Stand developing multiple rolls at once

[nathanielkorb]

So I've worked with stand development a lot and am rather comfortable with it. Thing is, I went through two rolls within a short period of time (Kentmere and Tri-X, exposed at 1600, which I plan on stand developing) and was thinking of doing both at in the same tank. I use a Paterson that can take two rolls, but I've never actually processed multiple rolls at once (at least with a stand, I've done that with D-76, and it worked fine). Can that create any problems?

 

[amellice]

So I've worked with stand development a lot and am rather comfortable with it. Thing is, I went through two rolls within a short period of time (Kentmere and Tri-X, exposed at 1600, which I plan on stand developing) and was thinking of doing both at in the same tank. I use a Paterson that can take two rolls, but I've never actually processed multiple rolls at once (at least with a stand, I've done that with D-76, and it worked fine). Can that create any problems?

I did semi stand for 2 rolls (hp5 and trix) and it was fine, just make sure that you fill the tank properly

EDIT:
I forgot to mention that I use rodinal and I double the developer amount for the 2 rolls, reason is that I use larger tank. When I develop one roll the tank is about half liter and the 2 rolls tank is 1 liter tank. It's a ratio of the developer and water and how full you want your tank be

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The problem is with the minimum amount of developer required. This should be observed with stand development just as with normal development. There must be enough developing agent (reducing agent) to convert silver halide to silver. I don't know off hand what this minimum amount is for D-76 (ID-11). But for argument sake if you were using Rodinal which requires a minimum of 5 ml of concentrate per roll and you are using a dilution of 1:100 then with two rolls you need 1000 ml of developer in total. Will that all fit in your tank? You can calculate the number of equivalents of Metol and hydroquinone in D-76 and arrive at a minimum requirement for it too. But the minimum number of equivalents will be in the same order of magnitude for all developers.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Ufff, people like to complicate things.

Nathan,
I'm not sure where you saw stand development with D76.
It isn't one I would use.

I use Rodinal which is the standard for stand development.
The 5ml per roll has a safety margin.
With 2 rolls of 35mm just use 600ml of water and 6ml of Rodinal.
4 inversions to kickstart the development and leave for an hour.
It will be fine.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Out of curiosity I decided to calculate the number of milli-equivalents of paraminophenol in 5 ml of Rodinal. The MSDS states that the developer contains 1-5% developing agent. I used the most optimistic value of 5%. The value is 0.5 meq per ml. The value that I have is approximately 5 meq silver per 36 exposure roll of film. The calculation confirms Agfa's minimum value and does not indicate any appreciable safety factor. Personally I don't like to red line things.

I should stress that this is a back of the envelop calculation which assumes several things. For those unfamiliar with stoichiometric calculations 1 milli-equivalent of a developing agent will convert 1 milli-equivalent of silver halide to 1 milli-equivalent of metallic silver.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Thanks Gerald for the maths.
I'm not an engineer, nor even a pseudo one or even a lab technician.
All I have is a dark bag, a tank or 2, a bottle of Rodinal and still have to wait all my housemates clear the kitchen at night, so I can do some development.
As it happens, while you were doing all that maths, I was developing some film using the usual 1:100, i.e. 3mml Rodinal for 300ml water per roll.
Here is one developed last night:
4-15-2016_041 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

Yes, it is a low resolution scan and you can't truly judge by it.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

There is a problem with scans which has been discussed before. Unless you turn of the autocorrect feature you really can't tell much. The scanner software will correct for such things as low contrast or density. You really need to make a wet print to accurately judge whether a negative is properly developed.

The cited article is very good and discusses such things as the minimum amont of Rodinal to use.

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html

 

[rpavich]

There is a problem with scans which has been discussed before. Unless you turn of the autocorrect feature you really can't tell much. The scanner software will correct for such things as low contrast or density. You really need to make a wet print to accurately judge whether a negative is properly developed.

The cited article is very good and discusses such things as the minimum amont of Rodinal to use.

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html

That's true.

When I see folks talk about how "it will all work out" when talking about stand developing or really any type of developing, then seeing an image that was scanned from a negative has hardly any value at all.
The value would be a nice macro of the negative to see how it turned out.

I'm not criticizing, I'm just saying that I've done some stand development and I've done a lot of fudged up developing and the scans looked fine. It was only AFTER I went back to evaluate my crappy negs that I realized what was going on.

 

[removed account4]

So I've worked with stand development a lot and am rather comfortable with it. Thing is, I went through two rolls within a short period of time (Kentmere and Tri-X, exposed at 1600, which I plan on stand developing) and was thinking of doing both at in the same tank. I use a Paterson that can take two rolls, but I've never actually processed multiple rolls at once (at least with a stand, I've done that with D-76, and it worked fine). Can that create any problems?

hi nathanielkorb

you never know until you try it
i often times do things people tell me not to do
and it works out just fine.
i put a teeny but of print developer in my caffenol ( people said not to works fine )
i eyeball measure chemistry for caffenol ( was told it doesnt' work, works fine )
was told not to stand develop ( single and multple rolls or sheets ) with it, ( works fine )
was told not to use beans instead of instant ( works fine )
was told not to use print developer ( ansco 130 + dektol ) for film ( works fine )
was told not to split process between caffenol and print develper ( works fine )

i don't use ( have never used ) D76 so i can't help you there, but
i'd burn a test roll and develop it the way you want stand develop and see how it works
and if it works fine ( it might just do that ) then you can develop the rest of your film that way

good luck !
john

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

The value would be a nice macro of the negative to see how it turned out.

Sorry, I don't have a macro lens nor a light table. Too poor for that.
This is the best I could do with the crappy 2MP Stupid-o-phone:

Sorry for the quality.
Even at naked eye the negative looks properly exposed and developed to me.
It is no different than the 30+ years worth of lab developed negatives I used before.
Stand development in Rodinal allows me to concentrate in what matters most to me: buying film so I can take photographs.
A bottle of Fomadon R09 is £6.40 and can be used for 83 rolls of 35mm at 1:100.
Believe it or not, I shoot 80 rolls in 6 months or less.

I am a photographer not a lab rat or a pseudo engineer.
And I don't believe in web gossip.

John is right.
Until one tries for himself, how one would know if she/he likes something or not?
In the end, the question is: do you like the pictures you take?
I like mines the way they are.
If I didn't, then I would look for another way.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I haven't had extensive experience, but I've developed multiple rolls with 1:100 HC-110 from concentrate. I've processed at that dilution with Arista EDU 100, Artista EDU 400 and Fuji Acros for about an hour. I use a film safe light to check the progress. The point of stand processing is that the highlight areas in the film will exhaust the developer faster while shadow areas will continue developing. I pull the fully developed rolls first while leaving under processed film in the tank for further development. I don't always use stand development because the grainy nature sometimes doesn't work for certain images.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I haven't had extensive experience, but I've developed multiple rolls with 1:100 HC-110 from concentrate. I've processed at that dilution with Arista EDU 100, Artista EDU 400 and Fuji Acros for about an hour. I use a film safe light to check the progress. The point of stand processing is that the highlight areas in the film will exhaust the developer faster while shadow areas will continue developing. I pull the fully developed rolls first while leaving under processed film in the tank for further development. I don't always use stand development because the grainy nature sometimes doesn't work for certain images.

What you describe is the reason that stand development is sometimes used in the Zone System. It distorts the tonal range of a scene. I don't think that this something that people want to do routinely. That is why the method should not be used for general development. It is not even used as such with the ZS.

But the question here is whether to ignore Agfa's advice as to a minimum amount of Rodinal.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

What you describe is the reason that stand development is sometimes used in the Zone System. It distorts the tonal range of a scene. I don't think that this something that people want to do routinely. That is why the method should not be used for general development. It is not even used as such with the ZS.

But the question here is whether to ignore Agfa's advice as to a minimum amount of Rodinal.

Yes. Some serious zone contractions. But also, it's very grainy. But the key for me is to run test and making prints. Stand development is pretty amazing. But sometimes, I get streaks on my negatives so it is risky. It's probably from bromide buildup.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

But the question here is whether to ignore Agfa's advice as to a minimum amount of Rodinal.

As a recommendation, no. But, that is an advice, a recommendation.
If I was developing a single 135 roll, I would follow it.
But, I normally develop 3 rolls at a time, so I use 9ml R09 for 900ml water. Perhaps that's why I never had a problem.
The lowest quantity of Rodinal I've used was about 4.5ml for 450ml water on a 2 reel SS tank.
The funny thing is on a Paterson tank that is a mot point for 120 films as they require 500ml of solution per roll therefore respecting the recommendation.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

But sometimes, I get streaks on my negatives so it is risky

I'm almost sure that is from fixing.
I've had them and they were from not long enough and poor agitation during fixing.
In other words, I was doing "stand" with fixer.

 

[removed account4]

That is why the method should not be used for general development.

the only way to learn what something does is to do it.
while it might distort the tonal range, or drive zone system practitioners to roll over in their graves
why does it matter ?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

the only way to learn what something does is to do it.
while it might distort the tonal range, or drive zone system practitioners to roll over in their graves
why does it matter ?

I agree. If the looks of stand development fits the look you need, why not? Some Zone practitioners are too hung up on sensitometry. I say let the technique serve your art.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Simply

why does it matter ?

Simply because it is the wrong advice to give someone who is starting out in photography. Said over and over again in all sorts of mediums, one must know the rules thoroughly before one can break them.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

What has not been discussed is that using highly dilute developers also enhances adjacency effects. Used judiciously it can enhance the perceived sharpness of a negative. However when used in excess it can cause a garish, cartoonish look. Real objects do not have lines about them.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

What has not been discussed is that using highly dilute developers also enhances adjacency effects. Used judiciously it can enhance the perceived sharpness of a negative. However when used in excess it can cause a garish, cartoonish look. Real objects do not have lines about them.

I never know that. This goes to prove that a photographer should test and see if the a process suits their their intent of an image.

 

[removed account4]

Simply


Simply because it is the wrong advice to give someone who is starting out in photography. Said over and over again in all sorts of mediums, one must know the rules thoroughly before one can break them.

if it develops the film the way he wants
and he will only tell if it does that, after he does it
then it is the right advice.
everyone seems to have their own rules
of what is right and wrong, for them
if he processes his test roll and he doesn't like how it looks
he will not develop the others. i am not quite sure why this is wrong ..
i have my own set of rules i run by - i'll never use D76, and i'll never use rodinal, i'll never use pyro ...
but the last thing i do is tell people not to use those 3 developers, cause it is what they want to do.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

However one does not have to use stand development to get adjacency effects. In fact stand development may be a poor method as it could be hard to control. A better choice would be an acutance developer like the Beutler developer.

Stand development does not work well with developers containing more than one developing agent. In addition the developer must be quite energetic like Rodinal to produce results without VERY long development times. So the OP question about using D-76 would be a no.

 

[removed account4]

So the OP question about using D-76 would be a no

as soon as i hear someone telling ME never to do something like this,
i always do it so i can learn why i should do it again, or should never do it again.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

as soon as i hear someone telling ME never to do something like this,
i always do it so i can learn why i should do it again, or should never do it again.

Test all things; hold fast what is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Then too there are those who think they are being frugal. What gets lost is the fact that developer is cheap but film is expensive. There are places to cut corners but stinting on developer is not one of them. Then there is another group who think that their scans look good but really never make prints. Making a wet print is the real test.