More thoughts on the Semi-Stand process

[Photo Engineer]

I guess you guys just don't get it.

I agree that a qualitative asessment of photographs is useful and has stood the test of time, but there is such a thing as a quantitative measurement that exists that is ignored. That is the root of my post.

It is also true that the eyeball can be tricked easily. And, opinions differ. If you don't believe this, just read the posts in this thread about the utility of stand or semi-stand development, or the arguments over which developer is better. It is preference, not quantization. And don't get me wrong, I don't believe quantization should overrule art, it is merely another tool.

As to having instruments available? Well, that is largely the decision of the people who want the instruments or who design them and who don't know or believe this type of scientific approach is useful. A scanner can serve as a very useful microdensitometer (of sorts) and I have several definitition charts (from commercial sources) that can serve to make the proper exposures. It can be done, it just is not done.

I have seen posted several formulas for color films (C41 and E6) which are incorrect, and the errors in them will lead to inadequate or improper edge effects and color reproduction. I note that the pictures that purport to represent negatives and slides from these processes look quite good. But no quantitative asessment was made to compare them exactly to the reference process. "They just look good".

So, if they look good to you, who is to argue. I am not presenting an argument. I am presenting an alternative to guesstimation and judement that might just improve our collective knowledge and the potential for better results photographically.

I am trying to open up a new dimension to your very good qualitative thinking to the quantitative arena in which you can say "that is a beautiful picture", "this is my opinion as to why it looks so (instert buzz word here)" and now you can add if you wish "here is the measurement to prove that the (grain, sharpness, edge effects, micro contrast - or other buzz word) is improved or better than the other print".

In other words, what about this developer or methodology makes things better, and by how much can be measured.

Its a new tool. Use it or not.

PE

 

[gainer]

Tools are fine. Measurement devices are good. In my case, it's just that I don't see how a microdensitometer is needed to show the virtues or vices of stand development. I couldn't afford a densitometer, so I made my own. It has a very small sensitive area, can be used to measure zones in the projected image as well as densities, has a quite accurate logarithmic response, and cost me less than $50. With it, I can quantify irregularities that sometimes result from stand development. Tell me again why I should have used a microdensitometer with a 1 micron window for my 35 mm film? If I blow that up 1000 times, it's only a millimeter! At reading distance, my eyes can resolve about 1/10 mm. And when I have examined a negative with this microdensitometer, what do I know about stand development that I did not know before? Does it tell me any more about the pictorial density range than a test print or a reading from an ordinary densitometer?

If you have a microdensitometer and can use it to show us what we need to know, I'm sure we all would appreciate your doing so. For my part, whenever I can, I present results that could be verified by most if not all of our readers, here and when I write for Photo Techniques. I'm not saying that this is always necessary, but when it is not done, a rational experimental plan should be used.

 

[lee]

I dont really need or want to measure microdensities. I just want sharp negs and if stand development gives me that then the rest can pound sand. This is not photography as I see it, this is testing. I just need to make images and if stand development helps me then so be it. Quantify or qualify all you testers want. Does it make your images better or do you even make images behond what you need for testing?

lee\c

 

[gainer]

I agree with you that that micro density measurements are of no practical consequence to photography because the artifacts of adjacency effects are plainly visible to the naked eye, sometimes as a pleasant increase in apparent sharpness, at other times as unpleasant artifacts.


Regardless, the plain fact of the matter is that the more the film rests during development the greater will be the adjacency effects, and this is true of most non-solvent developers when used at an appropriate dilution. I have personally never observed the development of extreme adjacency effects with any method of agitation other than semi-stand and stand, regardless of developer composition/dilution. If this can be achieve with continuous rotary agitation, show me. I have experimented with many solutions in an effort to do this and thus far been unable to do so.

Sandy

Adjacency effects were farthest from my mind when I made that statement. The most salient argument made for stand development always seemed to me to be its effect on the characteristic curve, its compensatory action. I have not found any significant change due to agitation, from none to 3 inversions every 30 seconds. True, I did not use the extreme dilutions. That was not part of the theory of compensatory action. None of the praisers of stand development had said much about dilution or other qualities of the developer. I considered that aspect to be a subject for a different investigation.

If stand development did nothing for (or against) the H&D curve, it might still have effects on apparent sharpness, but in the process of finding what I did, I also found very definite unpleasant artifacts. Stand development in itself was not universally desirable. If those defects are cured by altering the developer, that is fine, but still the subject of a separate investigation.

My original complaint in this thread was simply that Steve Sherman pointed to a photo on which he did not use stand development as a reason for using stand development. From all I could see, it was an excellent picture.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have tried it, though not perhaps in the way you would approve. I did some characteristic curves with and without agitation. Since the purpose was to find the effect of no agitation vs agitation, I used the same developers in both cases. I found that the developing times had to be 40% longer to get the same contrast index for each of two developers. In neither case was there any significant difference in shape of the curve.

This is the phrase that kicked off my comments here. Mr Gainer was using a characteristic (macro) curve to compare agitation vs no agitation. My point was that a macro curve would be unrevealing in this situation. A micro densitometry curve would be the most appropriate way to compare these two situations if one is to make any sort of measurement and proclaim any sort of conclusion. The agitation differences would have changed micro vs macro contrast. By forcing macro contrasts to be equal, the benefits of changes to micro contrast might have been totally lost or enhanced beyond usability.

I agree with the post by Lee, that the visual impact and appearace (the art if you will) in a photograph is the real test. My point was not in any way the opposite of what Lee said, but rather an extension of what Mr. Gainer claimed to have 'proved' in the quote above. My contention is that by insufficient testing he has not really proven anything quantitatively. Perhaps the pictures do prove something, but the curves do not, as they are the wrong type of measurement. They may have led to the wrong change in the process as well.

It is like measuring grain and then writing about the speed of the film. Yes, there is a relationship between speed and grain, but they are not locked together and measuring one does not always yield information about the other. It would be like changing development time to get equivalent speeds from a film and then complaining about grain and contrast. Maybe the films are not equivalent in speed. Wrong tests or insufficient tests lead to wrong or inadequate conclusions.

And why don't I do this type of measurement? I don't compare developers. I use stock developers and methods off the shelf, mostly color, and I don't publish articles in magazines with 'proofs', so although I know how to do it, my personal work and posts here are not directed towards needing proofs. I don't publish new developer formulas. If I did, then I would run a complete battery of tests to verify that they did what I expected them to do. I am merely pointing out possible methodologies that will improve our hobby to those inclined to get into this area. At the same time, I am trying to point out how lack of these tests could lead one to make the wrong conclusion about a process or process condition.

PE

 

[magic823]

So let try to settle this. I'll make this offer. I have in my possession, the following equipment:

EG&E Mark VII Sensitometer
GAM 126P Digital Densitometer
X-Rite 361T UV Densitometer
And if we want to use PS as a micro-densitometer I'll get a drum scan of the negative done.

Guys design a test program for me to carry out and I'll do it. (This actually fits in well with a project I'm working on for Bud at Photographers' Formulary. I can probably get Bill Troop involved also.)

Steve

 

[Photo Engineer]

Steve,

My suggestion would be to repeat Gainer's experiment but compare normal characteristic curves with those from 100 micron or 10 micron lines. Perhaps this should be done at two development times as well, since Gainer changed the process conditions, but IDK, as I don't know what the curves were like in any of the (apparently 3) development conditions. They appear to have been (1) Normal Process, (2) Stand with development like #1, and (3) Stand with extended development to increase macro contrast to match #1.

Then also compare edge traces from the stand and no-stand development to look at actual changes in edge effects.

This should be accompanied by a set of pictures at varying magnifications such as normal and ultra large of just a small portion of the image.

We might find that the contrast of the micro image is relatively higher, or the edge effects greater at the lower macro contrast. Who knows? That is the point of the experiment.

And since the argument here is concerning semi-stand, why not indclude that as well.

This should be worth an article in Photographic Techniques.

PE

 

[df cardwell]

With respect, start by taking pictures. Play. Think about the pictures, not getting published.

Then interview people who claim get results. Then, if you want to do research, find out WHY IT WORKS.

 

[gainer]

It is like measuring grain and then writing about the speed of the film. Yes, there is a relationship between speed and grain, but they are not locked together and measuring one does not always yield information about the other. It would be like changing development time to get equivalent speeds from a film and then complaining about grain and contrast. Maybe the films are not equivalent in speed. Wrong tests or insufficient tests lead to wrong or inadequate conclusions.


PE

Actually, what led me to comment in this thread was the original discussion, which was about the effects of stand development on the characteristic curve, often referred to as "compensation". The subject of acutance and adjacency effects came in later. I did not profess to have considered those effects in my published experiments. I might have done so if I had not found unwanted effects of uneven development with stand development. You are the one who changed the subject when you said we must have a microdensitometer to measure adjacency effects. For my part, if I can get a sharp picture without resorting to the artifact of excessive edge enhancement, that is the way I will go. As to the compensation so avidly proclaimed, I have not found any sign of it. It may be there with developer formulations that I have not tried. There aren't too many of those. In my 65 years of fooling with film and developer, I have tried just about every new thing that came along, and even contributed a few myself.

So, if you want to prove me wrong, attack my statements about characteristic curves and compensation. I never made any controversial claims about adjacency effects.

 

[gainer]

With respect, start by taking pictures. Play. Think about the pictures, not getting published.

Then interview people who claim get results. Then, if you want to do research, find out WHY IT WORKS.

If that is directed at me, I was for a number of years the only photographer allowed to take pictures at rehearsals of the Norfolk Symphony of Virginia. Many of my photos of orchestra members and guest artists were displayed in the Chrysler Museum. I was allowed by the musicians to do this because I was a musician myself, the principal oboist. They knew I would be sympathetic.

 

[df cardwell]

If that is directed at me ....

No, sir. It wasn't aimed at you. I regret that it wasn't very well aimed at all.

Had I known you were an oboist, however, I would have brought out some of the really good oboe jokes.

They knew I would be sympathetic.

I'm certain of it.

Sympathy is a useful tool for both picture making AND research. Certainly it is good for talking about picture making.

My apology if I offended you.

If you have any interest in another look at agitation and dilution in the development system, I would be happy to share some of my data with you.

don

Attached is a picture made of Cape Breton fiddler Jerry Holland at a square dance earlier this summer. In low, contrasty light I was able to shoot at f/2.8 @ 1/30 with neopan 1600. By varying agitation and dilution, the negative held a 14 stop range, far more than possible with normal processing. A lot of work for a snapshot, but friends are worth it.

 

[gainer]

No, sir. It wasn't aimed at you. I regret that it wasn't very well aimed at all.

Had I known you were an oboist, however, I would have brought out some of the really good oboe jokes.

I used to know some pretty good ones, but it's been a long time. I may get one more recital before I die. My oldest son recently got a degree in music and is a pianist. We are trying to get together. I'll post one of my favorite photos when I can find where I hid it.

 

[Steve Sherman]

I can’t really say I am surprised by the technical / scientific non-creative speak which has taken over this thread.

I was fortunate enough to arrive at a workable dilution after reading about the Semi-Stand form of development a year and half ago thanks to Sandy King and his Pyrocat article. My initial post on the Azo Forum received 78 replies. A short time later after Sandy King preformed some more tests and posted the results, that post received 127 replies. A short time later I started a post about the creative possiblities with this dramatic technique, 16 replies. I decided I needed to spark the creative debate further by challenging Zone System practitioners vs. the SBR methodology, 3 replies. There’s a pattern huh?

Large Format demands that we all have to be technically profiencent with many aspects of the Black and White process and theory, I guess some more so than others.

I am going out to make some negatives this weekend, have no idea what the subject matter will be, the light will be, the contrast will be, but I’ll be sure to have a helluva good time under the dark cloth looking at something I have never seen before, sure to challenge my technical abilities and most of all my creativity.

Have a great weekend!

 

[hortense]

Steve, please be patient and see if this following is correct: If I correctly understand Steve Sherman and df carwell’s comments, this is what I learned from the exchange on this thread (More Thoughts on the Semi-Stand Process posted on APUG 8-10-05):
If the photographer desires to have a certain tonal range of an IMAGE rendered in a particular zone, the expose for that zone and develop for the shadows and agitate for the highlights.
In Steve Sherman’s “Arches” image, he stated that he wanted to render the rock adjacent to the arch as Zone 6 ½. So he did the following:
1. Calculated his exposure based on the mid-tones light meter readings of the rock adjacent to the arch
2. Used a very dilute developing solution with a development time set to achieve a Zone III or IV in the shadow areas, and
3. Reduces his agitation well below so-called normal to render the highlight as Zone VII.

 

[gainer]

Steve, please be patient and see if this following is correct: If I correctly understand Steve Sherman and df carwell’s comments, this is what I learned from the exchange on this thread (More Thoughts on the Semi-Stand Process posted on APUG 8-10-05):
If the photographer desires to have a certain tonal range of an IMAGE rendered in a particular zone, the expose for that zone and develop for the shadows and agitate for the highlights.
In Steve Sherman’s “Arches” image, he stated that he wanted to render the rock adjacent to the arch as Zone 6 ½. So he did the following:
1. Calculated his exposure based on the mid-tones light meter readings of the rock adjacent to the arch
2. Used a very dilute developing solution with a development time set to achieve a Zone III or IV in the shadow areas, and
3. Reduces his agitation well below so-called normal to render the highlight as Zone VII.

Someday maybe Steve will go back to that place and do what he said he thinks he should have done. As he said in a later post, at the time he took the picture, he had not discovered the joys of stand development, but he now knows it would have been much easier to print if he had known.

One characteristic of an expert printer is that the difficulty he might have had in making a print is hardly ever evident in the print itself. Perhaps another expert printer would see that such a scene might pose difficulties with commonly used development technique.

The difficulties posed by such a scene lie not in the adjacency effects or lack thereof, but in the fact that the eye sees two or more separate scenes because of its scanning and autoexposure controls. The negative has to capture all that information in a single instant, which it does admirably well, but a print on paper will not. It must be "scanned" in in several, sometimes many, instants each of different exposures. We dream of developing techniques that will do this scanning for us, but we don't have one yet. There is still dodging and burning to be done.

One could design a digital camera that would do the job, but we wouldn't buy it, would we?

 

[Donald Qualls]

I was fortunate enough to arrive at a workable dilution after reading about the Semi-Stand form of development a year and half ago thanks to Sandy King and his Pyrocat article. My initial post on the Azo Forum received 78 replies. A short time later after Sandy King preformed some more tests and posted the results, that post received 127 replies. A short time later I started a post about the creative possiblities with this dramatic technique, 16 replies. I decided I needed to spark the creative debate further by challenging Zone System practitioners vs. the SBR methodology, 3 replies. There’s a pattern huh?

Certainly is: it's easier (in English, at least) to talk about technical details than about the creative process. We have a wealth of technical terms, each carefully defined so we can agree on what they mean, and most of them can have numbers attached to add further precision. As soon as we start to talk about art, creativity, etc., we get into fuzzy terms that are hard to define well enough to even know we're talking about the same thing, much less the same gradation or subtlety of that larger thing.

So, we can argue for hours or days about the numbers and the precise state of something set in technical terms, or we can go "Hmmm. I agree" or "Errr, I disagree" and can't say much more than that without either devolving to "Just because!" or degenerating into things like personal attacks (which most try to avoid on a list they care about, in order to avoid offending other participants). Hence, you can get hundreds of followups on technical matters, and it's hard to get a dozen on matters of creativity.

Creativity doesn't move a needle, can't be adjusted with a knob, and won't fill a graduate only so deeply -- it's mostly inside your head (or my head, or someone else's head). Further, we often disagree very strongly on what is or isn't a good way to go about achieving a particular goal, even when we can agree that some goal is desirable.

 

[MattKing]

Creativity doesn't move a needle, can't be adjusted with a knob, and won't fill a graduate only so deeply -- it's mostly inside your head (or my head, or someone else's head).

But creativity can move your soul!

(there is a word (soul) that is even harder to define)

Donald, I agree entirely.

I also like the "futzing" about the measurements/numbers/techniques. Creativity plus craft means joy, and the measurements/numbers/techniques add to the craft.

All the words in this thread are informative - both positive and negative - and they certainly encourage me to experiment with new (to me) techniques. Please keep up the valuable contributions.

Regards,

Matt

 

[df cardwell]

One could design a digital camera that would do the job, but we wouldn't buy it, would we? Gainer


AHA ! Samuel's Aerophon !

The device which enabled an assistant to operate a pump connected to a hose, which the oboist held in his mouth, to assist him with long passages !

It had, I understand, a couple problems...

 

[gainer]

One could design a digital camera that would do the job, but we wouldn't buy it, would we? Gainer


AHA ! Samuel's Aerophon !

The device which enabled an assistant to operate a pump connected to a hose, which the oboist held in his mouth, to assist him with long passages !

It had, I understand, a couple problems...

I'm so long winded I never needed anything like that. I did try what is sometimes called circular breathing. The oboe needs so little air volume that one can learn to close off the whatchamajigger that hangs down at the back of the throat so as to allow breathing through the nose while sustaining a tone long enough to take in air. It ain't easy, and the best thing to do is to learn to breathe out little bits at a time when the phrasing allows, so that the lungs are just about empty when the next small phrase break comes. It is fondly to be hoped that this all happens just before the oboist passes out.

 

[gainer]

Creativity doesn't move a needle, but it may cause us to do things that move needles. It may even provide the needle that we can move. Brushes and paints don't paint pictures on canvas, but they make it easier for the painter.

Some of us are old enough to have lived though years of argument about whether photography is a creative process. We wouldn't be here if we didn't think it can be a creative process, but sometimes we wish it didn't have to be quite so creative. We need certain distortions of the photographic process just to make our pictures look undistorted, simply because the eye is not a camera. Often these distortions are no less personal than the brushstrokes of a painter.

If you want to consider what I say the ramblings of an old man, be my guest. That is exactly what they are.

 

[Steve Sherman]

If I correctly understand Steve Sherman and df carwell’s comments, this is what I learned from the exchange on this thread (More Thoughts on the Semi-Stand Process posted on APUG 8-10-05):
If the photographer desires to have a certain tonal range of an IMAGE rendered in a particular zone, the expose for that zone and develop for the shadows and agitate for the highlights.
In Steve Sherman’s “Arches” image, he stated that he wanted to render the rock adjacent to the arch as Zone 6 ½. So he did the following:
1. Calculated his exposure based on the mid-tones light meter readings of the rock adjacent to the arch
2. Used a very dilute developing solution with a development time set to achieve a Zone III or IV in the shadow areas, and
3. Reduces his agitation well below so-called normal to render the highlight as Zone VII.[/QUOTE]

#1, I doubt I would every calculate my exposure on a mid tone value, see below, use filters
#2, Dilution and development time effect the shadows the least, the shadows (lowest exposed density) are developed first, the rest of the development time is to effect contrast, see below, use a spot meter for exact reflectance
#3, Exposure, dilution and agitation all effect highlight density, see below, spot meter for exact reflectance

When I first read this "Expose for Midtones, Develop for Shadows and Agitate for Highlights" I thought this might be a great way to actually break down exactly what is happening and why with the S-S or EMA technique. However, after giving it careful thought my conclusion would be Expose for Shadows, Agitate and Dilute for the Midtones and Expose, Dilute and Agitate for the Highlights.

My reasoning is this, Shadows, with extended time in dilute developer the shadows will realize full development before all other areas of exposure, this is a function of the process, we couldn't alter the final shadow density with this process even if we wanted, except with initial exposure. Midtones, and our perception of them are a product of micro contrast, micro contrast is the single greatest benefit and control of S-S / EMA. Further, micro contrast is dependent on two things, dilution and agitation frequency,
stronger dilution, less agitation can be countered by weaker dilution and more frequent agitation, probably with slightly different results.
Highlights, the densest part of the negative is really controlled by all three, initial exposure, dilution and agitation intervals.

It is what I have been preaching all this time, the shadow densities are determined when exposure is made. Highlight density is dictated by the perception of tonality just below paper white with the product we choose to print with. And the midtones are dictated by the micro contrast which is without a doubt the single greatest control we have with S-S & EMA processes.

Like most things in Black and White photography, so many things are dependent on so many other variables, not to mention our personel likes and dislikes.

Like my father told me when I was a young, “ I can give you some fish to feed your family today, or, you can learn how to fish and feed you family the rest of your life” Once we understand why something happens we can apply that knowledge to effect our own desired results instead of what another suggests.

I don’t always catch the biggest fish, but they seem to be getter bigger most of the time.

Time to go, seems my tongue has gotten stuck in my cheek, again!

 

[hortense]

Steve,
Thank you for your complete explanation. NOW I understand. We (I?) really threw the questions at you and you came through. Thanks again.

 

[craigclu]

[/QUOTE]Like my father told me when I was a young, “ I can give you some fish to feed your family today, or, you can learn how to fish and feed you family the rest of your life” Once we understand why something happens we can apply that knowledge to effect our own desired results instead of what another suggests. [/QUOTE]

I thought it was, "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day."

 

[Donald Qualls]

No, Craig -- the correct version is "Give a man a fish, and he'll complain you aren't helping enough; teach him to fish, and he'll sue you for poisoning his family with mercury."

What?

Why, yes, as a matter of fact, I am a cynic...

 

[sanking]

When I first read this "Expose for Midtones, Develop for Shadows and Agitate for Highlights" I thought this might be a great way to actually break down exactly what is happening and why with the S-S or EMA technique. However, after giving it careful thought my conclusion would be Expose for Shadows, Agitate and Dilute for the Midtones and Expose, Dilute and Agitate for the Highlights.

My reasoning is this, Shadows, with extended time in dilute developer the shadows will realize full development before all other areas of exposure, this is a function of the process, we couldn't alter the final shadow density with this process even if we wanted, except with initial exposure. Midtones, and our perception of them are a product of micro contrast, micro contrast is the single greatest benefit and control of S-S / EMA. Further, micro contrast is dependent on two things, dilution and agitation frequency, stronger dilution, less agitation can be countered by weaker dilution and more frequent agitation, probably with slightly different results.
Highlights, the densest part of the negative is really controlled by all three, initial exposure, dilution and agitation intervals.

It is what I have been preaching all this time, the shadow densities are determined when exposure is made. Highlight density is dictated by the perception of tonality just below paper white with the product we choose to print with. And the midtones are dictated by the micro contrast which is without a doubt the single greatest control we have with S-S & EMA processes.

Hi Steve,

Great information. Unfortunatley too many people have pre-conceived, and erroneous, ideas about what one can achieve with stand and semi-stand development. Many persons seem to think that it is a sure-fire method of compensation to control highlight densities, when in fact, nothing could be farther from the truth since we can develop film to its maximum potential CI with this type of agitation. Others don't understand the importance of micro-contrast in the mid-tones, which has nothing at all to do with contrast at the macro level.

I suggest that folks re-read carefully the information in your message, and then make some tests of their own. Perhaps then some of the "guys" will "get it."


Best,

Sandy