Stand developing and Developers

[waynecrider]

I read an article in the new View Camera concerning stand developing and wanted to ask a question as concerning the developers. From what i remember the author mentioned using a tanning developer, and I was wondering if other types could be used. From what I have read a glycin type of developer is preferred, but forgot why sulfite was not wanted in the solution. Overall, has anyone tried other developers, and could you share the results of your testing regardless of developer used. Also, I do understand that this article was in regards to contact printing out on Azo paper, but would there be any benefits to enlarging or contact printing on other papers? Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Flotsam]

I haven't tried it but I have seen highly dilute Rodinal mentioned as being successful for stand development.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've used highly dilute HC-110 (Dilution G) for stand and semi-stand development. The result is very high compensation -- highlights and upper mid-tones are strongly compressed while shadows are about normal -- with some edge effects visible at high magnification. Like many alternate development techniques, this one seems to work better with "traditional" type films rather than "designer grain" types like T-Max and Delta.

The main thing you need, and what I understand to be the main reason for glycin in traditional stand developers, is a low fog formula. Secondarily, you need a developer that is less affected by bromide/iodide as a restrainer, because these ions are produced from the film as a by-product of silver reduction and make the solution locally denser than the aggregate, so can induce vertical streaks of reduced density (due to increased restraining effect) proceeding from highlight areas. Last, your developer still needs to either selectively exhaust where exposure is high (hence high dilution with HC-110 or Rodinal), or be restrained by its own oxidation products (like glycin and, IIRC, metol and phenidone) rather than catalyzed by its oxidation products (like hydroquinone and possibly ascorbate), in order for the development to be reduced in higher density regions.

BTW, most of the old glycin formulae were used with a single glass plate lying flat in a tray, and development was (anecdotally, at least) often by inspection (most of this usage predated panchromatic films).

 

[mark]

There is a lot of talk on michael and puala's AZO forum about it. Pyrocat seems to work really well. I tried it once and was not overly impressed but I am not enlarging, I contact print and the edge effects and apparent increased sharpness did not seem to make that big of a difference. I think if I was enlarging I would do it alot.

I should also note that I tried it with pyrocatHD at the dilution recommended on the AZO forum. Can't remember what it was though.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

A good developer for stand development is FX-2 at 1:1.

-Peter
www.desmidt.net

 

[Andy K]

There are three shots in my gallery which were stand developed in Rodinal 1+50, 'Night Life...' I used stand developing so the highlights did not blow out and to get detail in the shadows.

 

[sanking]

I read an article in the new View Camera concerning stand developing and wanted to ask a question as concerning the developers. From what i remember the author mentioned using a tanning developer, and I was wondering if other types could be used. From what I have read a glycin type of developer is preferred, but forgot why sulfite was not wanted in the solution. Overall, has anyone tried other developers, and could you share the results of your testing regardless of developer used. Also, I do understand that this article was in regards to contact printing out on Azo paper, but would there be any benefits to enlarging or contact printing on other papers? Thanks for your thoughts.

I have not seen the article but I assume that it was by Steve Sherman? If so, I have already read it as I provided some assistance to Steve in the preparation of the article.

Steve used a very dilute solution of Pyrocat-HD for his semi-stand technique, something on the order of 1:1:150 to 1:1:200. As someone already mentioned, there is a lot of information on stand and minimal agitation procedures on the AZO forum. I really don't know why Pyrocat-HD works so well with this type of development since a staining developer is not normally what we would expect to use for stand development, but for whatever reason it does work very well as lots of people have found out. Other developers that are reported to work well with stand development are dilute solutions of Rodinal, HC-110 and FX-2. I tried FX-2 and was not at all happy with the results, but the problem may have been my technique.

Sandy

 

[Donald Miller]

I have pretty much standardized on minimal agitation (semi stand development) in tubes. The enlargements from 4X5 Efke PL 100 negatives developed in 1-1-150 Pyrocat exhibit sharpness that I have not duplicated in contact printing. I might mention that I do enlarge with a Durst 138 S condensor enlarger preferring it over a diffusion source. The reason that I mention this is that I am sure that this enlarger optimizes the edge effects of this film and developer combination. I will say that I have not observed the extreme compensating effects that another poster alluded to. That may be due to the fact that I have tested the film, developer, and procedure combination to arrive at the density range that I need for my equipment and for the paper that I use.

 

[Dave Miller]

I’ve started using partial Stand Development when using 1:50 Rodinal with Delta 100. I invert the drum, at 30 second intervals, for the first few minutes, and then let the drum stand for the last ten minutes. I haven’t notice any difference in results; but my arms don’t hurt so much.

 

[gainer]

I have pretty much standardized on minimal agitation (semi stand development) in tubes. The enlargements from 4X5 Efke PL 100 negatives developed in 1-1-150 Pyrocat exhibit sharpness that I have not duplicated in contact printing. I might mention that I do enlarge with a Durst 138 S condensor enlarger preferring it over a diffusion source. The reason that I mention this is that I am sure that this enlarger optimizes the edge effects of this film and developer combination. I will say that I have not observed the extreme compensating effects that another poster alluded to. That may be due to the fact that I have tested the film, developer, and procedure combination to arrive at the density range that I need for my equipment and for the paper that I use.

Do you use the enlarger as a source for contact printing? I know that would not be practical for AZO, but it would be interesting to try a contact print on enlarging paper using the enlarger as source. A collimated source might give a little extra edge, even to a contact print.

 

[Donald Miller]

Do you use the enlarger as a source for contact printing? I know that would not be practical for AZO, but it would be interesting to try a contact print on enlarging paper using the enlarger as source. A collimated source might give a little extra edge, even to a contact print.

No, I have not since, to this point, my contact printing has been strictly limited to Azo. When I get my darkroom rebuilt, after my move to Phoenix, I may give this a try. I agree that a collimated light source does make a difference...at least in enlargements. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[titrisol]

Yup Rodinal 1+200, agitate the first minute and let it work for 2 hours or so. Works great in APX100, FP4, and others that I have tried.

It's great in this march-madness time You can watch a full basketball game while developing.

I haven't tried it but I have seen highly dilute Rodinal mentioned as being successful for stand development.

 

[Claire Senft]

The unblinking eye

Go to Sandy King's website the unblinking eye. He has a wonderful article on Pyrocat Hd using regular, semi-stand and stand development with Pyrocat HD.

I must say that during 40+ years of photography I have never been as pleased with a developer as I am with Pyrocat HD. Easy to compound, easy to use, the best sharpness characteristics that I have ever experienced, fine to moderate grain, extremely flexible, wonderful shelf life and extremely economical.

THANK YOU MR. KING!

 

[Jorge]

Go to Sandy King's website the unblinking eye.

It is not King's web site....the web site was created and run by Ed Buffaloe. Which BTW has some great articles worth reading.

 

[fhovie]

I have pretty much standardized on minimal agitation (semi stand development) in tubes. The enlargements from 4X5 Efke PL 100 negatives developed in 1-1-150 Pyrocat exhibit sharpness that I have not duplicated in contact printing. I might mention that I do enlarge with a Durst 138 S condensor enlarger preferring it over a diffusion source. The reason that I mention this is that I am sure that this enlarger optimizes the edge effects of this film and developer combination. I will say that I have not observed the extreme compensating effects that another poster alluded to. That may be due to the fact that I have tested the film, developer, and procedure combination to arrive at the density range that I need for my equipment and for the paper that I use.

This is my method when I want full film speed - A little more grain than the 1:1:100 Pyrocat but this works well

 

[sanking]

Go to Sandy King's website the unblinking eye. He has a wonderful article on Pyrocat Hd using regular, semi-stand and stand development with Pyrocat HD.

I must say that during 40+ years of photography I have never been as pleased with a developer as I am with Pyrocat HD. Easy to compound, easy to use, the best sharpness characteristics that I have ever experienced, fine to moderate grain, extremely flexible, wonderful shelf life and extremely economical.

THANK YOU MR. KING!

Hi Claire,

Thanks for your comments about Pyrocat-HD and for the reference to the unblinkineye web site. But I can not claim credit for unblinkinkingeye. That site was created by my friend, and one hell of a nice guy, Ed Buffaloe.

BTW, if you like Ed's site consider buying some of the featured books from the links on his page. He makes a slight amount on each sale, which allows him to support the site.

Sandy

 

[dfloeter]

stand developing

Ok, so this has me wondering about extreme compensation and just how much is possible to achieve with this method. How many stops of compression have you guys been getting?

 

[waynecrider]

I read this over in the writings at Michael and Paula's site;

Amidol is the only developer that does not need an alkaline environment in which to work. It is generally a neutral-tone developer used for prints, but it can also be used to develop film. Because it can work in the absence of alkali, thereby avoiding the swelling of the emulsion that takes place when other developers are used, it can be used as a tropical or high-temperature film developer.

Has anyone tried it as a film developer?

 

[Jorge]

Ok, so this has me wondering about extreme compensation and just how much is possible to achieve with this method. How many stops of compression have you guys been getting?

There is no compression, unlike doing compensating development where you dont agitate for the time you develop the film, with stand and semi stand development you agitate at long intervals and leave the film to develop for long times, like 45 mins to an hour. When you do this you get full range negatives.

I dont have the patience to do this.....but it works....

 

[Oldtimer Jay]

Hi All,

I , like Peter De Smidt above, have had very nice results with Formulary FX 2 diluted 1-1. The only reason I don't use this method more is simply because I usually prefer to proceed more quickly and can get similar results (in most cases) with conventional agitation. One case where it seems to work better than any other method I have found is in developing 35 MM Pan F+ which has been shot in harsh light. For this situation I have found nothing that equals it for keeping a nice range of tones from highlights to deep shadows.

Just my 2 cents.

Jay

 

[Lee L]

Except for Metol, wich still works in a neutral environment, albeit very slowly. BTW, a little metol in a little triethanolamine makes a very effective developer for high contrast document films like Tech Pan, and a good, clean working, stand/minimal agitation developer for other films, with appropriately extended development times.

Jay

This sounds interesting. I have both ingredients on hand. Do you have a suggested formula and films/times? Could you point me to a thread or URL if this has been covered already?

Thanks,
Lee

 

[Donald Miller]

Having had the opportunity to view prints produced by some who are promoting some of the newer proposed developer formulations, I would be hard pressed to make a case for changing from those that are tested and true.

In other words the print is the final determiner. A line of rhetoric does not a photochemist make.

 

[Lee L]

Jay,

Thanks a lot. I'll give it a try. It's alway nice to add something new to the repertoire and expand the available options.

Lee