Stand development failure

Mansion

A
Mansion

  • 0
  • 0
  • 11
Lake

A
Lake

  • 1
  • 0
  • 10
One cloud, four windmills

D
One cloud, four windmills

  • 0
  • 0
  • 10
Priorities #2

D
Priorities #2

  • 0
  • 0
  • 8
Priorities

D
Priorities

  • 0
  • 0
  • 9

Forum statistics

Threads
199,015
Messages
2,784,652
Members
99,772
Latest member
samiams
Recent bookmarks
0

chuckroast

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 2, 2023
Messages
2,391
Location
All Over The Place
Format
Multi Format
Can I ask: what is it about stainless steel that makes it OK for avoiding bromide drag that does not apply to plastic reels and what is the effect of the reel being adjustable, i.e. if you have a non adjustable plastic reel does this change things or is the secret solely in the stainless steel?

As you point out below, so much of this is guesswork but ... I have found that the less the film is in contact with whatever supports it, the lower the risk of drag. Plastic reels have high ridges along the spiral groove that film sits in. The Nikor reels, in particular, have good spacing between wind layers and a relatively low support profile.

Is the secret of your success the height of the reel above the bottom of the tank, if so then presumably an empty reel below the reel with film would work? If it doesn't work then what is it about a lower reel that differentiates it from the success of the inverted cone

This likely would work just fine assuming the tank is large enough to accommodate 2 stacked reels. I use 1/2 gal Kodak rubber tanks so the inverted funnel trick suggests itself.

Just as an interesting aside The ShootFilmLikeABoss(SFLAB) presenter appears to have made a success of what appears to be almost non existent agitation i.e. 2x one inversion agitations in an hour ( one at the beginning and one at 30 mins)
Is this pure luck? I don't suppose we'll ever know unless someone were to do this at least several dozen times to see what the success rate was?


I suspect that's why he's getting such flat contrast. I do an initial 2min continuous agitation which - again - seems to help resist drag and to kick of a process that gives me good mid-tone contrast. I hold that as a constant. I fiddle contrast by varying two things: Switching from Stand to EMA and/or changing developer dilution.
That's what causes my puzzlement as I said We just don't seem to know what determines success or failure I admit that I'd be nervous about only 2 inversions in an hour and maybe that's why the negatives look a bit flat but as SFLAB says it might be fixed in the darkroom. He doesn't say how but I assume he thinks that a higher grade of paper would work.

He is the sort of person who may well make prints from D23 and Rodinal negatives in a future video


Thanks

pentaxuser

This inability to precisely predict what causes drag is what made me do such extensive testing. When I found what worked, I stuck with it. There are almost certainly other dev/time/agitation/suspension techniques that would work as well. That's why I keep saying - no one should try semistand or EMA unless they're willing to put some time into honing the technique for themselves. So many people here (and elsewhere) try it casually, never bother to do the work, and then complain that it doesn't work. This is a fiddly technique to squeeze the last little bit out of certain kinds of scenes (see Post #22). The good news is that once you get this dialed it, it's highly repeatable.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2023
Messages
1,189
Location
Wilammette Valley, Oregon
Format
35mm RF
All techniques are misguided if one does not take the time to master them. It took me the better part of a year to find and control for the things that drive bromide drag.

I fail to understand why anyone would want to throw that kind of technical challenge into their workflow when the effects sought can be far more easily accomplished with a different developer - Like Pyrocat HD, which doesn't have the same issues.
 

albireo

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
1,414
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
For the first time I tried stand developing a roll of 120 HP5+ in Rodinal 1:100 fo 60 minutes. I agitated for 30 secs at the beginning and again after 30 minutes. The film has an uneven line down its entire length with slightly more development one side than the other. All I can think of is that the developer and water did not properly mix and the developer 'sank' to the bottom of the tank in some way. Any thoughts, please?

Is this HP5+ in Rodinal 1:100 stand a combination you are familiar with? It doesn't seem to be one of the modes of use recommended by the manufacturer, eg


bGzgTZA.png


Lacking any specific needs (eg unknown film; very expired film; experimental processing of multiple different film rolls in the same tank; emergency processing in conditions of difficult temperature control) I'd avoid stand and semistand development altogether, as I've only seen very mediocre results being produced with it. And yes, gradients of uneven development, lines of various kind, overdeveloped borders are a common artefact.

I'd follow Ilford's guidelines for your next roll and try 1:50 at 10 or 11 minutes (even 9 as a ballpark if taking pictures in full sun), regularly inverted. With 120 rolls, try gentle inversions for the 1st minute, followed by 3 raps of the tank, and then 2 inversions at the start of every minute. It's not a lot of work, honestly.

Do stay with Rodinal though - the results Rodinal or its clones can give (in my experience, especially in 120 format) used at 1:50 on well exposed material are astounding, far better than any stand/semi-stand results I've seen.
 

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
12,033
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format
Andrew, can I ask: In what ways was Rodinal no match for Pyrocat HD

Thanks

pentaxuser

Extreme edge effects, if that is what one is after.
 

chuckroast

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 2, 2023
Messages
2,391
Location
All Over The Place
Format
Multi Format
I fail to understand why anyone would want to throw that kind of technical challenge into their workflow when the effects sought can be far more easily accomplished with a different developer - Like Pyrocat HD, which doesn't have the same issues.

I use Pyrocat-HD extensively for almost everything. However, in and of itself, it cannot do all four of the things I cited previously when agitated normally at normal dilutions. You're not going to get full shadow speed, enhanced edge sharpness, expanded mid-tone local contrast, and highlight compensation all at once that way.

You can get these things one at a time:

  • Higher dilution will increase highlight compensation effects at the cost of overall contrast reduction. This also reduces effective EI.

  • Reducing development time will rein in long SBRs at the expense of mid tone contrast (this is a real killer and why strict Zone System controls don't work to produce good images in many cases). This also reduces effective EI.

  • Normal dilution and agitation will not give you the edge transition effects of semistand or EMA.

  • It's possible to get full EI but that requires extended development. If you use normal dilution and standard agitation, you will blow the highlights out for any normal or greater SBR.

  • You can try two bath Pyrocat, but my experience with it is that it yields highly compressed tonal range and has a tendency to underdevelop severely. I stipulate that I did not pursue it deeply and this could just be my failure to dial it in well.
I've never understood the heat this topic draws. These techniques are not some sort alchemist's magick. Once mastered, they are just additional tools in the toolbox of a serious photographer. People should use what works for them.

This whole subject will never make sense until/unless someone:

  • Spends time really understanding how film develops - something Kachel has described well in his articles - and therefore why "normal" development techniques are compromise between shadow speed, mid-tone contrast, and highlight control. (For the record, Kachel is no fan of seminstand or EMA, either.)

  • Spends time actually trying low agitation/high diluton schemes to the point of actually making them work.

  • Spends time understanding where these techniques do- and do not make sense.
We are talking about squeezing out the very last bit out of the quality curve here. That means we're on asymptote of the effort-results curve. The cost (in time) is high, to get subtle but very rich returns.
 
Last edited:

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
12,033
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format
Pyrocat-HD can also bugger up your negatives with stand development, if you are sloppy. Again, no matter how experienced you are with this technique, things can still go sideways. Semi-stand (with at least one agitation cycle halfway...I prefer two, a third of the way as the differences are very subtle) is safer. And... I only employ this technique when I want to emphasise texture. I still shoot a back up just in case, which is much easier with sheet film.
 

chuckroast

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 2, 2023
Messages
2,391
Location
All Over The Place
Format
Multi Format
Is this HP5+ in Rodinal 1:100 stand a combination you are familiar with? It doesn't seem to be one of the modes of use recommended by the manufacturer, eg


bGzgTZA.png

Low agitation/high dilution is not "recommended" by any manufacturer. As a parallel example, no auto manufacturer "recommends" boring out the heads, blueprinting the engine, and tweaking the control software. But that's what any number of advanced gearheads do to maximize performance.

Low agitation/high dilution is a technique that goes back 100-ish years. I got interested in it because of its claimed virtues knowing that modern films work very differently than films a century ago and that it would take some work to find out what actually would work (if anything).

I've never used Rodinal, so I cannot comment from experience. But,after looking at the OP's question, it feels to me that the developer needs to be diluted somewhat more and the film needs more initial agitation. But, like I said, that's a guess, since I have not tried it myself.
Lacking any specific needs (eg unknown film; very expired film; experimental processing of multiple different film rolls in the same tank; emergency processing in conditions of difficult temperature control) I'd avoid stand and semistand development altogether, as I've only seen very mediocre results being produced with it. And yes, gradients of uneven development, lines of various kind, overdeveloped borders are a common artefact.


You may- or may not be aware of this, but that is exactly what camera shops used to do. They would take all their film, hang it and dunk it in D-23 and let it sit. Then they'd give it another agitation and let is sit in developer overnight. Different emulsions, unknown age, unknown exposure. They did this exactly because the technique is so forgiving for things like film age and exposure. I would note that they likely avoided drag because the film was hung vertically in deep tanks with plenty of developer. Also, within reason, long development is fairly insensitive to time and temperature. I've done it from 45mins to 24 hours without remarkable differences in the negatives.
 

albireo

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
1,414
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
As a parallel example, no auto manufacturer "recommends" boring out the heads, blueprinting the engine, and tweaking the control software.

That's because car makers need to manufacture a carefully balanced product that responds to the need of a well designed, ideally large, user base, with stringent requirements in terms of described performance, maintenance requirements, planned average usage, and safety. In general, mainstream automobiles are not manufactured and marketed to squeeze ultimate performance from the electronics and mechanics, but excellent, repeatable performance for the vast majority of users.

For many of these users, the purpose of buying a car is to provide a means to reliably commute to work with the smallest possible number of failures, or to e.g. reach the Amalfi Coast in safety and comfort and allow the owners to enjoy the destination once there.

Mass produced cars, again in general, are not designed for the obsessive tinkerer to race with their friends on a Nascar track and brag about the car's performance and telemetry later at home - too small a user base to be commercially interesting.

Similarly, with film and processing, personally I think the purpose of the medium is to get out of the way as much as possible and provide a reproducible means to fixing an idea onto paper or in a scanned file.

When the light is great, and the composition works, the magic is there, so personally all I want from the film and the developer is to do their work reproducibly and reliably. Adding stochasticity in the workflow, attempting to seek the minuscule technical advantages stand/semistand development may give, at the expense of introducing several other technical issues, is misguided for my use case.

Of course, it is perfectly understandable if someone wishes to make stochasticity and randomness an important part of their art. Plenty of fascinating examples in music.
 
Last edited:

chuckroast

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 2, 2023
Messages
2,391
Location
All Over The Place
Format
Multi Format
Pyrocat-HD can also bugger up your negatives with stand development, if you are sloppy. Again, no matter how experienced you are with this technique, things can still go sideways. Semi-stand (with at least one agitation cycle halfway...I prefer two, a third of the way as the differences are very subtle) is safer. And... I only employ this technique when I want to emphasise texture. I still shoot a back up just in case, which is much easier with sheet film.

I've increasingly moved in this direction as well. The only thing is, I find two agitations (rather than one midpoint) raises mid-tone contrast noticeably and somewhat higher developer dilution may be needed to prevent this from going out of bounds.

I also like the effect with textured subjects. I would note though, that if a scene already has a lot of texture, doing this can give the image a graphic arts/cartoon kind of effect. It's potentially aesthetically interesting, but can quickly become overdone.

For example, I shot this in late afternoon light on a cloudy day and the scene had almost no local contrast at all. I used long/low agitation to crank that up. Whether one likes this or not is a matter of taste. (I kind of do like it):


1698162434790.png
 
Last edited:

chuckroast

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 2, 2023
Messages
2,391
Location
All Over The Place
Format
Multi Format
That's because car makers need to manufacture a carefully balanced product that responds to the need of a well designed, ideally large, user base, with stringent requirements in terms of described performance, maintenance requirements, planned average usage, and safety. In general, mainstream automobiles and are not manufactured and marketed to squeeze ultimate performance from the electronics and mechanics, but excellent, repeatable performance for the vast majority of users.

For many of said users, the purpose of buying a car is to provide a means to reliably commute to work with the smallest possible number of failures, or to e.g. reach the Amalfi Coast in safety and comfort and allow the owners to enjoy the destination once there.

Mass produced cars, again in general, are not designed for the obsessive tinkerer to race with their friends on a Nascar track and brag about the car's performance and telemetry later at home - too small a user base to be commercially interesting.

Similarly, with film and processing, personally I think the purpose of the medium is to get out of the way as much as possible and provide a reproducible means to fixing an idea onto paper or in a scanned file.

When the light is great, and the composition works, the magic is there, so personally all I want from the film and the developer is to do their work reproducibly and reliably. Adding stochasticity in the workflow, attempting to seek the minuscule technical advantages stand/semistand development may give, at the expense or introducing several other technical issues, is misguided for my use case.

Of course, it is perfectly understandable if someone wishes to make stochasticity and randomness an important part of their art. Plenty of fascinating examples in music.

So .. you have a strong view on this, which I respect. I wonder, though, have you actually tried it for yourself?
 

albireo

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
1,414
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
So .. you have a strong view on this, which I respect.

If I may - it sounds like you have strong views on this yourself - as you've chosen to address my own post on this topic directly. Something I've not done with yours. And it goes without saying, I respect your views, too!
 

cerber0s

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2020
Messages
605
Location
Sweden
Format
Multi Format
FWIW, I really like the results I’ve been getting with stand development. Both with Rodinal and 510-Pyro.
 

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
12,033
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format
FWIW, I really like the results I’ve been getting with stand development. Both with Rodinal and 510-Pyro.

That's great and at the end of the day, it's what truly matters.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,983
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
FWIW, I really like the results I’ve been getting with stand development. Both with Rodinal and 510-Pyro.

I agree and you even showed us the result of it with the now famous dog picture and look at what trouble that got you into😆

pentaxuser
 

chuckroast

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 2, 2023
Messages
2,391
Location
All Over The Place
Format
Multi Format
If I may - it sounds like you have strong views on this yourself - as you've chosen to address my own post on this topic directly. Something I've not done with yours. And it goes without saying, I respect your views, too!

I actually don't have that strong a view. This is just one of many techniques I use. I'm just curious if the people who do not care of this technique have actually tried it, that's all. No agenda and no criticism was intended.

(One of the fundamental problems of the Internet as an asynchronous and isloating medium is that it does not foster discussion, but instead promotes debate. I assure all present that my interest here is one of curiosity not argumentation.)
 

albireo

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
1,414
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
I actually don't have that strong a view. This is just one of many techniques I use. I'm just curious if the people who do not care of this technique have actually tried it, that's all.

I don't know about everyone else but I've tried stand development many times using Rodinal and never once liked the results. I've always found 1:50 regularly agitated so much better (in my own workflow).

A matter of taste of course!
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,983
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Thanks for your answers,chuckroast. I asked about the 2 reel solution as I have a 120 Jobo tank that will take 2 135 reels and if the film were to be 135 then the lower empty reel will give me the kind of space underneath of which you speak Trying a 120 film in the 120 tank will not afford me that luxury of space underneath. There would be some space but I'd need to devise something

I must admit that I do wonder if as little as 1 inversion at time zero and one at 30mins is enough to avoid bromide drag though SFLAB managed it but then again instinct tells me to give an extra 5 inversions in the Ilford wash method even though all tests seem to indicate it is. Proof perhaps that instinct and a feeling for what is needed may not always be right

pentaxuser
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,983
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Extreme edge effects, if that is what one is after.

Thanks, Andy. I have a feeling that I may have read your answer wrongly I thought of "no match" in your reply as meaning Rodinal was unable to produce as good edge effects as Pyrocat HD. I had never thought of Pyrocat HD producing better edge effects than Rodinal but it may be that you meant in fact that Pyrocat HD does not match Rodinal in its effectiveness at producing edge effect.

In other words Rodinal is in fact better at extreme edge effects than Pyrocat HD. Is that the correct interpretation of what you wrote?

Thanks

pentaxuser
 

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
12,033
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format
Thanks, Andy. I have a feeling that I may have read your answer wrongly I thought of "no match" in your reply as meaning Rodinal was unable to produce as good edge effects as Pyrocat HD. I had never thought of Pyrocat HD producing better edge effects than Rodinal but it may be that you meant in fact that Pyrocat HD does not match Rodinal in its effectiveness at producing edge effect.

In other words Rodinal is in fact better at extreme edge effects than Pyrocat HD. Is that the correct interpretation of what you wrote?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Sorry for not being clearer. I meant pyrocat-hd is better at emphasising edge effects than Rodinal.
 

cerber0s

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2020
Messages
605
Location
Sweden
Format
Multi Format
Thanks for your answers,chuckroast. I asked about the 2 reel solution as I have a 120 Jobo tank that will take 2 135 reels and if the film were to be 135 then the lower empty reel will give me the kind of space underneath of which you speak Trying a 120 film in the 120 tank will not afford me that luxury of space underneath. There would be some space but I'd need to devise something

I must admit that I do wonder if as little as 1 inversion at time zero and one at 30mins is enough to avoid bromide drag though SFLAB managed it but then again instinct tells me to give an extra 5 inversions in the Ilford wash method even though all tests seem to indicate it is. Proof perhaps that instinct and a feeling for what is needed may not always be right

pentaxuser

When I stand develop, or semi stand really, I first pre soak the film in water for 5 minutes. I then agitate continuously for the first full minute. When I agitate during the development I always do four full inversions while simultaneously rotating the tank, the four inversions take 10 seconds in total.

Don’t hesitate to increase the number of agitations if you feel you need to, like one every 20 minutes.

And I never go above a temperature of 20 degrees.

I don’t usually see much bromide drag, if any. I thought I did once, but it was the effects of depleted fixer.

Bah, I see that I should have quoted @Wrb
Sorry @pentaxuser :smile:
 

chuckroast

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 2, 2023
Messages
2,391
Location
All Over The Place
Format
Multi Format
Sorry for not being clearer. I meant pyrocat-hd is better at emphasising edge effects than Rodinal.

I'm still fiddling with it, but try D-23 1+9 with 0.5g/l sodium hydroxide added (lye). You get really great compensation effects and razor sharp negatives. I'm still not clear on whether this produces good edge effects, though.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom