paRodinal is also good for stand development

ZorkiKat · Jul 21, 2006

After reading some threads about "stand development", I decided to try it. Had been quite suspicious of the method, thinking about uneven development, streaking, or bromide drag.

Since some of the posts therein suggested Rodinal, I tried to see if it would work with paRodinal (Donald Quall's paracetamol/acetaminophen-derived rodinal brew). I followed the suggestion of developing for an hour with 2 15-sec gentle agitations at the start and, then 30 minutes into the 1 hour developing time. I used Chinese generic ISO 100 film in a Russian developing tank (Dead Link Removed)

Dilution was 1+100, and developed for an hour. Started with a 21 deg C developer temperature, then put the tank in the fridge. In the tropics, it's hard to maintain a constant 20C. This experiment also proved that temperature control isn't quite critical with stand development.

The film used in this experiment had a few over- and under-exposed frames.

From the negative I got, I saw that everything that's been said about stand development is quite true. The over- and under-exposed negatives turned out with some decent densities which would allow possible printing or scanning. And I could see no trace of uneven development or streaking. The exposed leader which I made sure was still part of the strip when the film was developed showed even density. It did not develop with "bulletproof"
densities as I had initially feared which would result from extended development.

The highlights (mostly sky areas) did not develop with extreme density as well. They remained "see-through" as what would be seen in a "normally" developed negative. I have not yet scanned/printed the negatives to check on the accutance or grain properties.

The underexposed frames also yielded negatives which would certainly produce a useable negative.

The negative does look a bit too dense for my liking. A higher dilution (going for 1+200 next time) may perhaps yield something better.

Jay

Claire Senft · Jul 21, 2006

I use Pyrocat MC for stand development. I have never noticed any bromide drag; However, being a worry wart, I agitate for 1 minute a the start and then half way thru, I pull the reel and reverse it and agitate again for 1 minute. I use my reel on a lifting rod and agitate by lifting the reel and not turning it which would have the effect of giving more agitation to the film at the outside of the reel and the least to the inside of the reel. Does this do reversing of the reel do any good? Darned if I know.

Donald Qualls · Jul 21, 2006

As I've said before, I didn't originate Parodinal, I found the recipe on Usenet about 2-3 years ago. I've spread the word about it, and gave it the name, but the original work relative to converting acetaminophen to p-aminophenol was done by a Dutch chemist, and making a useful developer from it by the original Usenet poster. Google for "p-aminophenol from acetaminophen" with the quotes and you should find several Usenet archives that will let you scan up and down the two primary threads.

That said, it's not surprising to me that it works in stand development at high dilutions -- I have yet to find any way Parodinal doesn't parallel Agfa/A&O Rodinal (except that mine doesn't seem to last as well, possibly a function of storing in too-open containers, promoting excessive oxidation).

titrisol · Jul 21, 2006

paRodinal should work just as well as ROdinal or R09 for semi- and stand development.

Stand development is no silver bullet but it works great for some situations

Gerald Koch · Jul 21, 2006

ZorkiKat said:
After reading some threads about "stand development", I decided to try it. Had been quite suspicious of the method, thinking about uneven development, streaking, or bromide drag.

Add to this list of possible problems; exaggerated edge effects, staining, emulsion damage, and reduced contrast. Stand development should be used with caution and it certainly should not be used as a general purpose development technique. If it were as good as some people say then all the film manufacturers would recommend it.

ZorkiKat · Jul 23, 2006

Donald Qualls said:
That said, it's not surprising to me that it works in stand development at high dilutions -- I have yet to find any way Parodinal doesn't parallel Agfa/A&O Rodinal (except that mine doesn't seem to last as well, possibly a function of storing in too-open containers, promoting excessive oxidation).

Hi Donald

All the searches would yield pages with your name attached to it...you are by all means the defacto father or godfather of paRodinal! There are indeed a lot of paracetamol-derived rodinal formulae on the web, but the one you published seems to be the one which works. It conforms to the original Rodinal in terms of dilution, results, and based on what I've observed so far, even longevity.

The first batch I made is almost 7 months old now. It's half-full in a container and is really dark coloured. Like very very strong coffee. The last time I checked, it still developed film as it did a week after it was brewed. My third batch for some reason (its more than a month old now) hasn't turned brown yet. It's still milky in colour, just like "tea with cream". I can't figure why this hasn't darkened much like the first two batches I made. The only reason I can think of is that the paracetamol used came from a different batch. It's not even expensive paracetamol, just one of the generic, off the counter types.

These paRodinal batches are all stored in PET bottles (they used to hold ink for my inkjet printer's CIS). These bottles aren't even stored in the dark nor in a relatively cool place. They just sit in a large plastic box in one corner, in a tropical (averaging 28C) climate.

Jay

marcsv · Jul 23, 2006

semi stand

Hey Jay,

I tried doing a semi-stand (EMA) method it came out great. I'm actually going to do a shoot soon that involves stand development.

Is the pAminophenol developer suitable for push processing? I plan to push a 400 to 3200 (I need the grain to be more pronounced as part of the concept).

ZorkiKat · Jul 24, 2006

marcsv said:
Hey Jay,

I tried doing a semi-stand (EMA) method it came out great. I'm actually going to do a shoot soon that involves stand development.

Is the pAminophenol developer suitable for push processing? I plan to push a 400 to 3200 (I need the grain to be more pronounced as part of the concept).

Hi

The standdeveloped film yielded negatives which had more density. There were deliberately underexposed frames thrown in the strip to see what standdevelopment would do to them. Those which were 2 stops off still made negatives which looked very printable. Those which were underexposed to a greater degree produced negatives which looked largely blank with only densely developed highlight details.

I used film whose characteristics may have led to the results I got, so other films treated this way may develop with different results.

Grain-wise, the negatives did not look to have more grain than their brethren normally developed in the same brew. Rodinal and paRodinal does emphasise grain, but I don't think it will make films with inherently fine grain look grainier.
Choosing one with a more traditional structure may give you what you want.

Jay

rwyoung · Feb 7, 2007

Donald Qualls said:
As I've said before, I didn't originate Parodinal, I found the recipe on Usenet about 2-3 years ago. I've spread the word about it, and gave it the name

Don -

I'm starting to gather information in "kitchen cabinet" chemistry for a presentation I'm going to make to my local photography club. Can the Sodium Sulfite in Parodinal be replaced by washing soda?

I haven't gotten around to fiddling with stuff yet, just collecting and organizing notes to start experiments.

Thanks Don.

Rob

gainer · Feb 7, 2007

Washing soda is sodium carbonate. There is a water conditioner to remove excess chlorine from swimming pools which may be either sodium sulfite or sodium thiosulfite. The second is hypo which you do not want to use. If it doesn't say what it is on the label, don't use it.

aldevo · Feb 8, 2007

ZorkiKat said:
After reading some threads about "stand development", I decided to try it. Had been quite suspicious of the method, thinking about uneven development, streaking, or bromide drag.

Since some of the posts therein suggested Rodinal, I tried to see if it would work with paRodinal (Donald Quall's paracetamol/acetaminophen-derived rodinal brew). I followed the suggestion of developing for an hour with 2 15-sec gentle agitations at the start and, then 30 minutes into the 1 hour developing time. I used Chinese generic ISO 100 film in a Russian developing tank (Dead Link Removed)

Dilution was 1+100, and developed for an hour. Started with a 21 deg C developer temperature, then put the tank in the fridge. In the tropics, it's hard to maintain a constant 20C. This experiment also proved that temperature control isn't quite critical with stand development.

The film used in this experiment had a few over- and under-exposed frames.

From the negative I got, I saw that everything that's been said about stand development is quite true. The over- and under-exposed negatives turned out with some decent densities which would allow possible printing or scanning. And I could see no trace of uneven development or streaking. The exposed leader which I made sure was still part of the strip when the film was developed showed even density. It did not develop with "bulletproof"
densities as I had initially feared which would result from extended development.

The highlights (mostly sky areas) did not develop with extreme density as well. They remained "see-through" as what would be seen in a "normally" developed negative. I have not yet scanned/printed the negatives to check on the accutance or grain properties.

The underexposed frames also yielded negatives which would certainly produce a usable negative.

The negative does look a bit too dense for my liking. A higher dilution (going for 1+200 next time) may perhaps yield something better.

Jay

I had no real luck with stand developing Arista EDU 100 Hungary film in Rodinal. I used a 1+300 dilution in a 1 L tank. I provided 60 seconds of gentle agitation (maybe 10 total inversions) at the start and NO agitation at all for the remaining 45 minutes. Despite using a volume of Rodinal stock solution (3ml) that would be far below what Agfa would consider safe, the highlights were blown. I repeated the test a second time with essentially the same result.

Shadow detail was ok, but then I was rating the stuff at EI 64 in pretty flat light. No idea whether I got any useful compensating effect.

The sharpness of the negatives was good, but not decisively better than Rodinal at ordinary dilutions. It's possible that this film doesn't suit Rodinal, but Fortepan 100 (which Arista EDU Hungary film IS) is supposed to be pretty sensitive to this sort of processing. At least by reputation.

I get far sharper negatives using semi-stand development with Pyrocat-MC. I'm not sure if I get any useful compensating effect from this treatment, but the accutance is pretty extraordinary.

rwyoung · Feb 8, 2007

gainer said:
Washing soda is sodium carbonate. There is a water conditioner to remove excess chlorine from swimming pools which may be either sodium sulfite or sodium thiosulfite. The second is hypo which you do not want to use. If it doesn't say what it is on the label, don't use it.

After I thought about my question for another 30 seconds I realized the substitution would probably not be OK. The sodium sulfite is there to cleve the acetaminophen to p-aminophenol.

There was a previous thread (have to go and find it again) that mentioned that one (sodium sufite vs sodium thiosufite) was also found as the main ingredient in a fish tank water conditioning compound.

Substituting sodium thiosulfite for sodium sulfite is a bad idea...

paRodinal is also good for stand development

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency