Stand and Semi-Stand Developing

[Daniel Grenier]

What film, developer and dilution are you using? Like Scott, I've never had any trouble with uneven development, or with screen markings on the negative.

So far,I've done perhaps 30 odd sheets of Efke PL100 8x10 and 7x17 in Pyrocat with various dilutions, agitation schemes and times based on Sandy and Steve's suggestions in various threads & articles. I did 5 sheets at a time in open-ended (upright) tubes in a large tank. Pre-soaks were 5+ minutes and all films had a fibre glass screen backing for protection. All tubes/films received the exact same treatment.

In every single session, I had issues with erratic unevenness and/or fibre mesh imprints that do not wash away. By the same token, some films were just fine with no imprints and/or discernable unevenness due to subject matter. The last session was with 6 Efke PL100 7x17 and three are useless. Not exciting results by any means.

I am not sure why I get these erratic and unpredictable results but I cannot have a method that yields less than 100 % success rate as I typically shoot one sheet per scene but I must say that some of the negs that did come out OK look terrific.

 

[Steve Sherman]

I don't know how many different ways I can explain this.

If your interest in the Semi-Stand process is because you get sharper negatives that is not the case. There is an appearance or impression of greater sharpness because of dilute developer becoming exhausted at the boundaries of tonal differences. The greater the tonal differences within a given scene (such as texture) the greater the adjancecy effects (perceived sharpness) will be.

My interest and reason for using the process has NOTHING to do with sharpness and has everything to do with MICRO CONTRAST. Because I shoot mostly in very flat lighting, I do not like shadows, however, I have become infatuated with Azo for a number of reasons. Unfortunately, Azo has a considerably longer tonal scale than even the softest of enlarging papers. Consequently, with conventional means of developing film it is NOT POSSIBLE to achieve acceptable results in this combination.

While I do shoot mostly in flat light, my other interests lie in interiors of buildings where strong light can be included from an outside source. I have said many times that the Semi-Stand process is the best of both worlds, I realize now I must add “for me” to that phrase. Not everyone shoots in conditions which I find most interesting.

Just to re state, Semi-Stand and Minimal Agitation methods of development maximize three areas of the negative’s DNA. You realize maximum film speed, maximum shadow contrast (micro contrast) and you realize maximum highlight compression because of the dilution of the developer. This sounds somewhat contradictory but it is not because of the control one has over the micro contrast of the negative. How else could I make a full range Azo grade # 2 print from a scene where the light meter showed no more than three zones difference in tonality. At the other extreme I made photograph where the lightest area was Zone 15 and the darkest area to show texture was Zone 2. Each of these prints respectively “Penile Colony” and “Prison Cell Block” were processed using the Semi-Stand method and have been seen first hand by a number of APUG members who can attest to that statement.

Lastly, if I was the type who shot allot of film I might not be willing to commit the time necessary for this development process, however knowing the results possible the point becomes moot. A two week trip to the west for me would likely yield a negative made at dawn and one at dusk, with the mid day left for travel and food. If my interests were to make negatives during sunlight hours, such as nearly all of Michael and Paula’s work on Azo then the process wouldn’t have near the impact that it does for me.

There will always be debate about technique, however, when someone tells you that they don’t believe there is a difference, one of three things is present, either they don’t make photographs in the lighting conditions I do, they don’t use as long a tonal scale positive material or they are being less than candid.

Daniel, I don't use any screens between film and container, I always presoak for 5 minutes. I have been asked by many photographers who have struggled with unevenness how I agitate and when I explain I use a JOBO cleaning sponge or a circular type rod with 1.5 to 2" diameter disc in an UP and DOWN gentle thrusting action I have been told their problems with unevenness vanished. However, initial agitation is more vigorous then subsequent agitation cycles.

 

[herb]

stand and semi stand

While I am still in the learning phase on this method, I have been able to get past the uneven development problem - I shoot Efke, a VERY soft emulsion and early on gave up on tray development, I use hangers- takes more chemical, but I can do six at a time. One must be very careful on the lift tilt when agitating, go very slowly-I find that the agitation cycle will use up about 15-20 sec on a lift tilt submerge lift tilt back submerge.
That got rid of surge marks and other uneveness.

 

[gainer]

Steve, this is off the point but I can't resist. Did you really mean to title your picture "Penile Colony" or should it have been "Penal Colony"? I haven't seen the picture and can only imagine.

 

[Travis Nunn]

Steve, this is off the point but I can't resist. Did you really mean to title your picture "Penile Colony" or should it have been "Penal Colony"? I haven't seen the picture and can only imagine.

I'm glad you asked this question. I've been wondering that myself.

 

[c6h6o3]

Steve, this is off the point but I can't resist. Did you really mean to title your picture "Penile Colony" or should it have been "Penal Colony"? I haven't seen the picture and can only imagine.

The title is a play on words. Here's the picture. Out of all his stuff it's my favorite.

 

[sanking]

In every single session, I had issues with erratic unevenness and/or fibre mesh imprints that do not wash away. By the same token, some films were just fine with no imprints and/or discernable unevenness due to subject matter. The last session was with 6 Efke PL100 7x17 and three are useless. Not exciting results by any means.

Although I don't do stand development my form of extreme minimal agitation could be considered a form of semi-stand. With this type of agitation I have been able to get very even develoment, even in highlight areas, and don't hesitate to recommend it for general purpose development. Films that I have used are TMAX-400, FP4+ and Efke PL100, usually with Pyrocat-HD 1:1:150 or 1:1.5:200. I don't use mesh.

My technique is to place the film in open-ended PVC tubes in the dark, and then just dump them into a larger container with the developer. Agitation begins immediately and is done quite vigorously for 1.5 minutes. The other three agitation cycles are also done vigorously, but for only 10 seconds.

I suspect that some of the problem with uneven development in tubes standing on end is that there is a delay between when the film goes into the developer, or the developer into the tube, and the beginning of agitation. Any delay at this point is apt to cause uneven develoment because any problems that begin at this time are accentuated with reduced agitation procedures. My method eliminates this potential problem.

After development I place the film in tubes in the stop bath, but after the stop bath the film is removed from the tubes and fixed in a tray.

I don't use mesh between the film and the inside of the tubes and have not had any problem with scratching. However, remaining mesh marks are most likely just anti-halation backing that was not completely removed. You can accelerate the removal by moving the film to a tray of 1% sodium sulphite after fixing and leave it there for ten minutes or so. This procedure has always worked for me in removing 100% of the antihalation back from the base of the film.

Sandy

 

[rbarker]

. . . My technique is to place the film in open-ended PVC tubes in the dark, and then just dump them into a larger container with the developer.

I'm curious, Sandy - what are you using for the "larger container"? A section of larger-diameter PVC pipe? A conventional tank of some sort?

 

[Travis Nunn]

After looking at Steve Sherman's website, I'm quickly reminded how much farther I have to go in my photography. Beautiful work.

 

[c6h6o3]

After looking at Steve Sherman's website, I'm quickly reminded how much farther I have to go in my photography. Beautiful work.

Wait till you see the prints. The website only hints at the effect they have on people.

 

[Steve Sherman]

Yeah, I am guilty of a play on words. I to couldn’t resist as I was with a good friend, female photographer when I shot this and she quickly pointed out this should be the lead image in a show she titled “The Erotic Landscape”

As I think about the evolution of the process for me I am closer to Extreme Minimal Agitation because I am using two cycles of agitation rather than just one most of the time. I will say in the beginning I did have problems with uneven development, those problems went away when I took up Sandy King’s suggestion of vigorous initial agitation. I still do gentle agitation for 20 secs between cycles, for me it is more the number of times I move the rod up and down. As I think about it, 10 secs. vigorous agitation, which Sandy does, is probably close to 20 secs. of gentle agitation which I do. Goes to show there can be more than one way to achieve the effect. However, there is no denying the end result regardless of what some might say.

Because I shoot such crazy lighting situations I do expose two identically exposed negatives and then process the first one to what I believe to be proper and then make fine adjustments with the second. For those who discount the second ULF negative as being wasteful, think of this, ULF film is expensive, not nearly as expensive as another plane ticket.

 

[sanking]

I'm curious, Sandy - what are you using for the "larger container"? A section of larger-diameter PVC pipe? A conventional tank of some sort?

Ralph,

I am using a 11X14" Beseler print drum. This drum will accept up to six PVC tubes with ID of 2", which is the size I use for 5X7. Once the tubes go in the developer I just pop the cap on the drum and everthing else is done with the lights on until it is time to transfer the tubes to a stop bath.

For 7X17" size I built a plywood box, with a light tight lid, in which I can place up to four tubes at a time.

I am still developing most of my 12X20 film in drums using constant rotary agitation. Logistically stand type development is very hard to do with this size fim becaue of the volume of developer needed and the weight associated with it.

Sandy

 

[gainer]

The title is a play on words. Here's the picture. Out of all his stuff it's my favorite.

Now I get it.

The Great Spirit made such empty spaces between the rocks out west by covering the ones that used to be in between with grass and trees and using them to make West Virginia. If I want to see rocks other than the one opposite mine, I must go to the top. Then I can see them for miles around when the trees are not green.

Pike's Peak from 120 miles away makes me homesick for West Virginia. Croagh Padraig is only 1200 feet high.

 

[avandesande]

They do have odd ideas about mountains out east. The altitude of High Point, New Jersey is more than a mile below my house.

Pike's Peak from 120 miles away makes me homesick for West Virginia. Croagh Padraig is only 1200 feet high.

 

[derevaun]

I do semi-stand because it has one huge advantage for me: it's more likely to salvage a scanner-friendly image when I "use the force" to control exposure, or when I use cameras that have no meaningful exposure control at all. I suspect that I'd see it differently (e.g., the way it's intended) or use a more fussy regime if I did wet printing.

 

[philsweeney]

Real beginner here. My interest in semistand dev is mostly for extreme SBRs. Using the screen behind my negatives (8 x 10) resulted in screen marks. Hopefully the sodium sulfite will do the trick.

I have had no unevenness in dev. Using 3" open ABS for 8 x 10. Solution container is 4 inch ABS. I have to weight the 3" tube with a 3" inch screw on cap (holes drilled in it).

Using FP4 in pyrocat. My last negative was N-4 at 1.5-1-250 total solution appx 70ozs. total dev time 18m (2-9m stand). Negative for AZO density max 1.58. For a longer development time, it appears I can dilute further. The amount of A = 12ml (0.41 ozs). My thoughts are if I can use 1 oz of A in a 1-1-100 development for minus dev of 6 8 x 10 negatives. Then I may be able to go as low as 1/6 oz of A? For 1.5-1-628. Or maybe I'd do better trying a lower contrast film like HP5?

 

[Steve Sherman]

Phil,

I would not try a dilution greater than 1.5-1-225. Both Sandy and I have had disappointing results with dilutions greater than that regardless of increased time.

While HP5 is has a lower contrast profile that FP4 I would stick with one film and become accustomed to just that film. N-4 should not be a problem, try adjusting your initial agitation time and intermittent agitation times to lower density. You can develop at a lower temperature and still take advantage of the lenght of time and still have the option of moving down to 7 minutes each stand period with only one agitation in the middle.

Personally, my initial agitation is either 60 secs or 90 secs. Subsequent agitation can be as little as 10 secs and as much as 30 secs. My dilutions are never greater than 200 parts of water, even my most contrasty negative was still developed for 18 minutes.

One thing Semi-Stand development does not like is any over exposure at all. Remembering that the process tends to approach manufacturer's suggested film speeds so in the beginning of using this process too much exposure is not uncommon.

 

[Gerald Koch]

They do have odd ideas about mountains out east. The altitude of High Point, New Jersey is more than a mile below my house.

The reason they are lower is because they are older and worn down. Respect your elders.

BTW, in Florida we have Iron Mountain on which is the Bok Tower. Great photo site. Anyway, Iron Mountain is a whole 600 ft above sea level!

 

[philsweeney]

Thanks Steve. I'd prefer to stay with FP4. BTW I rated the film at 100. Long SBRs are not common for me. These recent negatives were exposed for 20m. I could have used another stop, but bit the bullet and lived with 20m, I was not willing to wait 55m. Mistake!!

 

[philsweeney]

I don't use mesh between the film and the inside of the tubes and have not had any problem with scratching. However, remaining mesh marks are most likely just anti-halation backing that was not completely removed. You can accelerate the removal by moving the film to a tray of 1% sodium sulphite after fixing and leave it there for ten minutes or so. This procedure has always worked for me in removing 100% of the antihalation back from the base of the film.

Sandy

For a previously processed negative with mesh marks do you believe a rewash and process in the sodium sulfite would remove the mesh marks?

Also, what problems occur with dilutions greater than 225?

 

[sanking]

For a previously processed negative with mesh marks do you believe a rewash and process in the sodium sulfite would remove the mesh marks?

Also, what problems occur with dilutions greater than 225?

I believe there is a very good chance that the mesk marks will come off if you wash the film in a sodium sulfite solution for 10-15 minutes. That assumes that the marks are part of the anti-halation backing that were not washed away during processing because the film was in contact with the mesh.

The problem I have had with dilutions greater than about 1:1:250 is greater B+F, or general stain. But why would you want to go higher than this?

Sandy

 

[philsweeney]

The problem I have had with dilutions greater than about 1:1:250 is greater B+F, or general stain. But why would you want to go higher than this?

Sandy

I am working with some extreme SBRs (N-5) and following Steve Sherman's methods I am ending up with 1.58 after 18 minutes development at 1.5-1-250. I like the mesh because its easy to pull the negative for dbi. I have re-shot the scene and will be working with N-6 and N-7 negatives. I'd like to get the density down to about 1.4 and I am a little apprehensive about the short development times.

 

[Steve Sherman]

Phil,

I would not dilute the mixture any more than you have. You could lessen your agitation length, although I would not go below a vigorous 45 secs. initial agitation. After that you could change to just one agitation and go as little as 20 secs. for one or if you are doing two agitation cylces go down to 10 secs. Further, you could lower temperature, I have developed film as low as 65 degrees with acceptable results.

N-7 should not be a problem, however, as with Semi-Stand in general do not make the mistake of over exposing during exposure.

 

[philsweeney]

Phil,

I would not dilute the mixture any more than you have. You could lessen your agitation length, although I would not go below a vigorous 45 secs. initial agitation.

Thanks. My initial agitation was 1.5 minutes so I'll try reducing to 1 minute. Curious as to why for extreme SBRs you use more A?

 

[Steve Sherman]

This proportion of A to B helps to reduce fog due to extended periods of time in solution. Probably don't need to increase the A in this particular case but on the other hand I like to keep things consistent and when change is needed just make one change at a time so a true evaluation is possible.

I have no doubt you will be able to control an N-7 scene.