Refrigerator stand development.

irivlin · Feb 22, 2017

Just out of interest, I developed some Tri-X, T-Max 400 and FP4 in D76, at 6 centigrade (ie refrigerator temperature). I agitated for one minute, then left the tank in the 'fridge for 2 hours. The results were excellent. By excellent, I mean very fine grain, excellent separation of tones and no blown out highlights. All good.........
Then I ran out of D76 and used Fomadon P - which is, as I understand, Foma's version of ID11/D76.
Same experiment but the results gave ZERO - ie nothing discernable on the film. The exposed leader was barely developed. I repeated the test with heavily bracketed exposures and agitation at the one hour mark - still nothing on the film.
I'm not criticising Fomadon P (I suspect it's a very good quality product) but it's interesting how it responds completely differently from D76 at very low temperatures. Of course, these temperatures are not recommended by anyone - and I'm not recommending it either but some might wish to try this development with D76 and see if it's of use to them for special circumstances.
I intend to repeat the test with Fomadon but next time, I'm going to leave the tank in the fridge overnight - about 8 hours.

Gerald C Koch · Feb 22, 2017

I am sure that readers are curious. Is there a purpose to these tests other than how low can you go?

irivlin · Feb 22, 2017

One photographer, I discussed this matter with, maintained that metol has different temperature characteristics from hydroquinone - and this is why the 18-27 centigrade range is recommended for D76. However, since each agent would probably have different ways of coping with highlights and shadows, these features might suit low or high contrast situations better than conventional temperature development.

Gerald C Koch · Feb 22, 2017

According to either LFA Mason Photographic Processing Chemistry or Pierre Glafkides Photographic Chemistry hydroquinone loses it's developing capability below 13C. The only developing agent that I know of that is still active near freezing is Amidol in a high pH solution. If you wish to reduce contrast a better choice would be D-23 or Haist's D-76H both of which do not contain hydroquinone. There is no need to give your film chilblains.

markbarendt · Feb 22, 2017

Were the negatives scanned or were prints made using an enlarger?

Andrew O'Neill · Feb 23, 2017

Would love to see the images.

irivlin · Feb 23, 2017

How do I upload them to APUG?

Kevin Caulfield · Feb 23, 2017

irivlin said:
How do I upload them to APUG?

Go to the Media page. Click on "Add Media", navigate to your files and select them. There's a button called "expand" which will let you enter all the relevant information. I'm looking forward to seeing your work.

Harry Stevens · Feb 23, 2017

Well I hope for you that you where using 12 exposure rolls or less made on a bulk loader, personally I never see the point in these ice cold experiments.

juan · Feb 23, 2017

Mortensen wrote that he sometimes stand developed in the fridge. I believe he used glycine.
I don't see any useful purpose.

markbarendt · Feb 23, 2017

irivlin said:
How do I upload them to APUG?

Hit reply, then advanced reply, then upload image or file.

Is it a scan of the negative or the print?

pentaxuser · Feb 23, 2017

It would be interesting to test if this very low temperature might produce extra fine grain. Maybe there is a way of testing this? Like others here I too would be interested in the images.

If you could be sure of it working with extra fine grain each time and clearly there appears to be a success on this occasion then I can see the point of giving it a try.

Interesting also why D76 has worked but not the Foma equivalent. Maybe PE and other photo engineers can give their
contributions.

I have to say I have seen plenty other threads which offer no more or even offer less to our collective enlightenment

pentaxuser

faberryman · Feb 23, 2017

What do you hope to achieve with stand development in the refrigerator? In other words, what was your hypothesis in carrying out this experiment?

Why D76 instead of Rodinal? What temperature was the developer when you poured it in? What was the temperature of the developer after an hour in the refrigerator. Did you run tests, for example? 3, 6, 9 degrees? 90, 100, 110, 120, 130, 140 minutes? 30, 45, 60, 75, 90 sec agitation at the beginning? Agitation mid-way through? How many times did your refrigerator cycle on/off during development? Why not put it in the freezer for three hours...or more or less? There are a lot of variables that could affect your results.

Wayne · Feb 23, 2017

juan said:
Mortensen wrote that he sometimes stand developed in the fridge. I believe he used glycine.
I don't see any useful purpose.

There is frequently confusion on the spelling of glycin vs glycine and I'm sure you mean the former. Glycine and other amino acids will probably prove disappointing in fridge development, but glycin stands a chance.

Gerald C Koch · Feb 23, 2017

Glycin is a tradename and as such should be capitalized. It is not an acccepted chemical name like hydroquinone. Capitalization would eliminate most of the confusion. BTW Metol is an Agfa tradename alomg with a couple of dozen other tradenames such as Elon, Photol, Graphol, Pictol, ... They are all the same developing agent.

Gerald C Koch · Feb 23, 2017

These seemingly endless experiments to achieve a fine grain image are a bit tedious. Yet people still do them when they lack the knowledge or equipment to do them properly. There is a standard method for determining the graininess of a image. Anything else is merely subjective. Which means people tend to see what they want to see. Unless you have access to the equipment to measure the RMS granularity then such tests are a waste of time.

LAG · Feb 23, 2017

For the next experiment I suggest you vigorously twist your refrigerator 180 degrees with a crane ...

pentaxuser · Feb 23, 2017

The OP has been a member since 2009 and this is only his sixth message. I an unsure how long he has been a subscriber but if this was recently then I wonder if he is questioning whether a subscription was worthwhile, given the reception that generally his post has received.

OP, I still hope you will shows us your results. Maybe you can develop your next film at room temperature and compare the results. Maybe those with the knowledge and that excludes me, can give a method of how two prints, one from each of the two films similar negative, can be |"enhanced" for want of a better word to reveal grain.

pentaxuser

markbarendt · Feb 23, 2017

michael_r said:
Looking at the negatives/prints in this case will unfortunately offer nothing from which to draw any conclusions regarding granularity, acutance, speed or tone reproduction since that would require objective comparison with the results of a normally developed negative (exposed under identical conditions, developed to identical contrast). All we can say about this particular experiment is that the film developed in the fridge. OP (wisely) makes no comparative statements regarding grain etc.

I can't think of a sound basis on which to expect that low temperature development decreases granularity.

We also know nothing about the printing process used yet.

grahamp · Feb 23, 2017

Since this is D76 and an analog, I'd be interested to know if both were fresh mixed from powder, or of the same age otherwise. The temperature of the solutions and volume have to be known before refrigeration. Then you need the cooling rate of the refrigerator. It may be the solution temperature was initially high enough that development occurred at the warmer stage for one solution. Whether the comparison of grain and contrast is valid seems to be a moot point if the methodology is not consistent.

There is not enough space in our refrigerator for development, so I have at best an academic interest

Gerald C Koch · Feb 23, 2017

pentaxuser said:
The OP has been a member since 2009 and this is only his sixth message. I an unsure how long he has been a subscriber but if this was recently then I wonder if he is questioning whether a subscription was worthwhile, given the reception that generally his post has received

There is a big difference between criticizing the idea behind a post and criticizing the poster. The whole idea of APUG is to offer help. We cannot do that if we cannot point out errors.

pentaxuser · Feb 23, 2017

I fully subscribe to the idea that we provide help and point out errors. My main concern is that we did not approach his statement by asking open questions such as "can you show us your evidence? and then suggesting ways in which he may or may not be able to show us all(including himself) a demonstration of that evidence.
He was simply told that his conclusion of finer grain was not possible and to date no-one has tried to answer his question of why this worked with D76 to the extent it did but failed completely with what is or he thinks is the Foma equivalent of D76.

pentaxuser

Gerald C Koch · Feb 23, 2017

pentaxuser said:
I fully subscribe to the idea that we provide help and point out errors. My main concern is that we did not approach his statement by asking open questions such as "can you show us your evidence? and then suggesting ways in which he may or may not be able to show us all(including himself) a demonstration of that evidence.
He was simply told that his conclusion of finer grain was not possible and to date no-one has tried to answer his question of why this worked with D76 to the extent it did but failed completely with what is or he thinks is the Foma equivalent of D76.

pentaxuser

Requests from more that one APUG reader have so far not resulted in any corroborating evidence being posted. What is lacking is a similarly exposed negative developed at room temperature for comparison. If what you propose is contrary to what experts in the field (Mason, Glafkides, ...) say then you must present a good case from the start.

Such developers as D-76 and D-23 have been shown to produce finer grain when they remain in contact with the film for a greater period of time. For example D-25 is D-23 with its pH lowered to require extended development times. Chilling the developer should produce similar results. So nothing magical or mystical is happening here.

NB23 · Feb 23, 2017

Too much magical thinking to my taste.

faberryman · Feb 23, 2017

Gerald C Koch said:
Such developers as D-76 and D-23 have been shown to produce finer grain when they remain in contact with the film for a greater period of time.

Link?

Refrigerator stand development.

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency