is Rodinal stand-development for scanning only?

[BetterSense]

I've been meaning to try 1:100/1-hour stand development with Rodinal because the technique's proponents say it is so easy and gives good results with different exposures on the same roll, which describes my 35mm well. However, most of the internet threads I read about involve scanning the negatives. Typically for scanning thin, wimpy negatives work fine, compared to enlarging. So, does this technique work just as well for enlarging as for scanning?

 

[cliveh]

Agitation is an important part of development and you need to walk before you can run.

 

[BetterSense]

Usually I develop in 1:50 for about 9 minutes and agitate every couple minutes. It works well when the film is exposed well. What does walking have to do with anything?

 

[Lamar]

I just did my first semi-stand development yesterday on some Tri-X shot at ISO 3200 to see what all the fuss is about. Semi-Stand test with 500ml of 1:100 diluted Rodinal (Adonal) at 70F for 2 hours. 1 minute of initial agitation and 3 gentle swirls of the tank every 30 minutes. I'm ok with the results, pretty good for ISO 3200...... My next roll will be same dilution, 1 min agitation then stand for 1 hour. Here is a link to the set on Flickr. http://www.flickr.com/photos/9565031@N06/sets/72157641360043843/ Scanned with a Nikon Coolscan V ED using VueScan. Sorry, I don't print optically though. I hope to attempt someday but for now I'm good with just scanning.

 

[gone]

I've been developing Tri-X w/ Rodinal at 1:25 and can say that this is a developer that is very reactive to agitation schemes, much more so than my usual D76 or Acufine. I like the results I get at 1:25 if I do everything correctly. Stand development I know nothing about. Don't think I need to try it for my style of photography. As for the thin, wimpy negs, better those than the thick, dense ones any day.

 

[MattKing]

I've been meaning to try 1:100/1-hour stand development with Rodinal because the technique's proponents say it is so easy and gives good results with different exposures on the same roll, which describes my 35mm well. However, most of the internet threads I read about involve scanning the negatives. Typically for scanning thin, wimpy negatives work fine, compared to enlarging. So, does this technique work just as well for enlarging as for scanning?

Stand and semi-stand development procedures have been around a lot longer than scanners.

They are special techniques, intended to be used to deal with specific circumstances. The edge effects and enhanced acutance that result are useful for some purposes, as are the effects of compensation. But the changes they cause don't suit every scene or situation.

If you use stand techniques for everything, some (maybe most) of your negatives will come out much worse than if you use standard agitation schemes.

You certainly can enlarge the negatives that have been stand developed. You may or may not like the results.

 

[BetterSense]

They are special techniques, intended to be used to deal with specific circumstances. The edge effects and enhanced acutance that result are useful for some purposes, as are the effects of compensation. But the changes they cause don't suit every scene or situation.

If you use stand techniques for everything, some (maybe most) of your negatives will come out much worse than if you use standard agitation schemes.

This goes against the claims of the technique. People say it's ideal specifically for use when a variety of exposures, lighting, even different film types in the same tank. With conventional development you still have the situation where whatever development time and agitation you choose is going to make some frames good but others worse.

What I used to do is use Diafine. I just don't have any right now.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If you shoot normal contrast scenes then you don't have to use standing development.

If all of your negatives are shot in the same contrast or lighting (think studio photography where lighting is controlled) you also don't have to do standing development, because you'll know how to expose and develop the film to suit the output process.

Most of the variances that occur on a roll of film due to variation in lighting and contrast, can be accounted for when printing.

You are right that standing development does 'even out' frames of varying contrast. Lower density and contrast exposures get developed fuller than average due to the slower exhaustion of developer on those negatives. Higher density and contrast exposures get developed less than average due to the higher exhaustion of developer on those negatives.
But, standing development does change the tones between highlights and shadows pretty drastically, creating fairly unique tone curves, and you may or may not like it. That's what Matt was alluding to, I'm sure.

It's not for scanning only. There are references to standing development long before scanning was invented. Think very early 20th century.

My suggestion is - try it and see how it works! You may find it's the best thing since sliced bread, and that would be great! You may also find out that you think it sucks. At least then you'll know.

 

[Nuff]

I find stand works best for me in very high contrast scenes. Think of a shot indoors, but I still want detail outdoors . Otherwise it looks too flat for my liking.

 

[Dr Croubie]

I find stand dev works best when I'm feeling lazy and don't want to be stuck for up to 20 mins inverting my tank.
Also when doing 4x5s in my mod54 and I don't want to overagitate and have the film come out (especially when doing 9x12s in my mod54, they're a bit smaller and come out easier).
It's especially useful at 1+200 for Kodalith at ei6 (and as far as I've read, other technical films like techpan and ATP, but I haven't tried).
I only use it (actually, I only ever use rodinal at all) at box speed on iso100 or less.

Some people think that you can shoot at any ei on any film and change it mid-roll to whatever you want, and believe that stand-dev is the way to go when doing this, it's their "miracle dev".
Most of the complaints that I've read about stand-dev are from people who object to this first group of people and think they're nutters.
I'm neither, stand-dev is just a tool that I use occasionally. And every tool has a specific use, there is no tool that will work for everything.

 

[pdeeh]

People say ...

But which people?

There are people who say that the world is run by a conspiracy of giant green alien lizards and Jewish bankers, but saying something doesn't make it true. Evidence is needed, from credible sources, before exercising judgment about the value of what people say

 

[Simon Howers]

I've been meaning to try 1:100/1-hour stand development with Rodinal because the technique's proponents say it is so easy and gives good results with different exposures on the same roll, which describes my 35mm well. However, most of the internet threads I read about involve scanning the negatives. Typically for scanning thin, wimpy negatives work fine, compared to enlarging. So, does this technique work just as well for enlarging as for scanning?

I think you have to decide what you are trying to achieve. I use stand development with large format to produce negatives which perform well in alternative processes, so I'm looking for contrast and density. I use a weak solution of Xtol with Rodinal added in varying proportions. Some films work well with this type of processing, others are a disaster! Try reading Irridescent Light by Michael Axel (pub. Blurb)

Good luck!

SimonH

 

[Xmas]

Rodinal is only nice on 100ISO or slower unless you like grain.
Stand is resonable in a multi tank when you have forgotten which cassette is which..., or you dont want to mix up a new bottle of stock.
But you do need a kitchen timer or smart phone if you don't watch the tank.
With Rodinal & stand you get both sharp and smaller grain though still may be gulf ball sized.
It is cheap as well.

If you have overexposed the scanners DMax is a limit unless you use POTA.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Same as any other photographic process, it matters how long you develop the film for. Too long in a standing development regime, and you could end up with those negatives you don't like to scan.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Stand and semi-stand development procedures have been around a lot longer than scanners.

They are special techniques, intended to be used to deal with specific circumstances. The edge effects and enhanced acutance that result are useful for some purposes, as are the effects of compensation. But the changes they cause don't suit every scene or situation.

If you use stand techniques for everything, some (maybe most) of your negatives will come out much worse than if you use standard agitation schemes.

You certainly can enlarge the negatives that have been stand developed. You may or may not like the results.

Exactly! Stand development is not a cure-all nor is it intended for those who are adverse to use of conventional time/temperature development.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Rodinal is only nice on 100ISO or slower unless you like grain.
Stand is resonable in a multi tank when you have forgotten which cassette is which..., or you dont want to mix up a new bottle of stock.
But you do need a kitchen timer or smart phone if you don't watch the tank.
With Rodinal & stand you get both sharp and smaller grain though still may be gulf ball sized.
It is cheap as well.

If you have overexposed the scanners DMax is a limit unless you use POTA.

Only nice on ISO 100? Rodinal is an extremely powerful developer, and the grainy results so many refer to are, in my opinion, greatly exaggerated. Have you ever processed Delta 3200 in Rodinal and enlarged it to 16x20 inch? It's a stunning thing to behold, how all that information the negative contains starts to really come alive in print. Grain or not, the tonality achieved, and the beautiful rich detailed prints are worth so much more than any comment on grain.

 

[Xmas]

Hi Thomas

Confirmed I normally use Rodinal 1:100 for everything APX400, formapan 400 etc., cause I like the grain visible but many people don't like grain.

It is fair to say there will be grain...

The stand will minimise grain and sharpness.

Noel

 

[erikg]

Stand will minimize grain and sharpness? Not in my experience.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Stand will minimize grain and sharpness? Not in my experience.

Exactly. Grain is about the same, and perceived sharpness can even be enhanced.

 

[pentaxuser]

Bettersense, there was quite a long thread on this some while ago but I cannot remember the thread title unfortunately. However when you do a search it will, I think, be obvious which one I refer to. It was a U.K. based member( Derbyshire if I recall correctly). He got about the same spectrum of answers as you are getting so nobody has changed their minds on the benefits or pitfalls of stand development

From what I remember the OP then tried it and declared it a success for himself and wondered what the fuss was all about.

I'd do what Thomas Bertillson has advised, namely try it and decide for yourself

By the way, walking before you can run is a common expression in the U.K. meaning don't try the more complicated, ambitious stuff before you can do the simple stuff which was entirely in keeping with the poster's sentiments on stand development from what I remember

Let us know how you get on

pentaxuser

 

[Xmas]

hi guys

Sorry should have said stand will minimise grain and improve sharpness.

That is if you agitate at 1:100 you will get more apparent grain and less sharpness.

may be too subtle to detect..,

 

[David Brown]

What does walking have to do with anything?

By the way, walking before you can run is a common expression in the U.K. meaning don't try the more complicated, ambitious stuff before you can do the simple stuff ...

It's a common expression in the USA as well, and means the same thing.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Agitation is an important part of development and you need to walk before you can run.

By the way, walking before you can run is a common expression in the U.K. meaning don't try the more complicated, ambitious stuff before you can do the simple stuff which was entirely in keeping with the poster's sentiments on stand development from what I remember

I'd actually say that rodinal stand is the walking before you can run with the real dev.

I started my developing with both Xtol and Rodinal.
Xtol I had to measure out the water in a bucket, get it to the right temperature with kettle and/or ice, mix in part a, mix in part b, top up to 5L, let it cool, somehow decant it into a goonie bag, then measure out a bit, dilute to whatever, then again get the right temp with kettle or ice, pour it in, shake it about, wait exactly 30s and do it again, and again and again (from different angles), plus having to find a timer that beeped every 30s or 1min or whatever (i found a nice app called Develop! that works good), and having to be very precise on total times that could be as short as 6 mins, and I'm still not sure how much time should include pouring, plus not knowing (when I started) whether to do 2 agitations in 30s or 4 in 1 minute or 2 in 1 min or 5 in 30s and what difference that would make to the end result (I'm slowly working it out, but still a bit sketchy).

With Rodinal, I measure 1L of water in a jug, measure 10ml of rodinal, no need to worry about temp as long as it's roughly room temp, pour it in, shake it a bit, look at the clock, go watch TV for an hour, if it's 10 mins over it's no biggie.

Which sounds easier?

As I said before, it's not the "miracle dev" that can make up for shooting in the wrong conditions (as some people think), but if it's slow film and you've shot it at a sensible speed, it works good enough for me.