Stand development - can someone explain to a thick newbie?

eubielicious · Jun 29, 2006

Hi all,

I have spotted mentions of stand development but I'm not really sure what it means. I've developed plenty of film but have always gone with the manufacturers recommendations in terms of agitation, or used the Massive Dev Chart to give me times.

Can someone explain please? I get the impression that it involves highly diluted developer, a short agitation period at the start and then being left to stand for some time. Is there a rule of thumb as to how long this should be for any film/developer in relation to its standard recommended time?

Thanks!!!!!!

Euan

juan · Jun 29, 2006

You have the basics right. There are a number of methods depending on the individual photographer, and the terms used are not well settled yet. That makes it somewhat confusing. Other terms used are "minimal agitation" or "extreme minimum agitation" or "reduced agitation."

I think the most common methods being discussed now are, for instance, Rodinal 1:200, used with only initial agitation then allowed to stand for, some say an hour, some say two hours, some say even more.

Pyrocat HD at something like 1.5:1:150 or 5:3:300 or so, with about a minute to a minute and a half initial agitation, followed by 10 to 15 seconds agitaion at 1/3 and 2/3 of the development time.

There are a lot of different methods being tried - it's not as cut and dried as the manufacturer's times. You might search the terms here on APUG, there's also a lot of discussion at The Azo Forum and the large format forum.

There's no quick answer.
Juan

Travis Nunn · Jun 29, 2006

This should answer all of your questions.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Ray Heath · Jun 29, 2006

hi guys, an interesting concept, but in simple terms, how is stand development better than something closer to the manufacturers procedure for 'normal' lighting and the old over expose under develop for 'harsh' lighting

KenM · Jun 29, 2006

Stand development will cause a pronounced 'edge-effect' on the negative. In other words, you get an apparent increase in sharpness. This effect can be pretty distracting if overdone, especially in smaller formats (since enlargement will further exagerate the effect), so don't try this with important negs without shooting and developing a test role or two first.

Ole · Jun 29, 2006

Stand development also tends to even out the gross differenced in exposure, so it's good for extrmely contrasty situations like night photography.

It can also be a good "rescue" when exposure differs wildly across one roll, as when I tested an old folding MF with sticky shutter. At the same time setting in about the same lighting conditions, exposure ramged from "normal" to "at least six stops over". All negs were printable, after 90 minutes stand in half-strength FX-2.

Gerald Koch · Jun 29, 2006

Stand development may be useful in certain situations but it should not be used as one's usual development technique. Unless you have a certain effect that you wish to obtain in the negative it is far better to stick with standard methods.

JBrunner · Jun 29, 2006

As far as development time goes, testing is in order. Many of the longer times (like 2hrs) in extremely dilute dev are not needed as the miniscule amount of developer exhausts long before that time is up. If and when this happens depends on the specific developer, dilution, volume, and film size. Testing is the only sure fire way to find the combination that works for you.

df cardwell · Jun 29, 2006

eubielicious said:
Hi all,

I have spotted mentions of stand development but I'm not really sure what it means.

Euan

We are used to thinking of 2 variables which effect development, time and temperature. There is a third, agitation.

By varying the proportion of agitation to development time ( with many developer and film combinations ) one can make fine adjustments to the relationship of highlight to shadow density.

Some workers use reduced agitation to increase 'acutance effects' ( which is possible with some developers ) but it's greatest value has been to increase the density of the shadows ( by increasing the length of development ) while reducing the density of the highlights ( by reduction of agitation ) and maintaining normal midtone contrast. Think of this as pushing the shadows and pulling the highlights at the same time.

At one time it WAS standard technique, but as marketing began shaping the craft, this and other viable techniques were forgotten.

.

Ray Heath · Jun 30, 2006

can someone post examples of normal and stand so as to illustrate the difference

Ray Heath · Jul 1, 2006

g'day'
so, do i assume the differences are not demonstrable? if so, of what value are these techniques?

Sparky · Jul 1, 2006

Ray, it's not at ALL that the effects aren't demonstrable (though the acutance would need to be HEAVILY magnified/enlarged to be seen!) - so much as I don't think anybody really wants to rush out to shoot two test rolls of the same scene and spend the time processing them and having them drum scanned (the only really proper way to do it) to show the effects. Or maybe, if someone IS inspired to do so, it'll take some time. Why don't you try it out - and post the results here for us? It'd be an excellent way to learn...!

Dave Miller · Jul 1, 2006

I'm with Sparky, and look forward to seeing your results. I would add that agitation technique makes a big difference to the look of the negative, so that is worth experimenting with also.

Ray Heath · Jul 1, 2006

yeh, thanx guys, but i'm very happy with my results using the regime i've established and used for 20 years, it just seems to me that if you can't demonstrate this effect with any image why bother, would it not be better to go out and learn to see as a way to improve your photography than worry about a very minor quality increase that can't even be demonstrated

Dave Miller · Jul 1, 2006

You just lost me there Ray. If you are happy with your development method, and not interested in trying anything else; why ask the question?

Ray Heath · Jul 1, 2006

Dave, it seems to me there is lots written here about certain techniques/materials/equipment etc. being better than others, i'm just saying show me, is that not possible?

Dave Miller · Jul 1, 2006

I guess it is, but not through the medium of the computer screen, and I'm not inclined to backtrack over previous trials. For myself the real attraction of stand development, or to be exact in my case, semi-stand development is that it requires less physical effort, not an unimportant consideration when humping an 8 reel drum. Like you, I am happy with the results I get from my favorite method, and developer, Prescysol , and will take more than a little shifting to move away from my routine.
Having said that I have arrived at the present method through trial and error; lots of the latter. I can only repeat the suggestion that you try it, if it doesn't work for you, then you will have proved that I'm wasting my time.

Markok765 · Jul 1, 2006

Stand deving with rodinal gives fine "salt & pepper grain" high acutane and good tonality. it is also goood for high contrast subjects

JBrunner · Jul 1, 2006

While it is difficult to judge many things from a scan on a computer screen, the edge effect can be readily seen. This is about a 1 inch section from a 4x5 efke25 neg stand developed in Pyrocat. To a lay person it looks like an overzealous application of unsharp mask in PS, however this is actually a straight scan with no sharpening at all, and does a very good job of illustrating extreme edge effect on an abrupt density transition. Stand developing has observable effects in most cases, and most of these effects, like any photograph, can only really be appreciated in a print.
(Apologies for the condition of the neg, it is one that I pass around to show people as an example, and as such, it has been handled allot)

Ray Heath · Jul 1, 2006

thanx Dave, great answer, i suppose i should loosen up and give it a try, bye the way i love your bromoils, outstanding, great images that are enhanced by the printing, not just great printing for it's own sake

J, thanx for the example, but i don't know that the edge effect is something i like, seems to me that one of the failings of digital is that so much of it is oversharpened leading to unnaturally sharp edges

JBrunner · Jul 2, 2006

Ray Heath said:
thanx Dave, great answer, i suppose i should loosen up and give it a try, bye the way i love your bromoils, outstanding, great images that are enhanced by the printing, not just great printing for it's own sake

J, thanx for the example, but i don't know that the edge effect is something i like, seems to me that one of the failings of digital is that so much of it is oversharpened leading to unnaturally sharp edges

Just to reiterate, it is a scan of a small part of a negative, viewed on a monitor. While the effect is apparent, such a neg prints with all the tonality and smoothness one expects from LF B&W. Wayo different than a digital print. You would need to print it to make any real aesthetic decision.
I would say that if you are comfortable and happy with your regimen, then some experimentation with Pyro and/or stand development could be a fun exploration.

The trouble starts when people hop all over the board before they have their first thing dialed in.

Early Riser · Jul 2, 2006

What experimentation that I have done with stand development has indicated to me that the possible benefit of edge effects are not worth the risk of uneven development. It's also my understanding that prolonged soaking can possibly cause oversoftening of the emulsion and possible separation of it from the film base, I have never experienced this though.

If I need to compensate for a contrasty scene I don't over expose and under develop as that kills your local contrast, and I don't stand develope, I use water bath development instead. However at this point I rarely ever have to compensate for extreme contrast as I rarely shoot in contrasty situations.

Ray Heath · Jul 2, 2006

so Early, what do you mean by local contrast

Early Riser · Jul 2, 2006

Ray, local contrast is more like the small details contrast like the texture of a rock in your photo. When you underdevelop/overexpose to control a larger contrast problem, like a very bright sky and some deep shadows you also tend to lose the contrast in the details, so what you end up with may have a proper overall contrast level but might seem lacking detail, sharpness and snap.

Tom Hoskinson · Jul 2, 2006

Early Riser said:
...I don't stand develop, I use water bath development instead...

Isn't water bath development closely related to stand development?

Stand development - can someone explain to a thick newbie?

eubielicious

juan

Travis Nunn

Ray Heath

KenM

Ole

Moderator

Gerald Koch

JBrunner

Moderator

df cardwell

Ray Heath

Ray Heath

Sparky

Dave Miller

Ray Heath

Dave Miller

Ray Heath

Dave Miller

Markok765

JBrunner

Moderator

Attachments

Ray Heath

JBrunner

Moderator

Early Riser

Ray Heath

Early Riser

Tom Hoskinson

Stand development - can someone explain to a thick newbie?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Attachments

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency