Stand development failure

[retina_restoration]

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

Absolutely true, whether you use "stand" development or not.

 

[pentaxuser]

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

Thanks Andy, So I did get you right the first time. Everyone seems to know that Rodinal is renowned for its edge effects or so I thought but this seems less well known in the case of Pyrocat HD. Another of its lights hidden under a bushel perhaps?

Or maybe I am misunderstanding what edge effects are as chuckroast is saying that this is not the same as razor sharp negatives I had always thought that edge effects equates to sharp negatives

What's the essential differences between the two

pentaxuser

 

[250swb]

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.)

Well said, and if we correct the car analogy that 'good enough' is preferable to 'excellent' it accounts for that one spanner in the tool box that may only get used once in a blue moon but that still means it's essential to have.

 

[albireo]

Well said, and if we correct the car analogy that 'good enough' is preferable to 'excellent' it accounts for that one spanner in the tool box that may only get used once in a blue moon but that still means it's essential to have.

The car analogy was never about 'good enough' vs 'excellent'. It was about 'equally good at multiple things at once for the biggest possible share of users' vs 'really good for one or a few parameters of theoretical interest to only a selected minority'.

Rodinal 1+50 is not 'good enough' just like Rodinal 'stand' is not 'excellent'.

Some people call the above a multivariate optimisation problem, but I'll leave it at that.

 

[chuckroast]

The car analogy was never about 'good enough' vs 'excellent'. It was about 'equally good at multiple things at once for the biggest possible share of users' vs 'really good for one or a few parameters of theoretical interest to only a selected minority'.

Rodinal 1+50 is not 'good enough' just like Rodinal 'stand' is not 'excellent'.

Some people call the above a multivariate optimisation problem, but I'll leave it at that.

Actually, the intent of the car analogy was none of the above My only point was that "manufacturer's recommendations" are designed to provide success and some level of consistency for most use cases the driver/photographer/painter et al may run into. But, with care and effort, one can usually do better than the manufacturer's recommendations.

As a more on-point example. The manufacturers "recommend" an EI for their films - it's the ASA rating. But it's consistently the case that using this number will give you thin negatives lacking shadow detail (assuming calibrated meters, shutters, thermometers ...) Derating the EI to 1/2 ASA and the underdeveloping 20% (again as recommended by the manufacturer) most often results in far better negatives overall - or at least negatives that have more meaningful shadow detail. (Whether these are "better" or not is a matter of opinion, I guess.)

Techniques like (semi)stand, EMA, divided development, SLIMT, unsharp masking and so forth all sit outside of "manufacturer's recommendations" yet provide some people useful outcomes.

The photographer who explores these things is no different than the gearhead doing a custom bore and blueprinting job on their engine. They are departing from "manufacturer's recommendations" to try and squeeze out the best possible performance for their respective environments.

P.S. I have an acquaintance that did just this sort of things with a local small block BMW racing team. He tweaked the software to try and get that last bit of performance from the cars which was considerably different than how they were shipped originally. At the last race of the year he was free to push the tunings to the limit because blowing up the engine would not end their racing season. THAT is a departing from "manufacturer's recommendations" writ large

 

[cerber0s]

At the last race of the year he was free to push the tunings to the limit because blowing up the engine would not end their racing season.

How did he do?

 

[chuckroast]

Thanks Andy, So I did get you right the first time. Everyone seems to know that Rodinal is renowned for its edge effects or so I thought but this seems less well known in the case of Pyrocat HD. Another of its lights hidden under a bushel perhaps?

Or maybe I am misunderstanding what edge effects are as chuckroast is saying that this is not the same as razor sharp negatives I had always thought that edge effects equates to sharp negatives

What's the essential differences between the two

pentaxuser

Edge effects occur in lines of transition between dark and light areas as the developer exhausts. This is the so-called "Mackie line". See:

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/RASS/rass.html

This has the psychological effect of making the image seem "sharper". It's notionally similar to applying an unsharp mask, though the mechanism is different.

Overall negative sharpness is determined by the nature of the film itself and the degree to which the developer exhibits solvent effect. For example, diluting D-23 beyond the usual stock or 1:1, reduces the amount of sodium sulfite in solution thereby reducing the solvent effect and increasing sharpness. It does so at the cost of making grain more visible (because the grain is now "sharper" since it's hasn't been nibbled at as much by solvent effect).

 

[chuckroast]

How did he do?

It's been some years, but I think they did pretty well. I don't recall them ever blowing the engine.

Progress requires experimentation, and - in the words of David Kachel - always go too far

 

[pentaxuser]

Edge effects occur in lines of transition between dark and light areas as the developer exhausts. This is the so-called "Mackie line". See:

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/RASS/rass.html

This has the psychological effect of making the image seem "sharper". It's notionally similar to applying an unsharp mask, though the mechanism is different.

Overall negative sharpness is determined by the nature of the film itself and the degree to which the developer exhibits solvent effect.

Thanks but it seems from what you are saying that the edge affects which many might think of as giving the effect of sharpness may look to be the same thing from the majority of viewers' point of view. However I admit that if Andrew O'Neill is talking of the same edge effects ie the so called "Mackie line " as yourself then I haven't been particularly aware that this was one area for Pyrocat HD was renown for

However this is maybe something that I would see if I had had experience of negs developed in Pyrocat HD


pentaxuser

 

[cerber0s]

Thanks but it seems from what you are saying that the edge affects which many might think of as giving the effect of sharpness may look to be the same thing from the majority of viewers' point of view. However I admit that if Andrew O'Neill is talking of the same edge effects ie the so called "Mackie line " as yourself then I haven't been particularly aware that this was one area for Pyrocat HD was renown for

However this is maybe something that I would see if I had had experience of negs developed in Pyrocat HD


pentaxuser

If the effect is what I think it is, you can see a pretty extreme example in the infamous dog photo. Look around her snout.

 

[chuckroast]

If the effect is what I think it is, you can see a pretty extreme example in the infamous dog photo. Look around her snout.

Where or where can I see this picture?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Where or where can I see this picture?

You can see it here

 

[chuckroast]

You can see it here

Aha! Yes, there does seem to be a bit of haloing which is kind of the extreme end of Mackie effect. I've seen this happen with semistand/EMA where a pile of brightly lit logs sit against a background of dark trees.

 

[MattKing]

As a more on-point example. The manufacturers "recommend" an EI for their films - it's the ASA rating. But it's consistently the case that using this number will give you thin negatives lacking shadow detail (assuming calibrated meters, shutters, thermometers ...)

Only in a very few specialized workflows. ISO speeds result in a much higher number of high quality prints for the greatest number of photographers in the widest variety of situations. Increasing the exposure tends to have a deleterious effect that outweighs the advantage of increased shadow detail.

 

[chuckroast]

Only in a very few specialized workflows. ISO speeds result in a much higher number of high quality prints for the greatest number of photographers in the widest variety of situations. Increasing the exposure tends to have a deleterious effect that outweighs the advantage of increased shadow detail.

Strict Zone System practitioners are apt to follow this 1/2 ASA approach, as confirmed by many independent denisometric tests by multiple individuals across many film and developer combos.

I realize this may not be your cup of tea and I am not strictly adherent to Zone System doctrine myself, but I don't think I'd dismiss it as "specialized workflow". Within the serious monochrome film community, Zone System represents a pretty significant mainstream workflow.

But all that is a distraction to the larger point: Among serious monochrome film photographers, it's entirely common and unremarkable to depart from "manufacturer's recommendations" (which is, after all, the topic under discussion here). Whether it's using a different EI, using non-recommended developer dilutions and - yes - changing agitation protocols, we're pretty comfortable "ignoring the doc".

What is really interesting (to me, anyway) is that back in ancient times when I first was a young photographer, pretty much no one took Kodak's published recommendation as gospel. They were understood to be points of departure. (Kodak was the only game in town when I started.) It's only been more recently that I've seen people demand more literal reading of the prescribed manufacturer's holy writings.

As always, there are many ways to work and I would never presume to tell others they are wrong if they are getting the outcomes they want.

 

[albireo]

Only in a very few specialized workflows. ISO speeds result in a much higher number of high quality prints for the greatest number of photographers in the widest variety of situations. Increasing the exposure tends to have a deleterious effect that outweighs the advantage of increased shadow detail.

Nonsense, Matt. By now you should know of the great Masonic IlfoKoFo* plot. It's quite clear what these pesky companies are up to: they're obfuscating the truth and hiding important information from their products' spec sheets in order to prevent us from getting those optimal ultra-sharp, highly compensating, Mackie-lined results we all crave.

Only to then push us to purchase more film and chemistry, and try again, in an endless loop of frustration that fills the coffers of these greedy capitalists.

Until.. Until some of us see the light, that is. I myself have recently joined the Church of St Adams the Semistander, and I am cleansed. I, too, am a believer! Join our ranks as we march with one voice to the gates of Rochester!

*Ilford,Kodak,Foma

 

[chuckroast]

Nonsense, Matt. By now you should know of the great Masonic IlfoKoFo* plot. It's quite clear what these pesky companies are up to: they're obfuscating the truth and hiding important information from their products' spec sheets in order to prevent us from getting those optimal ultra-sharp, highly compensating, Mackie-lined results we all crave.

Only to then push us purchase more film and chemistry, and try again, in an endless loop of frustration that fills the coffers of these greedy capitalists.

Until.. Until some of us see the light, that is. I myself have recently joined the Church of St Adams the Semistander, and I am cleansed. I, too, am a believer! Join our ranks as we march with one voice to the gates of Rochester!

*Ilford,Kodak,Foma

I knew it. Those pesky companies are all filled with lying, liars that lie!

On a serious note, let's at least agree that what is published by the manufacturer is a compromise targeted at "average" use. That is to say, they are making a judgment about tradeoffs between effective film speed, visible grain, Contrast Index, dynamic range, sharpness, tonal fidelity ... and what they choose is what they believe is the best compromise across all those dimensions. They are not some kind of inviolable standard.

If you've never had the pleasure of working in manufacturing or applied research, I'd encourage anyone interested to get a copy of Shanebrook's "Making Kodak Film" 2ed. The sheer complexity of film manufacturing really illustrates just how much of this tradeoff stuff you have to deal with.

 

[john_s]

Bromide is one of the development byproducts.
I don't think the oxidized developer (which is a tiny amount) will have much of an influence itself.

I wasn't thinking mainly of oxidation, which can be largely avoided by using a generous quantity of developer and avoiding aeration (e.g. rotating development). I was thinking of the byproducts of development: the byproducts of some developing agents are vigorous developers themselves, and some are the opposite. This presumably affects edge effects and I'm guessing unevenness which is generally called bromide drag. Some writers avoid the term bromide drag and use instead streaking as they're not sure if the cause is just bromide or developer byproducts. I've never experienced streaks myself despite using less agitation though I don't go as far as EMA.

On the subject of manufacturers' recommendations, even they suggest modification to EI and development time as necessary for desired results. If one has an ideological fear of changing EI from ISO, one can set ISO and alter placement. This can be as simple as "point your meter away from the sky when setting exposure" or full-blown spot metering along the lines of the zone system but not limited to it.

 

[250swb]

You can see it here

That looks more like dodging the snout given the extended area of lightening around it, it's not an edge effect, so if it's described as that it's deceptive.

 

[cliveh]

How can you evaluate stand development in combination with the other myriad of factors such as the type of developer, temperature, dilution, variation in agitation.

 

[chuckroast]

How can you evaluate stand development in combination with the other myriad of factors such as the type of developer, temperature, dilution, variation in agitation.

By holding the variables constant during testing and only changing one thing at a time.

That's why it took me the better part of a year to dial it in.


This is how I control for temperature:

tundra/devtimer

gitbucket.tundraware.com

 

[cerber0s]

That looks more like dodging the snout given the extended area of lightening around it, it's not an edge effect, so if it's described as that it's deceptive.

I don’t know what it is, but there was no dodging.

 

[mshchem]

Did EK or does Ilford recommend stand development?? I need to try this some time. I vaguely remember doing something similar where you cycle between developer, water, developer etc. I just can't stand to sit, or stand in this situation.

 

[MattKing]

Did EK or does Ilford recommend stand development?

No. They don't even reference it.
It is a specialized technique used for relatively unusual results in very particular circumstances.
And the results obtainable from it are liked by some, and disliked by others.

 

[chuckroast]

Did EK or does Ilford recommend stand development?? I need to try this some time. I vaguely remember doing something similar where you cycle between developer, water, developer etc. I just can't stand to sit, or stand in this situation.

Look upthread. There have been several days of discussion on "manufacturer's recommendations" and whether they may be ... err... avoided.