Not so Magical Powers of Stand Development

[ericdan]

So people claim you can push and pull your film and even develop different films together with Stand and still get the full tonal range. That just didn't make sense to me so I sacrificed a roll and tried it.

Tri-X in Rodinal 1:100 (500ml distilled water) for one hour semi-Stand.
Meter settings as follows:
Scene:
400, 500, 640, 800;
320, 250, 200, 160;

Grey wall (N, +3, -4):
400, 320;
250, 200;
160, 500;
640, 800;
1250;

Results are hard to judge without looking at the actual proof.
The proof sheet was exposed for minimum time for maximum black.
I can see a difference in shades all the way down to ISO500. At a filter setting of 2.5 on my diffusion LPL the print of the scene also looks best at 500ISO.

So it seems that Stand indeed increases emulsion speed but as you can see it clearly still matters how you expose the film. 800ISO and above is clearly underexposed and I haven't even tried 1600.
The grain is obviously more noticeable than what I get with Xtol.

 

[David Brown]

... it clearly still matters how you expose the film. ...

Yep. Always has.

 

[markbarendt]

So, by different films they are suggesting developing a roll of Tri-X, a roll of HP5, a roll of Delta 400, and a roll of Acros, all in the same tank. That wasn't tested here.

As to various EI settings across a given roll, that's normal with a 'normal' developing schemes too.

As to push (plus development) and pull (minus development) with stand development well not really. They are all developed the same way, everything on your test roll has the same shape of film curve only the exposure changed.

 

[ericdan]

couldn't test it with two different rolls as I use a three reel tank and sandwich my roll in the middle.
I was more interested in what I get out of this speed wise.
Getting a usable 400-500ISO out of Tri-X is nice. I doubt that letting it sit for another hour would change much.

 

[Leigh B]

couldn't test it with two different rolls as I use a three reel tank and sandwich my roll in the middle.

? ? ?
Put one roll at the bottom and one in the middle... voila...

Getting a usable 400-500ISO out of Tri-X is nice.

But Tri-X is rated at 400 ISO.

I've always shot it at that speed with no issues.

- Leigh

 

[ericdan]

Over an hour the developer settles at the bottom. Due to the infrequent agitation in Stand dev Your reel at the bottom will have a gradient from the developer accumulating there.

 

[Leigh B]

Due to the infrequent agitation in Stand dev Your reel at the bottom will have a gradient from the developer accumulating there.

Another good reason not to use "stand".

If you want consistent developer activity across the entire film surface, you must agitate.

- Leigh

 

[markbarendt]

I don't think the developer separates from the water...

 

[ericdan]

I don't think the developer separates from the water...

Great!

 

[Leigh B]

I don't think the developer separates from the water...

Of course not.

But you do get a buildup of reaction products generated by developer action accumulating in the emulsion.

If you don't move those out and replace with fresh developer, development slows in that area.

That's the whole mechanism that's commonly called "compensation".

- Leigh

 

[markbarendt]

Well the bromides do leave traces (bromide drag) of separating out and moving across the emulsion, the theories I've heard have all been about localized developer exhaustion causing the compensation.

I can't remember ever seeing a single proper test, with plotted film curves, that has demonstrated compensation as real or that it affects a print.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've seen it work - it really does. But it is a technique best used on single sheets of large format film. Working with roll film presents challenges. For smaller formats, it is best done not as pure "Stand" but rather "semi-stand" or "extreme minimal agitation" - once every 15 minutes or so, give the tank a single, rapid inversion. Your negatives will come out looking as if they were etched, and they'll appear super sharp when printed because of the micro-contrast achieved at the edges between highlights and shadows. Steve Sherman is the guru (http://www.steve-sherman.com/workshops.cfm) of stand/semi-stand/EMA development - give him a shout, he's here on APUG. You need to see some of his prints to really understand how well it works. But he will also be one to tell you it is not a perfect process, and that it is not the be-all, end-all solution for every image (you wouldn't want to do portraits using stand development!).

 

[markbarendt]

Compensation is real and can happen when the developer is formulated to do it. Rodinal doesn't appear to be one of those developers though. I plotted curves for a careful Rodinal stand test but people didn't like them

Giggle.

 

[pdeeh]

Never, ever, let the facts get in the way of a good story ...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think agitation in general is a tool that can be used to varying effect. It's not like there's 'normal agitation' and 'standing development' only. One can vary agitation to be 5 minute intervals, or 10 minutes. It's a scale of varying results, and should be viewed as such. 5 minute intervals is about as far as I dare to stretch agitation, and it gives most of the benefits of standing development, and avoiding most of the risk of uneven development.

I used to dabble with developing times a lot, and agitation, but have settled mostly for agitating every 30 seconds, unless I'm shooting really high contrast stuff, in which case I might dial agitation back to every 2 minutes or 3 minutes, and then keeping dev time the same. Usually turns out well enough for me to work with.

 

[Wallendo]

With an range of ISO's from 160 to 800, all but one of the tested images are within one stop of the films published ISO, and well within the latitude of Tri-X. I wonder if the results would have been similar if regular development had been used.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

With an range of ISO's from 160 to 800, all but one of the tested images are within one stop of the films published ISO, and well within the latitude of Tri-X. I wonder if the results would have been similar if regular development had been used.

Not likely they would be exactly the same. I would wager that the results would show greater difference between the extremes because the increased agitation would force shorter development time and yield less shadow density, and the highlights would get more density due to the increased agitation (fresh developer in contact with the emulsion).

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

If you did stand/semi-stand with Pyrocat-HD, you'd quickly change your mind.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I don't think the developer separates from the water...

You're right. However development by-products like bromide as they are released will settle to the bottom where they will cause bromide drag and other problems. Stand development is a bit like the forward pass in football. Several outcomes are possible but all but one are undesirable.

 

[pdeeh]

Every time somebody says something horrid about stand development, a fairy dies.
You know that, right?

 

[ericdan]

With an range of ISO's from 160 to 800, all but one of the tested images are within one stop of the films published ISO, and well within the latitude of Tri-X. I wonder if the results would have been similar if regular development had been used.

Nope, not the same. Tried the same in Xtol 1:1 at recommended starting time and 15% increases. Will add that picture when I get a chance.
Highlights nowhere close to where they should be and shadows are only starting to appear at EI 250/320.

 

[ericdan]

If you did stand/semi-stand with Pyrocat-HD, you'd quickly change your mind.

I am afraid of pyrocat

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

After years of trying all the chatted about techniques (and basically chasing magic bullets), I'm back to some pretty basic techniques. Different off the shelf developers, some zone techniques, but no alternative development methods. Just good solid process with the same materials and consistency above all else yields the best results IMO.

 

[Leigh B]

After years of trying all the chatted about techniques (and basically chasing magic bullets), I'm back to some pretty basic techniques. Different off the shelf developers, some zone techniques, but no alternative development methods. Just good solid process with the same materials and consistency above all else yields the best results IMO.

+1000

Leigh

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I am afraid of pyrocat

Why?