB yet. I've got one coming this week.

I understand how people say that the RB and RZ are too big and heavy to use outside a studio but a modern DSLR with battery grip and telephoto zoom is just as big and heavy. I also plan to take this RB into the mountains and to Europe when I travel. If I can manage a trip to Ecuador next year with a friend who grew up there I'd like to take this beast into the jungle as well!

IMO there is a resurgence of wet plate collodion and other alternative processes because we are drowning in safe, easy, low-barrier-to-entry images. The most striking street photography I've seen was made when the photographer's life intersected with the subject's in a real way. Small, light, and unobtrusive might be convenient but it too often lulls the photographer into disconnecting from their subject and thus leaving the viewer out to dry.

Give me a big, slow, obtrusive box any day and let everyone else more interested in their battery-draining touchscreen tech than their photography capably handle deluging the world with safe and forgettable.

Understand all that but an RB is made out of depleted Uranium...
You will need a big bag, hand grip, neckstrap, lens hood, one back and patient sitters/subjects.
If you can work off a tripod you can omit the grip and strap.
The RB is heavy compared to a DSLR and way slower it has more interlocks than the gold vaults... down load the manual now, don't force anytime.
If you pack the pola back and hand over a print... sitters will appreciate.

 

[Bill Burk]

...my results indicated to me that my chances of getting uniformity without at least SOME agitation would be very slim, so I didn't bother.

Nice graph!

jonbrisbincreative,

If these charts from silveror0 mean anything to you... the heavy dashed line is about where you want the highlights to be at or below to keep them from "blowing out"... Notice that with silveror0's process it's "practically impossible" to blow out highlights... The curves never reach high density.

But assuming the curve hits zero just slightly to the left of the 2 - that's a pretty clear diagram of where you don't want to put important picture details. Don't underexpose, don't push.

So you might call the rule of thumb with this processing plan... Meter carelessly but expose generously.

 

[jonbrisbincreative]

I'm not sure that you are going to get what you want from stand development.

Stand does tend to minimize the effects of over-exposure, but it really doesn't give you much when you under-expose, unless featureless shadows are what you are looking for.

Good to know. Ansel Adams' "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" seems is really the only way to get the best tonal range. If one exposes for the shadows and doesn't have completely white highlights (in high contrast scenes like shadows in direct sunlight), I think stand development will be a good compliment.

An RB67, 2 lenses, and a variety of B&W film will be here on Thursday so I can start experimenting. I want to at least have an idea of how this process works before I leave for Colorado in a couple weeks.

Now I need to start looking for a Polaroid back, an L grip, a prism... I may have unleashed a beast!

 

[jonbrisbincreative]

If these charts from silveror0 mean anything to you... the heavy dashed line is about where you want the highlights to be at or below to keep them from "blowing out"... Notice that with silveror0's process it's "practically impossible" to blow out highlights... The curves never reach high density.

But assuming the curve hits zero just slightly to the left of the 2 - that's a pretty clear diagram of where you don't want to put important picture details. Don't underexpose, don't push.

So you might call the rule of thumb with this processing plan... Meter carelessly but expose generously.

Great information! I've learned quite a lot about this process in just a few pointers.

So maybe "expose for most of the shadows" would be a good compromise to maintain information in the higher zones. Maybe a stop off of spot meter from a shadow area?

 

[Terry Christian]

Bottom line: Stand development isn't for every scenario. That said, it can be a useful technique. Photography is all about managing compromises and this is no exception.

 

[BetterSense]

Ansel Adams' "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" seems is really the only way to get the best tonal range.

The "best" tonal range is the tonal range you decide is best.

One of the tutorials I've read indicated you could change your target ISO mid-roll

You can always change your target ISO mid-roll. You can do whatever you want. There are no exposure police watching you meter.

I understand how people say that the RB and RZ are too big and heavy to use outside a studio but a modern DSLR with battery grip and telephoto zoom is just as big and heavy.

I have never seen any DSLR as big and heavy (and awkward) as an RB67. My RB67 is one of my favorite cameras, but let's be honest here.

 

[Xmas]

You could use a spot but the 67 is on a tripod so you can use a normal meter by walking over to a zone1 shadow.

So expose for zone1.

If you are shooting people you can nail the skin tone by incident metering off nose and giving a stop and half for black skin. Burning the highlight detail may be all you can do.

The prism is heavy.

 

[jp498]

If you want some confidence in B&W films abilities, understand it's not perfect, but worth doing. Shoot a roll with a holga 120n. Two exposure options. "sun" and "shade". Develop normally. Do a contact print and print or scan a couple of them. You'll get usable photos as long as you were outside shooting and did not venture into lighting extremes.

 

[removed account4]

if you are able to develop by inspection you can adjust your processing time to match you exposure if you are more than a stop off. some modern films like tmx/tmy have wiggle room so if you arenoff a little bit te film is forgiving.

good luck !
john

 

[pdeeh]

There are no exposure police .

Are you sure?

I see quite a few on APUG, along with their colleagues in the Developer Squad, the Agitation Corps and the Lens Stasi ...

 

[Xmas]

If using a spot meter, the key is to decide which of the various shadow areas is the one where you want to retain details. You would then place that reading on Zone III, i.e. two stops less than Zone V (18% grey). All darker shadows will then lack recognizable detail.
[snip]
That's why my chart shows the caution that the semi-stand development produces a one-stop loss of film speed, which must be accounted for with an additional one-stop of exposure if intending to use this development process.

Thanks my method is only different in that

I use zone1 and close up to a/the dark area with a normal meter, this cause I 'never' use my OM4 or spot meter attachment.

But I find that my (personal) nominal speed with Rodinal 1+100 stand @ 20C or Microphen for 0.6 gamma is the same as box. But this is dependent on what you regard as zone 'n'.

I've not had detectable uneven development in decades. But given I normally temper in a (5x or 8x) multi tank there may be enough thermal convection to be semi stand in effect.

note
double-x @ 250
formapan 100 @ 125
formapan 400 @ 250-320
per datasheets

 

[MartinP]

An RB67, 2 lenses, and a variety of B&W film will be here on Thursday so I can start experimenting. I want to at least have an idea of how this process works before I leave for Colorado in a couple weeks.

A couple of weeks . . . errmmmm. I know this sounds negative (pun-alert) but try using some film in the way recommended by the rest of the world before you go down the lomography route. I suspect that you will be puzzled that the manufacturers recommendations generally work. And start weight-training now, don't wait until Thursday. Good luck.

 

[Xmas]

And start weight-training now, don't wait until Thursday. Good luck.

my gbag (just) holds

motor power pack
3xbacks
pola
55, 65, 90mm
body
grip
filters & film

It needs wheels cause it is difficult to move you don't need gym fees...

note I strap a monopod external.