Rodinal stand development with 1+50?

[Gabriel Aszalos]

Is it possible? I shoot HP5@1600 and loved the results I got with 1+100. I use my 2-reel Paterson tank and fill it with 6ml Rodinal at 600ml water. Works great. Two inversions at 45 minute mark with a total time of 90 minutes. But I'd like to develop 2 reels at a time, so would it work with 1+50? That'd give each film 6ml in theory.

I have searched the web but found no information on stand developing with 1+50... I'd like to try it, but to avoid a failure, maybe someone else can share their experience

 

[pentaxuser]

Can I ask what you believe stand development at 1+ 50 will give you that normal development at 1+50 will not give you or indeed will give you that your current successful regime you mention in your #1 does not give you?

Can I suggest that if this thread is a natural development from your thread on changing agitation when changing temperature that you might want to ask the Mods to delete the other thread. Otherwise what will happen is some useful posts may be made on the other thread and you will have to check both threads

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[halfaman]

You need to increase the volumen of working solution for the same results. Not dilute less.

 

[Gabriel Aszalos]

Can I ask what you believe stand development at 1+ 50 will give you that normal development at 1+50 will not give you or indeed will give you that your current successful regime you mention in your #1 does not give you?

Can I suggest that if this thread is a natural development from your thread on changing agitation when changing temperature that you might want to ask the Mods to delete the other thread. Otherwise what will happen is some useful posts may be made on the other thread and you will have to check both threads

Thanks

pentaxuser

I was hoping based on my understanding that dilution would not matter with stand development, only quantity of developer. But I might be wrong. With normal 1+50 I was quite disappointed. Should I understand that lower dilutions are more aggressive than higher dilutions when both use the same amount of developer? That would explain it.

 

[halfaman]

Should I understand that lower dilutions are more aggressive than higher dilutions when both use the same amount of developer? That would explain it.

What drink is stronger? Wine (12% alcohol) or beer (4% alcohol)?

 

[john_s]

Maybe it's best to stick with what you know works to your satisfaction, even if you have to do the whole thing twice if you have two films.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'd be curious to see HP5 negatives shot at 1600 in stand. I can't imagine there being much shadow detail...

 

[Gabriel Aszalos]

What drink is stronger? Wine (12% alcohol) or beer (4% alcohol)?

Very well put

Maybe it's best to stick with what you know works to your satisfaction, even if you have to do the whole thing twice if you have two films.

I might still try two films with 1+100 in a total of 600ml. Based on other threads here it will probably be fine.

I'd be curious to see HP5 negatives shot at 1600 in stand. I can't imagine there being much shadow detail...

I hope not to forget to share some with you tomorrow. I found the shadow detail better than even Microphen, which is supposedly Ilford’s recommendation for pushing film, specifically HP5

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Very well put



I might still try two films with 1+100 in a total of 600ml. Based on other threads here it will probably be fine.



I hope not to forget to share some with you tomorrow. I found the shadow detail better than even Microphen, which is supposedly Ilford’s recommendation for pushing film, specifically HP5

I'm also curious because I've never heard of using stand development to push films. Please post your results, especially the negative.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I would not recommend it for pushing (or anything else but that’s another story) as it simply produces high contrast/normal speed. I once posted some sensitometry test results for Rodinal stand development. You can imagine how that went...

I found that Rodinal is just not a good stand/semi-stand developer. Pyrocat-HD much, much better. But to make it work, one must give AMPLE exposure, not cut back on it!

 

[pentaxuser]

Very well put



I might still try two films with 1+100 in a total of 600ml. Based on other threads here it will probably be fine.



I hope not to forget to share some with you tomorrow. I found the shadow detail better than even Microphen, which is supposedly Ilford’s recommendation for pushing film, specifically HP5

I remain undecided on stand but I remain sceptical simply based on reading a lot of posts which all seemed to rate stand or should I say semi stand as particularly poor for pushing. However please do show us the comparison with Microphen which is rated as good for pushing

pentaxuser

 

[Gabriel Aszalos]

What drink is stronger? Wine (12% alcohol) or beer (4% alcohol)?

Actually, on second thought, I think the whole point was (using your analogy): what will get you drunker? 300ml of 4% beer or 100ml of 12% wine. See what I mean? I do see your point though and you are likely right.

I remain undecided on stand but I remain sceptical simply based on reading a lot of posts which all seemed to rate stand or should I say semi stand as particularly poor for pushing. However please do show us the comparison with Microphen which is rated as good for pushing

pentaxuser

Odd, I read the opposite and experienced the opposite. Great for pushing. Unfortunately I won’t be able to post a valid comparison in terms of the expectations of this forum. They are just my observations from different rolls of regular shooting, weeks apart from one another. The whole point of stand development is to bring out shadow detail through compensation. There are so many different opinions on forums that my conclusion is to simply to try out for myself and make my own opinion. I am not aiming for technically perfect photos. Nor am I aiming to produce photos industrially or commercially, where success is of outmost importance - that’s what manufacturer recommendations are for. I am aiming to discover a style that I like and can produce consistently.

 

[MattKing]

The whole point of stand development is to bring out shadow detail through compensation.

To my mind, the only advantages of stand development are:
1) edge effects; and
2) to compress tones that are otherwise difficult to deal with.
Personally:
a) I don't advocate it except for very special purposes; and
b) I would never use it as a replacement for push processing.
But I rarely advocate push processing either.

 

[radiant]

Have we already forgotten coldinal development? I had!

 

[Greg Kriss]

I found that Rodinal is just not a good stand/semi-stand developer. Pyrocat-HD much, much better. But to make it work, one must give AMPLE exposure, not cut back on it!

After several tries of using 2 different dilutions of plain Rodinal and Rodinal diluted in a 9% Sodium Sulfite solution for stand development, I can second that Rodinal is not a viable choice for stand development.

 

[pentaxuser]

Odd, I read the opposite and experienced the opposite. Great for pushing. Unfortunately I won’t be able to post a valid comparison in terms of the expectations of this forum. They are just my observations from different rolls of regular shooting, weeks apart from one another. The whole point of stand development is to bring out shadow detail through compensation.

It is your choice but those of who remain open-minded on Stand's ability for the twin objectives of bringing out shadow detail and pushing by 2 stops might appreciate digital pics of the negatives or straight scans of a darkroom print ideally but if you cannot do these then inversions of neg scans that from your naked eye resemble genuine replicas of the negatives will still help

Currently all we have ended up with is comments from most of the posters that reflect their experience or views on what Stand can and cannot do

To us the famous "business school" language I haven't seen the "needle moving" in terms of this thread changing anything

However as I said it is your choice

pentaxuser

 

[relistan]

This is about stand developed Tri-X in Rodinal 1+50 https://emulsive.org/reviews/film-reviews/kodak-film-reviews/experiments-kodak-tri-x-400

 

[radiant]

This is about stand developed Tri-X in Rodinal 1+50 https://emulsive.org/reviews/film-reviews/kodak-film-reviews/experiments-kodak-tri-x-400

It reminds a lot about coldinal method too. But in coldinal there is agitation, do you think that experiment was done with semi-stand method?

 

[relistan]

It reminds a lot about coldinal method too. But in coldinal there is agitation, do you think that experiment was done with semi-stand method?

It says stand but I would guess it's semi stand of some kind. I've seen similar results from others on Flickr in 1 hour semi stand at 1+100. I never tried pushing that far when I did stand.

 

[radiant]

It says stand but I would guess it's semi stand of some kind. I've seen similar results from others on Flickr in 1 hour semi stand at 1+100. I never tried pushing that far when I did stand.

I found the development times used in that article, probably. 1+50, 50min. That must be stand development or maybe just one inversion.

 

[relistan]

They look like you'd expect. No speed increase and high contrast.

Push processing isn't really about a speed increase, though, right? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it just about targeting the mid tones to a density you can use? But yeah I don't think they look great.

 

[relistan]

I found the development times used in that article, probably. 1+50, 50min. That must be stand development or maybe just one inversion.

Ah OK thanks

 

[radiant]

Push processing isn't really about a speed increase, though, right? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it just about targeting the mid tones to a density you can use? But yeah I don't think they look great.

I see it this way: by underexposing you are destroying shadows, for sure. You can save some but usually those are lost to some extent. Then by overdeveloping you try to fix the density of highlights. Without overdeveloping the highlights would be your "midtones". And in the same time by overdeveloping you are increasing contrast - which it should be used for (low-contrast scenes).

With stand development it is possible to clamp the highlight development because of exhausted developer. So you might get more shadow details without getting too dense highlights.

 

[radiant]

one is better off using a 30 minute time rather than the usually quoted 60 minutes, which does nothing more than increase overall contrast.

I did development comparison myself and I found out that semi-stand 1+100 Rodinal just overdeveloped the film. Nothing that scanner couldn't fix but the negative was more developed than other methods (xtol, coldinal, xtol extended). Also noticed some decrease of contrast with semi-stand Rodinal.

 

[relistan]

I see it this way: by underexposing you are destroying shadows, for sure. You can save some but usually those are lost to some extent. Then by overdeveloping you try to fix the density of highlights. Without overdeveloping the highlights would be your "midtones". And in the same time by overdeveloping you are increasing contrast - which it should be used for (low-contrast scenes).

With stand development it is possible to clamp the highlight development because of exhausted developer. So you might get more shadow details without getting too dense highlights.

Yes, exactly how I always viewed it. The compensation allows you to bring up the mid tones without completely losing the highlights. But your shadows are gone, and thus there is no real speed increase.