Semi-Stand description and illustratvie photo

nworth · Jan 30, 2006

Good work, and a good example of where edge effects really count. Some people think that the Mackie lines are heavy and black. Not so, as this illustrates. A really important problem here is to separate the buildings in the background, which are nearly the same gray. Semi-stand development did that. With normal processing, I think they would be far less distinct. The technique also probably helped give a feeling of strength and power to the bridge towers. The effect may have rendered the wood a bit too dramatically for accuracy, but it is pleasing nonetheless.

avandesande · Jan 30, 2006

Yes, they can be heavy and black. Consideration must be made for the size of the enlargment. What would appear to be a very slight sharpening effect in a contact print would look horribly fake in a 35mm negative enlarged to 8x10.
(same chemistry, film, time etc.)

nworth said:
Good work, and a good example of where edge effects really count. Some people think that the Mackie lines are heavy and black.

gainer · Jan 30, 2006

While we are always concerned with technical excellence, let us not forget that the photo I can't stop looking at would, I think, be a work of art even if it were not technically quite as elegant. I am a sucker for randomly placed non-random things and non-randomly placed random shapes, like stone walls made of natural stones. There is a lot more to this photo than just a test of exposure and development technique, though those elements are certainly there.

I'm still looking at it.

Steve Sherman · Jan 30, 2006

Not that I need more convincing but to visually emphasize your point, it might be interesting to see a side-by-side comparison of prints (nags) done with SA-SA or EM and one done in tray for instance.

Remember, I don't have a darkroom yet, I'll have to wait for the temperature in my mother's basement to cooperate so I can develop film, making the print is much less dependent on temperature. Nevertheless, if this image looks good printed out on typing paper from a 250K file I believe most of you will become believers.

Cheers

gainer · Jan 31, 2006

What I see that makes me keep looking is, I think, the way the lines lead one around the scene. If you start at the upper right corner, you are led down the bridge to the right side, then down the sky and water lines to the left side, then along certain weathered boards to the lower right corner. The information you gather along each of these lines is related and yet not related. IMHO it's going to take a much poorer rendition to detract appreciably from this photo. However, it is also true that the details one sees on this visual trip add to the pleasure. I'm really curious to see how bad it can get. I don't see how it could get any better.

It's been a long time since I read any A. D. Coleman. Maybe not long enough.

gainer · Jan 31, 2006

See, I'm dizzy. I meant uper left corner at the beginning.

MattKing · Jan 31, 2006

gainer said:
While we are always concerned with technical excellence, let us not forget that the photo I can't stop looking at would, I think, be a work of art even if it were not technically quite as elegant. I am a sucker for randomly placed non-random things and non-randomly placed random shapes, like stone walls made of natural stones. There is a lot more to this photo than just a test of exposure and development technique, though those elements are certainly there.

I'm still looking at it.

I agree. The technique and the subject matter really support each other.

This makes me think back to a thread that MurrayMinchin started recently about viewing a photographic print, vs. seeing the scene depicted in that print - I think it is this one:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Maybe there are two types of people who appreciate photography - those who see the subject and image first, and those who see the print and presentation first - but in the end, i think most people get to the same place, in that they appreciate the quality, as a whole.

sanking · Jan 31, 2006

You are absolutely right in that technique and subject matter support each other. The reason, at least for me, is that when you see the two come together it usually shows not only great visioni, but also great craftmanship, on the part of the artist. Sure, any of us can make an ocassional great print that combines vision and technique, but how many can do this day in and day out, over a life-time?

Sandy

MattKing said:
I agree. The technique and the subject matter really support each other.

This makes me think back to a thread that MurrayMinchin started recently about viewing a photographic print, vs. seeing the scene depicted in that print - I think it is this one:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Maybe there are two types of people who appreciate photography - those who see the subject and image first, and those who see the print and presentation first - but in the end, i think most people get to the same place, in that they appreciate the quality, as a whole.

Mike A · Feb 1, 2006

Bluent, let us know if you find an answer to this question as I am at the same stage of this game (BTZS) and am faced with a simular quandary.

Mike A

Bulent Ozgoren said:
I have been developing my films in Pyrocat-HD for about 3 years and S-S since 6 months. 5 min presoak, 1.5 mins initial agitation, then stand for one fourth of the total time and agitate for 10 secs quarterly "a la Sandy". I am very pleased with the results. I am now trying to do the BTZS tests using this method but I can not decide on how to divide the agitation and non agitati?n periods for 4, 5:40, 8, 11 and 16 mins test developments. Thanks. Bulent

vet173 · Feb 1, 2006

I have been developing Fp-4 in pyrocat-hd. I develop semi stand 1.5:1:200 23 min @ 72F. Shot at 100. Negs keyed to new Azo #2. I'm finally getting negs that I have been looking for for 30 years.

Steve Sherman · Feb 12, 2006

Semi-Stand negative

I am trouble finding a heated darkroom to develop more of the Manhattan Bridge neg to illustrate Semi-Stand vs conventional continuos tray development.

Hopefully sometime soon

skillian · Feb 12, 2006

I've seen several of Steve's prints in person and no matter how good they look on the screen, they really pale in comparison to the real thing. They are the sharpest prints I've ever seen. However, his work is much more important than his technical prowness, he has a fine eye and makes wonderful photographs. I encourage those who can make it to attend the show as it moves to the Paletti Gallery in Louisville. I believe the opening is on March 3rd from 5 - 9.

c6h6o3 · Feb 12, 2006

skillian said:
I encourage those who can make it to attend the show as it moves to the Paletti Gallery in Louisville. I believe the opening is on March 3rd from 5 - 9.

I can confirm the date. It opens for the March Gallery Hop in Louisville and will be up until the May Gallery Hop. (The city needs to update its website.) Ostensibly from 5-11PM, but my experience is that it'll go from 5 to whenever. Paul is a legendary host.

He has not yet seen Steve's prints. I'm shipping the show out there on Thursday and will be most interested in his initial reaction.

craigclu · Feb 12, 2006

vet173 said:
I have been developing Fp-4 in pyrocat-hd. I develop semi stand 1.5:1:200 23 min @ 72F. Shot at 100. Negs keyed to new Azo #2. I'm finally getting negs that I have been looking for for 30 years.

What is your complete routine, initial and subsequent agitations, etc. Thanks.

avandesande · Feb 12, 2006

Jim, by your eyeball how does this compare to darkroom contrast masking or unsharp masking in photoshop? From what I have seen (at least in my little 35mm negatives) it is pretty similar. I would like to see these prints but that is too far for me.

c6h6o3 said:
I can confirm the date. It opens for the March Gallery Hop in Louisville and will be up until the May Gallery Hop. (The city needs to update its website.) Ostensibly from 5-11PM, but my experience is that it'll go from 5 to whenever. Paul is a legendary host.

He has not yet seen Steve's prints. I'm shipping the show out there on Thursday and will be most interested in his initial reaction.

c6h6o3 · Feb 12, 2006

avandesande said:
Jim, by your eyeball how does this compare to darkroom contrast masking or unsharp masking in photoshop? From what I have seen (at least in my little 35mm negatives) it is pretty similar. I would like to see these prints but that is too far for me.

Steve's prints are darkroom contrast masking or photoshop unsharp masking on steroids.

vet173 · Feb 12, 2006

craigclu said:
What is your complete routine, initial and subsequent agitations, etc. Thanks.

I use hangers and tanks I made out of clear acrylic so I could watch development with night vision goggles, so I can modify development on the fly if need be. Standad time was developed with BTZS. I use a 5 min presoak then 1.5 min ASA agitation then only one 10 second agitation with 12 min left ( that's semi, if you agitate more than once it's minimal agitation ) for a total of 23 min @ 72F. 30 seconds water bath then into TF-4 fixer for three min. then water bath for thirty min with 5 changes min. couple of drops LFN in last water and hang.

Steve Sherman · Jun 5, 2006

Semi Stand Examples

Greetings to all,

I had hoped to be able to post the results and comparisons, not gonna happen.

The VIew Camera Conference is this coming weekend and I am planning to meet several photographers who are interested in attending my workshop at Photographers Formulary in late August. With me I will have contact prints showing several comparisons of the same scene processed conventionally and with Semi-Stand method of film development.

If anyone is planning on attending the conference this weekend and would like to take a look at the prints just send me a PM.

Semi-Stand description and illustratvie photo

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency