Rodinal Stand Processing and Contrast Adjustments?

The other day I tried stand processing 4x5" TMAX100 in 1:100 Rodinal. I had no reference for time, so I just tried the standard 60 minutes (adjusted to 48' due to 73degF ambient/solution temperature). It came out with ZERO streaking, and nice tone. However, the negative has the contrast range of N+1, and the scene was a normal 5 stop scene.

I was thinking about reducing time by 30% and trying another test. However, this might be too short for even stand development. Would it be better to try more dilution of the developer (i.e. 1:150)? How does dilution effect the contrast if time is the controlled variable and solution concentration is changed? Is halving the developer in Rodinal the equivalent of changing the contrast by one stop push or pull? I have noticed common dilutions of Rodinal stated as 1:25,1:50,1:75,1:100,1:150,1:200. Any Rodinal guru on hand for clarification?

Thanks,
Chris Maness

Interesting, no clue myself, but am willing to watch and learn!

I am curious as to why you decided to stand develop with a shot that had a 5 stop brightness range (i.e. quite low contrast, since darkroom work and normal pulling should easily be able to squeeze at least 12 stops of brightness range onto a paper). 5 stops is easily within the range of the film. Also, how are you sure that you got +1? That is odd with stand developing. But if you magically did get +1 somehow, it will help you in the end, that is if you don't want a flat print (which you very well might). Normally I will stand develop in a shot in which the brightness range exceeds 12 or 13 stops, or in which I really want super flat results, high grain, a boost to the low tones, perhaps.

Here are some posts you might be interested in, although none is a direct answer to your questions:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

and Donald Cardwell's post in this thread:
http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/006XVd

df cardwell isn't around APUG much these days, but I've been using Rodinal for only 32 years, and Don's got more than a decade more experience and more experimentation with Rodinal than I.

Lee

2F/2F said:

I am curious as to why you decided to stand develop with a shot that had a 5 stop brightness range (i.e. quite low contrast, since darkroom work and normal pulling should easily be able to squeeze at least 12 stops of brightness range onto a paper). 5 stops is easily within the range of the film. Also, how are you sure that you got +1? That is odd with stand developing. But if you magically did get +1 somehow, it will help you in the end, that is if you don't want a flat print (which you very well might). Normally I will stand develop in a shot in which the brightness range exceeds 12 or 13 stops, or in which I really want super flat results, high grain, a boost to the low tones, perhaps.

Click to expand...

I measured a density range of 1.5 on the neg. I had a control neg exposed the same way, and I hit my target of 1.2 with HC-110 for 5'. This should print normal on normal paper, but the 1.5 density range neg should print hard. I have been doing stand development at 1:100 with Tmax100 and Tri-x and I have not seen much compensating effect.

Thanks,
Chris Maness

Are you saying that the highest log density on your negative is 1.5?

2F/2F said:

Are you saying that the highest log density on your negative is 1.5?

Click to expand...

Ok, folks the jury is in. I was under the impression that stand development had to be a very long duration of time, so I wanted to adjust the concentration to maintain the 1hr developing time. Just for kicks I decided to drop that Idea and adjust the developing time instead. My first neg had a log density range of 1.5 (base+fog). That was too hot, and I did not even bother to try to print it since it was just a test negative of some recyclable bottles in a white trash bags on a trailer. This is my test scene in the back yard, because it is a perfect five stop range. Since the first test gave me N+1 for an hour (adjusted to 47' due to hat day we were having the soup was 74degF). I decided to reduce time by 30% to give me a N negative. That came out to 45'. I also adjusted for the soup temp was 73degF today and came to a time of 34'. I figured what the heck as I made two negs anyhow. I know -- REALLY short for stand development. This sucker came out perfect. I measured a log density range of 1.2 (base+fog) no streaking or unevenness whatsoever.

Just for a sanity check I printed it with no contrast filter. I do not use test strips. I meter for zone III on the easel and let a rip. Technically perfect print the first go. Full scale from paper white (almost blown) to full black in the shadows. I am really happy it worked the first time. Thanks for the advice to changing the time instead of the dilution.

Regards,
Chris Maness

Chris

You were asked a perfectly valid question to which you never responded. If you had a specific scene which you wished to photograph I am sure that there are many who could help you. Lacking a specific scene all that can be said are some generalities.

Each situation is unique and what you do specifically depends on the scene. Do you use stand or semi-stand development? What should the developer concentration be? What should the time be? Is a more conventional developing technique better? ... Stand development is not something that you can really "rehearse" before you have a need for it. Several test exposures may be needed before these questions can be answered.

While useful the technique can cause serious problems such as: uneven development, bromide streaking, over-emphasised edge effects, ... While stand development can be useful, most photographers will never have a need to use it. If you are still interested, read a couple of books on The Zone System as it applies to contrast control.

Michael R 1974 said:

Back to your original question, stand development is best done with more dilute formulations if you want to avoid excessive contrast. What you're generally trying to do is get high film speed, highlight compensation and edge effects, with an overall tonal scale that is somewhat unique to the process. By using dilute formulations the developer quickly exhausts in the highlights while the shadow values continue to slowly develop (hence the very long development times). In practice there is typically less highlight compensation than one might expect, but the overall tonality is still somewhat unique and valued by some. If you're not diluting enough, indeed N+1 or way more could easily be the result.

Using a higher concentration and reducing the time, as you've done in your second test, will give a different type of development because all you've done versus the first test is reduce time. It therefore makes sense to expect lower highlight values, however the negative will be somewhat different than if you went to say 1:200 and developed for 60 minutes. Usually the method you tried in your second test would result in lower film speed versus a full stand develpment in a more dilute solution.

That said, if it gives you the negatives you're looking for stick with it!

Click to expand...

Yes, the second test I used the same 1:100. I only wanted to change one variable at a time. The reason I use stand development with Rodinal is it seems that grain is a function of agitation with Rodinal, and stand development has given me consistently fine grain with Rodinal -- even with tri-x.

The strange thing is that I used 1:50 semistand with Pan-F 35mm and had incredible compensation and edge effects. It had a VERY distinct look, but the Kodak TMAX100 and TRI-X 400 show no such effects as compared to normal processing with HC-110. The Rodinal plays very nicely with tri-x w/ stand developing. Film speed is about 1000 to 1600.

With the 4x5 and this last test I saw no discernable difference between the HC-110 sheet processed normally and the Rodinal sheet processed by standing in rather warm soup for 34'.

Thanks,
Chris Maness

Gerald C Koch said:

Chris

You were asked a perfectly valid question to which you never responded. If you had a specific scene which you wished to photograph I am sure that there are many who could help you. Lacking a specific scene all that can be said are some generalities.

Each situation is unique and what you do specifically depends on the scene. Do you use stand or semi-stand development? What should the developer concentration be? What should the time be? Is a more conventional developing technique better? ... Stand development is not something that you can really "rehearse" before you have a need for it. Several test exposures may be needed before these questions can be answered.

While useful the technique can cause serious problems such as: uneven development, bromide streaking, over-emphasised edge effects, ... While stand development can be useful, most photographers will never have a need to use it. If you are still interested, read a couple of books on The Zone System as it applies to contrast control.

Click to expand...

Gerald, yes I have recently read "The Negative" and am currently working on another book. I first tried semistand because I was trying to control contrast on Pan F+. That worked out really well. Then I tried to give stand a go with Tri-x when I needed fast speeds and developing evenness is not too much of a concern. In night shots it does not seem to matter too much. The only time I have had streaking is when I tried to develop more than one roll at a time. If I do a single roll in a large plastic tank with way more soup than is needed I have not had any problems. In other words it is working well for me. If I had a really important shot, I probably would use a different combo.

I really like the economy of Rodinal. I also like the grain as long as it stays small because I also scan my negatives and Rodinal grain looks VERY gritty if it is big in scans. I am used to the solvent action of D-76 which I also scanned as well as printed traditionally. That being said. I have to be VERY careful with agitation w/ Rodinal. The less the better in my book.

I have a photo shoot of a maternity couple this weekend at the beach. I plan on using HC-110 and standard torrodal agitation because I have not tried doing 6 sheets at a time using stand developing, and I would rather be safe than sorry. I am using one of those mod photographic processors from a guy in England. The hold 6 sheets in a Paterson tank. I was using a Unicolor drum, but I had an issue with a huge leaky mess every time I used it, and I could not use Rodinal without the fear of the grain blowing up do to Rodinal's tendency with too much agitation.

Hopefully I have given enough background to satisfy any questions. The 5 zone scene I was shooting is my back yard test scene, and it is of no artistic value. It is just a convenient way to test without messing up important negs.

Regards,
Chris Maness

I do not understand a lot of this. I use stand developing in Rodinal 1:100. My understanding is that idea is to develop until the developer in the emulsion is exhausted. Usually that is considered one hour. However, it may be 40 minutes, but that does not matter because it is exhausted and the image does not get any denser. I had forgotten and left the film in for almost 2 hours once, the negatives were no denser than those left in 1 hour.

I see a lot of people saying they use stand developing, but then they can not seem to leave the film standing in there, and have to do something, usually agitating it a couple of times. That my friends is not stand developing, that is something else entirely. Just what, I do not know.

Usually, proper stand developing gives you almost exactly the film manufactures listed film speed. There is no contrast control in stand developing, you adjust contrast by adjusting exposure.

I read stuff like this thread, and it seems that people like to use the words, but not the technique. I like it because it does not care what the solution temperature is anything between 64 and 80 degrees has worked fine for me. You can go off and do something else for that hour while the film sits in the solution. I just hung up a roll of 400 speed film and a roll of 100 speed film that were processed together and the densities are about the same, so no need to adjust the development for different films. Done right it is the next best thing to having an automatic film processing machine, and a lot cheaper.

kq6up said:

I am using one of those mod photographic processors from a guy in England. The hold 6 sheets in a Paterson tank.
Regards,
Chris Maness

Click to expand...

Tell us about this sheet film in a Paterson tank? It certainly would save solution over my HP sheet film tank.

Thanks!

graywolf said:

I do not understand a lot of this. I use stand developing in Rodinal 1:100. My understanding is that idea is to develop until the developer in the emulsion is exhausted. Usually that is considered one hour. However, it may be 40 minutes, but that does not matter because it is exhausted and the image does not get any denser. I had forgotten and left the film in for almost 2 hours once, the negatives were no denser than those left in 1 hour.

I see a lot of people saying they use stand developing, but then they can not seem to leave the film standing in there, and have to do something, usually agitating it a couple of times. That my friends is not stand developing, that is something else entirely. Just what, I do not know.

Usually, proper stand developing gives you almost exactly the film manufactures listed film speed. There is no contrast control in stand developing, you adjust contrast by adjusting exposure.

I read stuff like this thread, and it seems that people like to use the words, but not the technique. I like it because it does not care what the solution temperature is anything between 64 and 80 degrees has worked fine for me. You can go off and do something else for that hour while the film sits in the solution. I just hung up a roll of 400 speed film and a roll of 100 speed film that were processed together and the densities are about the same, so no need to adjust the development for different films. Done right it is the next best thing to having an automatic film processing machine, and a lot cheaper.

Click to expand...

I use way more solution than I need. My developer does not exhaust. I use 5ml in 500ml/per 4 sheets, and my test only had 1 sheet. That is no where near exhaustion, and that is probably why I was not getting compensating effects. When I stand process tri-x, I get iso1250. If I expose at 400 it looks fried.

Chris

GRHazelton said:

Tell us about this sheet film in a Paterson tank? It certainly would save solution over my HP sheet film tank.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Here it is:

http://youtu.be/Mt_Lzd3LUnQ

I am not affiliated w/ this product.
Chris

Michael R 1974 said:

Guys, you're mixing up terms. There is a difference between local exhaustion and complete exhaustion due to insufficient developer. In stand development (or any other reduced agitation technique for that matter), the idea is to let the solution at the film/developer interface work to exhaustion. It exhausts relatively quickly where there is more exposed silver halide to reduce (ie highlight areas) and continues to work very slowly until exhaustion in areas of low exposure (shadows). This occurs even when the total amount of developer concentrate in the total volume of solution is sufficient to fully develop the film to maximum density (and I suggest always using sufficient developer concentrate for the amount of film being processed so that you get better control and repeatability). There should be enough developer to fully develop the film. It is the lack of agitation that causes the developer to exhaust locally (at different rates) because you are not allowing the rest of the solution to replenish the exhausted solution at the film interface.

Click to expand...

Thanks Michael. I am aware of the local exhaustion issue and reduced development in the highlight areas. I have seen this effect in a big way with Pan F doing semi stand. The strange thing is I have yet to see the same effect with Tri-x and Tmax100 in full stand. As a matter of fact I developed two 4x5" sheets exposed simultaneously one was a control developed in HC-110 for 5.5', it came out with the perfect density range of 1.2. It took two tries, but I was able to get the 1:100 Rodinal in pure stand to come out to 1.2 as well. I don't think the best eye could tell one bit of difference between the two. Really strange. Stand developing pushes the crap out of tri-x with normal contrast and a rating of iso1250.

As far as agitation, the whole reason I like stand is that I don't have to babysit ;o)

Chris

Michael R 1974 said:

I guess not having to babysit might be nice, I'm just trying to point out that stand developing for an hour doesn't give you the same tonal gradation as you'd get with the same film developed normally (ie with agitation) for a much shorter period of time. Stand development is not a substitute, it gives a different result. Even if the total density range is the same, the gradation in between is different! So are the edge effects.

Some other thoughts based on your last post:

-What dilution are you using with HC-110 when you try stand developing with TMAX 100? The solution needs to be VERY dilute.
-In general stand development works best with slow films. Tri-X is not a good candidate, although I have no doubt there are people who do it.
-Extreme highlight compression is not always the best thing, particularly with today's films which can record full tonal separations up at very high exposure values. Sure you might bring a longer scale subject that would normally record with a density range of say 1.8 down to 1.2, but in order to do that you're flattening the highlights to the point you obliterate the tonal separations between the highest values. Densities way above 1.2 can be recorded and then printed using various printing methods and controls, but no amount of printing technique can create highlight tonalities that are not in the negative. This is why I'd caution against using stand development as a rule. Extreme procedures are not always warranted or desirable!

Michael

Click to expand...

That sounds like good advice. I was not planning to use it for everything for sure. The HC-110 is giving me nice results with the tmax100, so I will stick with that. I also mixed it to a working strength, so I have to use it up fast. I don't like messing with the goopy concentrate.

As far as a Rodinal stand and tri-x 400, it friggen rocks! I have even done pro shoots with this combo, and my clients loved it. Check out my flicker account by the same username. I know it is very counter intuitive, but I stumbled on it none the less.

Again thanks for that advice. I plan on getting a box of FP4 4x5" after my tmax runs out -- 14stops of contrast range is a VERY long scale. How would you print down such a long scale without killing local contrast? I have already done some tests with FP4 with Rodinal in MF -- beautiful stuff. I was able to render cloud detail like I have never seen in a hand made print. I would like to see the digi heads try that with their cameras. It was a tad grainy for medium format. I guess I will have to cut back to one inversion per minute, or even one inversion every other minute. I have never even seen grain in an 8x10 MF print before using Rodinal ;o) Kind of a cool effect in that photo, but I don't always like grain.

Regards,
Chris Maness

kq6up said:

I use way more solution than I need. My developer does not exhaust. I use 5ml in 500ml/per 4 sheets, and my test only had 1 sheet. That is no where near exhaustion, and that is probably why I was not getting compensating effects. When I stand process tri-x, I get iso1250. If I expose at 400 it looks fried.

Chris

Click to expand...

The developer in the tank does not exhaust. The developer in the emulsion does, that is the whole point in not agitating, to keep fresh developer from getting into the emulsion. I suppose that if one was extremely careful about his dilution one could get just enough, developing agent in the tank that continuous agitation would give the same effect, but then you are getting back into fussy processing, and lose the lazy man's benefit that is the reason I use stand developing.

Stand developing is not for control freaks, it gives very consistent negatives, but does not give you any real control over development. It is not for Zone System types, just the opposite, in fact.

There are a thousand ways to develop your film, and each of them give a somewhat different looking negative. None is better than the other, you just have to chose what you like, then stick with it unless you have a reason to do it differently for a particular roll of film.

The problem is when people use the terms incorrectly, stand developing does not mean long developing times as some seem to think, it means no agitation after the initial that makes sure that the developer gets to all the film surface.

I load the film, pour in the Rodinal 1:100 (you can actually use 1:200 as long as you have enough solution to provide the minimum need developing agent), invert three times, and go do something else for and hour or so (there is nothing critical about the time). Then I come back and rinse the film with water, then fix for two minutes, pour the fix down the drain. I rinse using a three bath system: pour in the rinse water, let sit for 5 minutes, then do it again for 10 minutes, then again for 20 minutes. I use the same 3 inversion and let sit for all baths. The total process takes about a gallon of water. I find it convenient to use a gallon of distilled water from Walmart (87 cents).

A scanned negative from a test roll I ran through my new to me YashicaMat 66, Fomapan Classic 100:

Well, you actually see signs of uneven dye removal, if you are seeing anything, the band of cloudless sky at the top looks very even to me, that is where you would notice uneven development. The light blob in the road seems to be an internal reflection which seems to be common with Yashica TLR's. I tried processing two rolls on one reel, and managed to get that roll to run up under the other. Ruined a third of that roll and two thirds of the the other. The back of that roll was against the emulsion of the other. Both were test rolls, that one the first shot with the new to me YashicaMat 66, and the other with some close up and long shutter speeds from the Iskra. Luckily, enough shots came out to tell me what I wanted to know; other, than not to try putting two rolls of 120 on the same reel again.

Those three inversions are slow ones, you do not want to produce bubbles, and when I do not try to take short cuts, I get very even development. If you want more control over your development, stand developing is not the way to get it. Stand development is a super consistent way to process you film, that is entirely different than processing each roll of film to a different gamma.

Let's take a look at what happens with your way of doing it.

First this technique has been around for more than 100 years, it is not new, it is not something that has to be improved.

We will start with your pre-soak; what do you think that does besides remove some to the anti-halation dye? What it does is displace some the developing agent that needs to soak into the emulsion. The net result of using a pre-soak is lower contrast. That happens even with lots of agitation, without agitation it does that much much more. That one thing is probably why so many on the web are reporting low contrast with stand development.

The extra agitation, which seems needed because of the low contrast caused by the pre-soak, changes the way the process works, and you are no longer actually doing stand development. Since you are introducing bubbles with all that shaking, you have to do more shaking and tapping to get rid of those.

At that point, you might as well do normal development, and save a lot of time that you can no longer use to do something else.

One can, of course, do what one wants, but when one starts changing something that people have had decades of experience with, one is probably not making improvements.