normal, minimal, semi stand and stand development

hi
could someone explain the differences as to effects and what to use each of these types of development for. which is better for landscapes, ect.
thanks
mitch

You will get lots of different answers as everyone will have their favorite technique, but basically agitation washes away used developer from the film surface and brings relatively fresh developer into contact with this. Agitation in accordance with film manufacturers' recommendations will give full film speed and even development. Giving less agitation will allow used developer to remain in contact with the film for longer. This will tend to slow down the development of highlights (with negative film) while allowing mid-tones and shadows to continue to gain density. Traditionally, stand development has been a way of obtaining an image on heavily under-exposed film while not allowing contrast to rise excessively - some workers also feel it gives better edge sharpness and may well be useful with staining developers (pyro, etc.) to allow build-up of stain. In over 50 years' photography I have personally never felt the urge to use anything but D76/ID-11 with the recommended intermittent agitation, but there are many other points of view. The only real answer is to try various techniques and see which results you like best.

Regards,

David

Mitch, without going into a long-winded explanation full of technical language I don't pretend to understand, here is the short answer. The differing types of agitation will enhance sharpness and contrast and can help with flat light in a scene. The longer a film is in dilute developer, the more you will see the difference. To look at a "normal" development negative and a minimal agitation negative next to each other will open your eyes. The minimal agitation or stand negative will have enhanced contrast at the line of shadow and light areas, almost an etched look with edges which are very pronounced. The contrast within the shadows themselves will be greater. In short, try doing a bit of each and then print what you have. You really do have to see it to believe it. As to the best use for each, just play around with it to see what you see. There is no right or wrong answer. tim

Mitch,

Not really anything new here compared to the previous posts, but this is a real world example of when I had to resort to "stand" development to get a printable negative.

I once accidentally overexposed Tri-X by 3 stops (I forgot to set the ISO rating on my meter after shooting a different film!) in a scene that was normal, meaning that the brightness range was normal and normal development was called for i.e., there was not 3 stops worth of latitude given the contrast range of the scene (remember, film "latitude" is very dependent on the brightness range of the scene; the more gray scale that is used to expose the film, the less latitude there is for exposure error).

To deal with it, I developed the roll (120) in highly dilute HC-110 i.e., 1:119 from concentrate for 22 minutes and I reduced agitation from the standard cycle of 4 inversions in 5 seconds time every 30 seconds to 4 inversions in 15 seconds time every 3.5 minutes. The negative turned out good and printable. This would not have been the case if I had used a normal development time and a normal strength of the developer; normal dilution would have had way too much developer activity in the high high values of the way overexposed negative, as well as the low values, making the the negative so dense at to be, commonly known as, bullet proof. It called for a weak dilution and longer development time, but the key to the succes is the agitation cycle. Allowing the film to "stand" in contact with a weak dilution for a long time will exhaust the developer activity in the more exposed parts of the negative while the less exposed parts will continue to develop. In the end, the goal is to have a negative with a density range that is still within the printable density range of the paper where detail can be presented in the final print where desired.

Hope this helps.

Chuck

I feel like I have beat this drum to death, and each time I come away saying why bother. Time heals all.

Developing film is the most arduous and boring non-creative aspect of black and white photography.

Make no mistake, Minimal Agitation / Semi-Stand film development allows complete control of the negatives DNA to try out a new term. The process maximizes film speed and compresses contrast by it's own nature. I know this sounds ambiguous to those not familiar with the boundaries which black and white film is capable of. Total control of the final micro and macro contrast is now possible, where they were not prior to this process being perfected.

It doesn’t matter the subject matter, you choose, the film you choose, the light you shoot in, the contrast or lack of contrast you shoot in. You have complete control of all aspects of the final print’s look and feel, few photographers can make that claim.

The trade off, a little trial and error and a larger block of time to develop your film.

In a few short months I will begin offering workshops on this technique and other black and white tricks, but for now the advice is yours for the taking.

Do give it a try!

Steve Sherman said:

I feel like I have beat this drum to death, and each time I come away saying why bother. Time heals all.

Developing film is the most arduous and boring non-creative aspect of black and white photography.

Make no mistake, Minimal Agitation / Semi-Stand film development allows complete control of the negatives DNA to try out a new term. The process maximizes film speed and compresses contrast by it's own nature. I know this sounds ambiguous to those not familiar with the boundaries which black and white film is capable of. Total control of the final micro and macro contrast is now possible, where they were not prior to this process being perfected.

It doesn’t matter the subject matter, you choose, the film you choose, the light you shoot in, the contrast or lack of contrast you shoot in. You have complete control of all aspects of the final print’s look and feel, few photographers can make that claim.

The trade off, a little trial and error and a larger block of time to develop your film.

In a few short months I will begin offering workshops on this technique and other black and white tricks, but for now the advice is yours for the taking.

Do give it a try!

Click to expand...

Steve, don't give up beating that drum. I'm embarking on the path of semi-stand/DBI and your writings have been influential.

Steve Sherman said:

I feel like I have beat this drum to death, and each time I come away saying why bother. Time heals all.

Developing film is the most arduous and boring non-creative aspect of black and white photography.

Make no mistake, Minimal Agitation / Semi-Stand film development allows complete control of the negatives DNA to try out a new term. The process maximizes film speed and compresses contrast by it's own nature. I know this sounds ambiguous to those not familiar with the boundaries which black and white film is capable of. Total control of the final micro and macro contrast is now possible, where they were not prior to this process being perfected.

It doesn’t matter the subject matter, you choose, the film you choose, the light you shoot in, the contrast or lack of contrast you shoot in. You have complete control of all aspects of the final print’s look and feel, few photographers can make that claim.

The trade off, a little trial and error and a larger block of time to develop your film.

In a few short months I will begin offering workshops on this technique and other black and white tricks, but for now the advice is yours for the taking.

Do give it a try!

Click to expand...

g'day all
given this a visual medium we are considering, can someone please post examples of the differences

There was a pretty long thread on this last year. Maybe this will help answer some of the questions.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

As for now, the advocates of standing dev. have done a wonderful job by persuading me to go and try S.D.. Perhaps, now, they can advise me on the developer an sich.
For several ( and personal) reasons I do not use a developer with Hydrochinone and Metol in it. So, I mainly use X-TOL (concentr.) and Rodinal + 1 gr. Borax/lit. (as suggested by P. Gainer, base fogg).
I have tried Rodinal at 1+100 ( and normal agitation) but I had the impression that this dilution is not suitable for everything, but not to be neglected.
Thus, some suggestions about dilution's and processing times would be welcome, then I can have a weekend of trial and error (testing) to see what's working for me.

Thank you,
Philippe

Massive dev chart has times for all kinds of development:
http://digitaltruth.com/devchart.html

leicam5 said:

As for now, the advocates of standing dev. have done a wonderful job by persuading me to go and try S.D.. Perhaps, now, they can advise me on the developer an sich.
For several ( and personal) reasons I do not use a developer with Hydrochinone and Metol in it. So, I mainly use X-TOL (concentr.) and Rodinal + 1 gr. Borax/lit. (as suggested by P. Gainer, base fogg).
I have tried Rodinal at 1+100 ( and normal agitation) but I had the impression that this dilution is not suitable for everything, but not to be neglected.
Thus, some suggestions about dilution's and processing times would be welcome, then I can have a weekend of trial and error (testing) to see what's working for me.

Thank you,
Philippe

Click to expand...

Philippe

I'd start with straight Rodinal 1+100 for an hour at 20C/70F. Agitate gently (invert, not cocktail-mixer shake) for the first 30s to 1 minute, then put the tank down and come back in an hour. 1 hour should work as a starting point for pretty much any normal film (ISO 25-400). I have used this with success for 120 and sheet film. You can try varying this by adding in a couple of inversions at 15, 30 and 45", or one at 30" and see if it makes a visible difference.

My usual standard is Rodinal 1+100 with reduced agitation, with 20 minutes as a good starting point for most films (ISO 25-400).

Let us know how you get on.

P C Headland said:

Philippe

I'd start with straight Rodinal 1+100 for an hour at 20C/70F. Agitate gently (invert, not cocktail-mixer shake) for the first 30s to 1 minute, then put the tank down and come back in an hour. 1 hour should work as a starting point for pretty much any normal film (ISO 25-400). I have used this with success for 120 and sheet film. You can try varying this by adding in a couple of inversions at 15, 30 and 45", or one at 30" and see if it makes a visible difference.

My usual standard is Rodinal 1+100 with reduced agitation, with 20 minutes as a good starting point for most films (ISO 25-400).

Let us know how you get on.

Click to expand...

but what will this do to the film?
why process this way?
what problems of exposure are you attempting to correct?

show some examples

Really this has been discussed to death. Just look through some of the old threads.

Ray Heath said:

but what will this do to the film?
why process this way?
what problems of exposure are you attempting to correct?

show some examples

Click to expand...

avandesande said:

Really this has been discussed to death. Just look through some of the old threads.

Click to expand...

yeh, i know, endlessly, but still no one is willing to show examples

Phillipe, I use pyrocat-hd (from photographers formulary) and the 1:1:150 dilution. There are a "few" others who use the same developer. tim

noseoil said:

Phillipe, I use pyrocat-hd (from photographers formulary) and the 1:1:150 dilution. There are a "few" others who use the same developer. tim

Click to expand...

why?

Ray Heath said:

yeh, i know, endlessly, but still no one is willing to show examples

Click to expand...

I think this is to a great extent driven by the fact that the effects don't come across well in small, compressed internet/computer images, which makes it kind of pointless to display them. Why show something in a form that doesn't communicate its characteristics? That would be taken by some to prove that the effects don't exist.

Lee

Lee L said:

I think this is to a great extent driven by the fact that the effects don't come across well in small, compressed internet/computer images, which makes it kind of pointless to display them. Why show something in a form that doesn't communicate its characteristics? That would be taken by some to prove that the effects don't exist.

Lee

Click to expand...

sorry Lee i've read this excuse many times before on this site, it's pretty poor, maybe if people learned to scan this wouldn't be used as an excuse

Ray Heath said:

sorry Lee i've read this excuse many times before on this site, it's pretty poor, maybe if people learned to scan this wouldn't be used as an excuse

Click to expand...

Troll!

Dinesh said:

Troll!

Click to expand...

excuse me, what?

Anyone got a link to Steve Sherman's photo of the river and bridge just before snowfall? It's as good as an example of the benefits as I've come across.

jstraw said:

Anyone got a link to Steve Sherman's photo of the river and bridge just before snowfall? It's as good as an example of the benefits as I've come across.

Click to expand...

Here:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Lee

Stand Development

From what I have read about it, stand development is something which is used to enhance the impression of sharpness in smaller formats. My own experience with it is limited. There are issues of controlling contrast also associated with stand development but contrast can be controlled in other less time consuming ways. I do not know whether stand development is used much for formats larger than 35mm. With more modern films like ACROS I prefer the approach of using a fine grain developer like Microfine. This still provides all of the edge sharpness you might need. Stand development can give a slightly different look when used with 35mm film but it will not give better sharpness than what I will get with 35mm ACROS in Microfine or with Plus-X or FP4+ in 120 formats.

Lee L said:

Here:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Lee

Click to expand...

Thanks Lee.

See that flat light? See that shadow detail? Just amazing.

dynachrome said:

From what I have read about it, stand development is something which is used to enhance the impression of sharpness in smaller formats. My own experience with it is limited. There are issues of controlling contrast also associated with stand development but contrast can be controlled in other less time consuming ways. I do not know whether stand development is used much for formats larger than 35mm. With more modern films like ACROS I prefer the approach of using a fine grain developer like Microfine. This still provides all of the edge sharpness you might need. Stand development can give a slightly different look when used with 35mm film but it will not give better sharpness than what I will get with 35mm ACROS in Microfine or with Plus-X or FP4+ in 120 formats.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what the prevailing though may be, but IMO stand development, which can enhance adjacency effects, is more important with LF and ULF work than with small format. The reason is that adjacency effects from small format will be enlarged many times in printing, which makes them much larger and enhances the effect of apparent sharpness. In LF and ULF the edge effects do not get enlarged, so enhancing them more with reduced agitation methods can result in even greater apparent sharpness. Of course, the key is to retain smooth tonalities as you increase apparent sharpness. This is where choice of developer and type of agitation plays such an important role.

As for ways of controlling contrast, there are indeed many other ways. However, reduced agitation with dilute solutions is the most effective way to control contrast and obtain at the same time maximum possible EFS, IMO. I believe that is what Steve Sherman's work shows.

Sandy King