Rodinal stand development, etc, good for all developing or not?

[eli griggs]

So does anyone here have an opinion of using stand development only to get the best of any or all films?

If so, why?

If not, why?

What are the pros and cons of stand developing for you?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

So does anyone here have an opinion of using stand development

Best Photrio thread opening ever.

I'm gonna go hide now. Call me when the fight is over.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

So does anyone here have an opinion of using stand development only to get the best of any or all films?

If so, why?

If not, why?

What are the pros and cons of stand developing for you?

No, imho stand developing is an inferior method of developing, with almost 100% sure of getting uneven results.

 

[miha]

What is stand development? I always stand by the developing tank, just in case.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Joking aside, most interesting results I've ever had with stand development weren't with Rodinal nor with Pyrocat-HD, but with FX-2. Not good for everything, but very interesting and unique developer.

 

[cliveh]

If you are developing a fine lithographic image of considerable black and white detail, stand development has a purpose in the edge effect of black and white boundary lines. But for conventional films it is a waste of time.

 

[pentaxuser]

Best Photrio thread opening ever.

I'm gonna go hide now. Call me when the fight is over.

pentaxuser

 

[foc]

I have never tried stand developing and have no desire to do so. It just doesn't appeal to me.

I am a shoot at box speed kind of guy.
I use fresh film.
I rarely push process.
I never pre wash.
I use water instead of stopbath and..............

I use a squeegee........................

So really I think........... to each his own.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

stand development has a purpose in the edge effect of black and white boundary lines

Normal development in Rodinal at 1:75 will get you close while avoiding the pittfalls of stand development. Drawback is long developing times.

As far as "cons" go, to the risk of uneven development, you can add that of air bubbles. That's what ruined my otherwise nice FX-2 negs. Loved the results, but dropped any stand development attempt since. Just not worth it.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

I have never tried stand developing and have no desire to do so. It just doesn't appeal to me.

I am a shoot at box speed kind of guy.
I use fresh film.
I rarely push process.
I never pre wash.
I use water instead of stopbath and..............

I use a squeegee........................

So really I think........... to each his own.

I have to say that not using the stop bath can cause dichroic fog.

 

[koraks]

Best Photrio thread opening ever.

I'm gonna go hide now. Call me when the fight is over.

Yeah.

So in order to delay the fighting as much as possible, let's stick with the question about Rodinal for stand development, and not drag other contentious topics into it (like yes or no to stop bath). Thanks.

 

[Angarian]

So does anyone here have an opinion of using stand development only to get the best of any or all films?

If so, why?

If not, why?

What are the pros and cons of stand developing for you?

I have tested it several times in a very strict scientific way, including measurements with a densitometer, and evaluating the HD curves.
My results:

1. The HD curves of the stand developed films have always been much worse compared to standard development, resulting in a worse tonality.
2. Very uneven development across the frame with stand development. That can be measured extremely easily with the densitometer, and the differences across the frame have always been huge.
3. Quite often bromid drags with stand development.
4. Reduced sharpness also several times, because of swollen emulsion (that is not only my result: https://www.fotografie-in-schwarz-w...0-filme-entwickeln-die-richtige-bewegung.html The author Karl Neumeier was one of the regular authors of the excellent former Foto&Labor print magazine).

Short summary:
I cannot recommend stand development, as the results are inferior to standard development.

 

[koraks]

The HD curves of the stand developed films have always been much worse compared to standard development

Could you please show a comparison? "Worse" is a subjective assessment/qualification. What you consider bad might be desirable for someone else in a particular situation. It would be useful to have the objective data you based your assessment on.

 

[Angarian]

Could you please show a comparison? "Worse" is a subjective assessment/qualification. What you consider bad might be desirable for someone else in a particular situation. It would be useful to have the objective data you based your assessment on.

I have mostly got "hanging curves". This is the most undesirable curve shape, as it has not a single advantage, only disadvantages.
Here an example:
D100 in 1+100 Rodinal. First 60s full agitation, than 30 min stand without agitation. After 30 min. one turn, then another 30 min. without agitation.
Film exposed with EI 64/19°:

Zone I: 0.06 logD
II: 0.14
III: 0.27
IV: 0.40
V: 0,52
VI: 0,76
VII: 1.16
VIII: 1.44
IX: 1.76
X: 2.03
Values all measured exactly in the middle of the frame.

And concerning uneven development: In that example for the Zone V negative in the upper part of the negative the density was 0.44 logD, and in the lower part it was 0.66 logD (!).

 

[guangong]

I used stand development in a situation where I had to develop film, but had no idea how to identify film. In such a case, stand development is better than nothing. Otherwise NO!

 

[koraks]

Thanks so much for providing these numbers @Angarian. Could you please complete the set with the measures you obtained with regular agitation? Interestingly, curves have been published on here from time to time for Rodinal, in relation to less frequent agitation. E.g. here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/tmx-rodinal-examples.43374/post-621018 Note that this only distinguishes between 1 and 5 minute intervals and of course used a different film, but the curve shape goes in the opposite direction of the upswept pattern you report. Perhaps e.g. @Lachlan Young would be inclined to comment on the difference and the possible influence of film characteristics.

This is the most undesirable curve shape, as it has not a single advantage, only disadvantages.

Not necessarily; depends on what you're doing. In general it's something people aren't looking for, but this is exactly why I asked, because e.g. I myself found at some point I wanted precisely such an upswept curve for a specific application that involved carbon transfer printing. Especially with DAS sensitizer, self-masking effects are quite strong, which results in compression and for certain types of scenes, an upswept film curve would actually be beneficial.

And concerning uneven development: In that example for the Zone V negative in the upper part of the negative the density was 0.44 logD, and in the lower part it was 0.66 logD (!).

That's pretty horrible. I don't really recognize such severe effects in the few experiments I've done with Rodinal and stand or semi-stand development, nor with more recent experiments involving Pyrocat and semi-stand schemes. I do agree that it's a risky endeavor, but I also acknowledge that any unevenness resulting from reduced agitation schemes is not necessarily visible in the final print or scan and certainly is not always as severe as your measurements suggest. Still, that it can go horribly wrong, your results aptly illustrate.

 

[Angarian]

Thanks so much for providing these numbers @Angarian. Could you please complete the set with the measures you obtained with regular agitation?

Your wish is my command . So here we go:
Same EI, my standard 1+50 dilution, and original Agfa agitation rhythm for Rodinal (first minute permanent, then one turn every 30s).

Zone I: 0.09 logD
II: 0.20
III: 0.39
IV: 0.57
V: 0,72
VI: 0,91
VII: 1.08
VIII: 1.25
IX: 1.43
X: 1.59

Not necessarily; depends on what you're doing. In general it's something people aren't looking for, but this is exactly why I asked, because e.g. I myself found at some point I wanted precisely such an upswept curve for a specific application that involved carbon transfer printing. Especially with DAS sensitizer, self-masking effects are quite strong, which results in compression and for certain types of scenes, an upswept film curve would actually be beneficial.

Well, that is really an extremely rare and special case. I think for 99.999% of cases / usual BW film users, these "normal" BW film shooters don't have the need for such an application.

That's pretty horrible.

Indeed. So visible that immediately when I took the film out of the tank after washing it "jumped into my eye".
And measuring it with the densitometer after drying just confirmed completely the visible impression.

 

[koraks]

Your wish is my command . So here we go:

Thanks so much. Plotting both together gives this picture:

Which suggests something very odd was going on with that semi-stand experiment. It progresses quite linearly up to zone V, then goes very steep for 2 zones before it continues up linearly again, but at a higher gamma than initially. That's an odd kind of curve and quite different from what you usually get, even for semi-stand developed film. It's not the 'usual' upswept curve you sometimes get with certain developer/film combinations.

 

[Angarian]

Thanks so much. Plotting both together gives this picture:
View attachment 378915
Which suggests something very odd was going on with that semi-stand experiment.

All curves I've got with stand / semi-stand development have had significantly sub-standard results and often certain oddities. Therefore I have made the decision for me to stop doing even more further tests. Also a big disadvantage for me is that so much more time is needed until I see my final developed results. That disadvantage is also in addition to the other disadvantages I described in my first post.

 

[baachitraka]

Initially it was conceived to tame the contrast and with that in my mind I stand developed a Pan F+ for an hour and that ended with a bromide drag near perforations.

But I would recommend Rodinal for semi-stand development like 3 inversions every 5 minutes and this semi-stand scheme works for some of other developers too.

Shaping the tone curve of a Rodinal Negative

df cardwell submitted a new resource: (there was a url link here which no longer exists) - Shaping the tone curve of a Rodinal Negative You can shape your film's tone curve by balancing exposure and development time with agitation. Agitation is used to control the highlights of a negative...

www.photrio.com

Unfortunately, the URL is missing but one picture will help you in understanding a bit about taming the tone curve.

Thanks to @df cardwell for the post and the picture.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Initially it was conceived to tame the contrast and with that in my mind I stand developed a Pan F+ for an hour and that ended with a bromide drag near perforations.

But I would recommend Rodinal for semi-stand development like 3 inversions every 5 minutes and this semi-stand scheme works for some of other developers too.

Shaping the tone curve of a Rodinal Negative

df cardwell submitted a new resource: (there was a url link here which no longer exists) - Shaping the tone curve of a Rodinal Negative You can shape your film's tone curve by balancing exposure and development time with agitation. Agitation is used to control the highlights of a negative...

www.photrio.com

Unfortunately, the URL is missing but one picture will help you in understanding a bit about taming the tone curve.

Thanks to @df cardwell for the post and the picture.

View attachment 378924

You have to click on "Overview" to reach the original ressource.

One note I always found interesting is the following: "Standing agitation is a misnomer. Few old timers ever witheld agitation completely over long periods of time, as is often attempted today. The necessity of agitation was well documented and understood. The use in this test of 5 minute resting cycles is safe, in my experience with Rodinal, for 35mm and 120 negatives and steel reels. Some experts limit their cycles to 3 minutes. Little is gained, I have found, by using longer resting cycles while the risk of negative defects are increased."

Shaping the tone curve of a Rodinal Negative

You can shape your film's tone curve by balancing exposure and development time with agitation. Agitation is used to control the highlights of a negative. More agitation raises the highlight density, less agitation lowers highlight density...

www.photrio.com

 

[Milpool]

The short answer is - no, it's not a good idea for two main reasons without getting into the weeds:

1. Uneven development is a certainty. This may or may not matter depending on how busy the pictures are but beware.

2. Difficult to control. Despite claims that it is a kind of automatic, self-limiting thing, in fact the amount of development you'll get over these long processing times can vary greatly unless you are very careful about things like temperature.

The question I always ask is "why?". What is the goal? If it's about image structure (perhaps an attempt at maximizing edge effects), fair enough - if it can be shown to be more effective than other methods. If, on the other hand, it's supposed to be an automatic-compensating process, I can only say in controlled testing I did not find this method to yield any kind of miraculous sensitometry/tone reproduction results (see graph below comparing the resulting curves with a baseline process), in which case I'd say it's basically all risk, little/no reward - though I should point out different films may reacts differently.

Always keep in mind in photography when it comes to this sort of thing people often see what they want to see and assume X is happening when in fact that might not be the case.

It's also perhaps worth mentioning when I did controlled tests of this, I found the "standard" 1-hour time for the usual 1+100(99) dilution to be way too long if the goal is a normal gradient. 30 minutes was more appropriate (see graph again).

So does anyone here have an opinion of using stand development only to get the best of any or all films?

If so, why?

If not, why?

What are the pros and cons of stand developing for you?

 

[koraks]

Also a big disadvantage for me is that so much more time is needed until I see my final developed results

Yes, I've always found this a drawback as well. Especially with sheet film. For my specific carbon printing purpose I've found that ID62 at a strong dilution for a few minutes gets the job done just fine. Agitation every 30 seconds...

I can't really explain the odd curve shape you got and would have expected something as shown above in #22.

 

[loccdor]

Speaking on the edge effects of stand-development, note that it's also possible to get very strong edge effects from C-41 by not using continuous agitation and treating it like you would agitate a typical black and white film. That surprised me.

Rodinal stand development can lead to uneven development, this can be reduced by keeping your developer, sink, and air all the same temperature to reduce the thermal currents. And can be reduced even more by introducing 2 or 3 very gentle and brief inversions during the development.

The pros of reduced agitation, other than the edge effects, is in decreasing contrast. Sometimes the scene itself has too much contrast, other times the film is too contrasty (for example with a microfilm). There are also developers specifically based around reducing this contrast, but they can sometimes be hard to find.

The graininess of Rodinal is less of a problem (may even be desired) when the film is very slow. I have seen Rodinal 1+150 be a very good option for Kodak Technical Pan shot at 16. But it uses 3 agitations over 13 minutes.

 

[Angarian]

Yes, I've always found this a drawback as well. Especially with sheet film.

I completely understand.

I can't really explain the odd curve shape you got and would have expected something as shown above in #22.

Maybe it has the following reason: The last time I did these tests it was in the summer. The developer had 20°C, but the room temperature was higher, in the 22-23°C range. The increase in the steepness of the curve started when when I did the turn / agitation in the middle of the processing. This together with the warming up of the tank and developer could have caused the steepness increase.

Nevertheless, I don't care much anymore. In all my tests the results have been significantly inferior to standard development. Not a single advantage could be found, only severe disadvantages.

If someone wants to tame a high object contrast, just use Rodinal in 1+75 or 1+100 dilution with standard Agfa agitation, or with 1 turn every minute.
Works very well and much much better than stand development.