Stand development failure

[Rolleiflexible]

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.

Matt, really? I don’t find that it produces “unusual results,” to be used only in “very particular circumstances.” Which results? In what circumstances?

I process all my film (TX, Kentmere, Efke, Fomapan) in Rodinal using the same semi-stand process: Leave it in <1:100 solution for an hour, with an agitation halfway. I have never had a failure, and the results are better than I obtain with timed agitated processes.

I suspect the people who have problems with stand development are dropping a stitch along the way somehow. It is important to presoak the film for a couple of minutes. It is important to mix the Rodinal well. It is important to use good reels. (Mine are Hewes and they serve well.)

I prefer it over agitated development because it is so forgiving. Water temperature does not matter. Development time does not matter much. Exposure values do not matter much. I can shoot with different EVs on the same roll and not worry about tailoring development times and concentrations to the EV. I can walk away and do other stuff while the film is in the developer.

 

[chuckroast]

Matt, really? I don’t find that it produces “unusual results,” to be used only in “very particular circumstances.” Which results? In what circumstances?

I process all my film (TX, Kentmere, Efke, Fomapan) in Rodinal using the same semi-stand process: Leave it in <1:100 solution for an hour, with an agitation halfway. I have never had a failure, and the results are better than I obtain with timed agitated processes.

I suspect the people who have problems with stand development are dropping a stitch along the way somehow. It is important to presoak the film for a couple of minutes. It is important to mix the Rodinal well. It is important to use good reels. (Mine are Hewes and they serve well.)

I prefer it over agitated development because it is so forgiving. Water temperature does not matter. Development time does not matter much. Exposure values do not matter much. I can shoot with different EVs on the same roll and not worry about tailoring development times and concentrations to the EV. I can walk away and do other stuff while the film is in the developer.

This has also been my experience. The process works well over a wide range of subjects and SBRs, is very forgiving except that you have to really dial in film support to avoid drag and streaking byproducts. After over 3 years of working with this, I've only found one film-dev combo that absolutely did not work: Plus-X 2x3 sheet film from the late 1970s in Pyrocat-HD. Oh, and I've successfully developed film that went out of date in 1961.

As always, the pictures are what matter. I took the time to work my way through part of your portfolio and it's just stunning. This is gorgeous work and anyone claiming semistand doesn't work or that it's only for the rare case, needs to look at these.

Again, everyone finds their own way and if semistand isn't for them, there's no foul there. I'd at least agree with @MattKing insofar as this technique isn't for beginners or someone who has not yet mastered conventional development yet.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I'd at least agree with @MattKing insofar as this technique isn't for beginners or someone who has not yet mastered conventional development yet.

Agreed. I spent decades with timers and thermometers and the Massive Dev chart before trying stand development. And I suspect that my results with stand processing would be less satisfactory, had I not first mastered conventional processes. (And thank you for the compliment — you are kind.)

 

[albireo]

I don’t find that it produces “unusual results,” to be used only in “very particular circumstances.” Which results? In what circumstances?

You hinted at some of those circumstances yourself in your last paragraph:

I prefer it over agitated development because it is so forgiving. Water temperature does not matter. Development time does not matter much. Exposure values do not matter much. I can shoot with different EVs on the same roll and not worry about tailoring development times and concentrations to the EV. I can walk away and do other stuff while the film is in the developer.

Those are pretty much the only situations in which using Rodinal stand/semistand might arguably give more usable results than using it properly inverted in 1:25, 1:50, 1:75.

In my own experience, there are only 3 potential advantages to Rodinal stand/semistand compared to its standard counterpart regimes:

• Extreme compensation. A pity, really, to waste the beautiful extended linear response up to the tiny shoulder one gets with e.g. Foma 100 in Rodinal 1:50 only to get the sloppy compressed highlight mess that most people get when stand developing it. But it's a matter of taste of course and might suit one's artistic vision or certain light conditions.
• Mackie lines/chemical 'unsharp mask'. This is again a matter of personal taste. I find prints from stand developed negatives look pretty unsightly when observed at normal viewing distance. They do look sharper with your nose up close, but I don't personally need to stick my nose onto the print for the kind of photography I like. Also, I wonder if this effect is sought more by traditional wet printers who attempt to make up for any sharpness deficiencies in their enlarger setup via emphasized edge effects.
• A little higher shadow detail - easily solved by exposing that negative with more care instead of trying to solve post-hoc.

In general (and I'm addressing this to OP who is possibly new to Rodinal) I'd encourage anyone who is just starting with Rodinal to instead approach it by treating it just like any other developer, that is to say using good care when exposing and when developing, and inverting regularly. Of course then experimenting and branching out to try alternative methods can be fun. For my taste, the three effects achievable above are advantageous, indeed, only in very particular circumstances and the price to pay to seek those minor advantages can be very high.

TL&DNR - Rodinal is a fantastic developer and deserves to be tried in non-homeopathic dilutions on carefully exposed negatives to see what it's capable of.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Rodinal is a fantastic developer and deserves to be tried in non-homeopathic dilutions on carefully exposed negatives to see what it's capable of.

I did, for decades. Maybe I am just a dummy but I see no visual differences between Rodinal as a stand developer and as a timed agitated developer. Maybe it would matter if I were shooting 35mm. But with 120 roll film, I see no difference in the negatives.

 

[pentaxuser]

Leave it in <1:100 solution for an hour, with an agitation halfway. I have never had a failure, and the results are better than I obtain with timed agitated processes.

Yes the results people seem to get cover the whole range from "not working, streaks. OK sometimes and right up to never a failure or sign of the dreaded bromide drag" and I scratch my head as to what goes wrong in the failures . It's almost as if stand or semi-stand works sometimes but nobody knows exactly why

Anyway head scratching over, can I ask Sanders what your semi-stand consists of in terms of length of initial agitation and number of inversions at the halfway point?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I find that reduced agitation development leads to a very different response from most films - if I was a densitometer user I would most likely refer to a substantially modified characteristic curve.
In particular, usually I find the mid-tone and highlight response to be distorted from the response that looks "natural" to me.
I am sure there are some who prefer it that way - and it may be that the relatively unusual nature of Rodinal may suit that - but I remain convinced that a choice of reduced agitation procedures should be a purposive ones

 

[chuckroast]

I find that reduced agitation development leads to a very different response from most films - if I was a densitometer user I would most likely refer to a substantially modified characteristic curve.
In particular, usually I find the mid-tone and highlight response to be distorted from the response that looks "natural" to me.
I am sure there are some who prefer it that way - and it may be that the relatively unusual nature of Rodinal may suit that - but I remain convinced that a choice of reduced agitation procedures should be a purposive ones

I'd almost bet (and I've never tested it because my densitometer cannot handle Pyro stain), you would see three H/D effects:

• Earlier sensitivity to exposure on the left end of the curve thereby giving you full shadow detail as compared to the same film exposed at box ASA and processed normally.
  
  
• An increase slope (gamma) in the middle tones
  
  
• A flattening of the highlights varying with dilution agitation strategy

 

[MattKing]

An increase slope (gamma) in the middle tones

I usually see the opposite when I see other's reduced agitation work - thus my dislike.

 

[chuckroast]

I usually see the opposite when I see other's reduced agitation work - thus my dislike.

If you could point me to examples, I would love to examine them, either here or in the wild.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Yes the results people seem to get cover the whole range from "not working, streaks. OK sometimes and right up to never a failure or sign of the dreaded bromide drag" and I scratch my head as to what goes wrong in the failures . It's almost as if stand or semi-stand works sometimes but nobody knows exactly why

Anyway head scratching over, can I ask Sanders what your semi-stand consists of in terms of length of initial agitation and number of inversions at the halfway point?

Thanks

pentaxuser

I am pretty relaxed about times and dilutions. To answer your question: I'll mix maybe 4ml of Rodinal into 450ml of water. I agitate normally for maybe 20-30 seconds, then let it sit for 25-30 minutes. The second agitation is short and gentle -- I just turn the canister over 6-7 times and sit it back down. Then another half-hour of sitting on the counter. Dump the Rodinal, water stop, Kodafix for 7-8 minutes, then wash.

When I learned stand development, I read that it was important to presoak the film for a few minutes. I read (I cannot say from experience) that the water saturating the emulsion helps to even out the effects of Rodinal on the film. This made some sense to me, as it echoed the need to presoak film using JOBO rotary processing (with its constant agitation) for the same reason. All I can say, from years of experience, is that presoaking the film for a few minutes followed by the process in the preceding paragraph, for me, yields optimal negatives every time.

It may be that I am just a dummie. But having processed many thousands of rolls over the years using timed agitated processes (small tank and JOBO rotary), and several thousands more rolls using stand development, I cannot see a difference.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Sanders. I will take it that as you made on reference to it that in those thousands of rolls, signs of bromide drag never appeared either, unless you inform me otherwise Can I ask how many if any of those rolls were 35 mm film?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

If you could point me to examples, I would love to examine them, either here or in the wild.

I tend to discount my observations about things like this in digital images - simply because there are too many unknown variables.
Mostly I've observed the mid-tone tonal distribution distortion in darkroom prints.
Like I said - that distortion appeals to some.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Thanks Sanders. I will take it that as you made on reference to it that in those thousands of rolls, signs of bromide drag never appeared either, unless you inform me otherwise Can I ask how many if any of those rolls were 35 mm film?

Thanks

pentaxuser

The very first time I tried stand development, I got irregular results which might have been "bromide drag." Then I switched to "semi-stand" with an agitation halfway through, and presoaked, and have had no problems since.

I was referring to 120 roll film, most of which was 400TX. During the period, I probably souped less than a hundred rolls of 35mm (nearly always Fomapan 200) and TBH I do not recall whether I stand-processed any of them. I also shot tons of 4x5 and 5x7 sheets (320 Tri-X and some Bergger 200) but I processed the sheets always in JOBO rotary tanks.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the reply in #89, Sanders

pentaxuser

 

[chuckroast]

The issues that people have with semi stand,,, is purely based upon the FILM... not the chemical, the equipment used, if you study the failures, youll notice that they will most likely be leaning into the tabular grain film.

I dunno about that. The worst streaking/drag I ever saw came from Plus-X that went out of date in the 1970s ... but only with Pyrocat-HD. The same film in D-23 was fine. I have definitely noticed that TMX seems to run more toward streaking but that is based on really minimal testing. Since I don't like the look of tabular films, it's kind a nonissue for me.

My testing suggests that the strongest predictor of drag is how the film is supported and how far away from the bottom of the container it is resting during the standing period. Extensive supports around the edges of the film - framed sheet film hangers, the Yankee sheet film contraption, plastic roll-film reels with high ridges, metal reels spaced too closely - tend to be highly implicated in drag. Hanging sheet film sideways with a minimal contact hanger (like a Kodak #6) or supporting roll-film reels off the bottom of a tank reduced drag issues to zero.

I am also in alignment with @Rolleiflexible that doing a presoak, initial agitation from 90sec-2min, and one midpoint agitation also figure prominently into eliminating drag or streaking.

Let it be noted that this was the practice of the old photoshop labs that dropped their film into D-23 hanging vertically into a large tank, agitated a couple times and let it sit. Then they did it again before going home for the night, and pulled the film in the morning. Deep tank + a couple of agitations and you get a development scheme that gives you full shadow speed, is insensitive to dev time, insensitive to temp, and manages the highlights well. They were able to mix different emulsions into the tank at the same time and get good results.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Stand development was originally used with glass plates, which were placed in a horizontal position in the developer. The development by-products (which are heavier than the solution) cannot flow away because they are at right angles to gravity. So, since they stay where they form, highlights are restrained. If you try stand development with roll films held vertically, the by-products are free to "fall" down the surface of the film, causing streaks.

So, it's probably not a good idea.

 

[MattKing]

Stand development was originally used with glass plates, which were placed in a horizontal position in the developer. The development by-products (which are heavier than the solution) cannot flow away because they are at right angles to gravity. So, since they stay where they form, highlights are restrained. If you try stand development with roll films held vertically, the by-products are free to "fall" down the surface of the film, causing streaks.

So, it's probably not a good idea.

Welcome to Photrio.
Please consider sharing some information about yourself in the Introduction sub-forum: https://www.photrio.com/forum/forums/introduce-yourself-to-the-photrio-community.35/
Although, taking note of your screen name, I guess I should request that such an introduction be in English, not Latin.

 

[pentaxuser]

Stand development was originally used with glass plates, which were placed in a horizontal position in the developer. The development by-products (which are heavier than the solution) cannot flow away because they are at right angles to gravity. So, since they stay where they form, highlights are restrained. If you try stand development with roll films held vertically, the by-products are free to "fall" down the surface of the film, causing streaks.

So from your explanation above, sheet film developed in a tray should be OK? However if as you say the development by-products cannot flow and by doing so restrain the highlights thus but stay there doing no harm where do they go afterwards, having done no harm while sitting on the surface of the film for the duration of the development time of 1 hour?

I had thought that it was the non removal of these development by-products , known as bromide drag that did the harm?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[chuckroast]

So from your explanation above, sheet film developed in a tray should be OK? However if as you say the development by-products cannot flow and by doing so restrain the highlights thus but stay there doing no harm where do they go afterwards, having done no harm while sitting on the surface of the film for the duration of the development time of 1 hour?

I had thought that it was the non removal of these development by-products , known as bromide drag that did the harm?

Thanks

pentaxuser

I think there is a world of difference between the emulsions used with the old glass plates and modern films, so I wouldn't extrapolate much without trying it myself.

Everyone's technique varies enough that one rule will likely not fit the bill for everyone. That said - as I've mentioned before - I have found two things to be predictors for successful semistand/EMA:

1. Elevate the film off the bottom of the tank
2. Minimize film contact points with sheet film / use reels with minimal height spirals for roll films

The need to elevate the film off the bottom suggests that gravity plays a role in having the development byproducts removed from the film. I suppose if you have deep enough trays you could do this with film laying face down in the tray and it probably would work. But handling multiple sheets in a tray is a pain. Plus, you need a biiiiiig tray.

Note also that my experience is with using a fair amount of developer (2 litres) for each development session. I've no idea how this might affect the propensity for drag, if any.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

So from your explanation above, sheet film developed in a tray should be OK? However if as you say the development by-products cannot flow and by doing so restrain the highlights thus but stay there doing no harm where do they go afterwards, having done no harm while sitting on the surface of the film for the duration of the development time of 1 hour?

I had thought that it was the non removal of these development by-products , known as bromide drag that did the harm?

Thanks

pentaxuser

No, it's the movement of the by-products (caused by gravity) that causes the streaks. The by-products are acidic and inhibit the development process, so when they stream down the film on reels, they leave areas of less density in their wake. In printing, these show up as dark streaks. This is essentially the same as "bromide drag", which can be seen in old B&W motion pictures, especially newsreels from WWII. This rarely appeared in Hollywood films, because agitation was carefully controlled. Newsreel and combat films were not given such careful treatment. You can see the streaks in footage of airplanes silhouetted against the sky. Where there is something dark, the exposure is less, and the developer does not yield so much bromide, so the areas above and below the dark area receive more development, and appear as broad light streaks. If the developer is given gentle agitation, the by-products are diffused and don't cause streaks.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I think there is a world of difference between the emulsions used with the old glass plates and modern films, so I wouldn't extrapolate much without trying it myself.

Everyone's technique varies enough that one rule will likely not fit the bill for everyone. That said - as I've mentioned before - I have found two things to be predictors for successful semistand/EMA:

1. Elevate the film off the bottom of the tank
2. Minimize film contact points with sheet film / use reels with minimal height spirals for roll films

The need to elevate the film off the bottom suggests that gravity plays a role in having the development byproducts removed from the film. I suppose if you have deep enough trays you could do this with film laying face down in the tray and it probably would work. But handling multiple sheets in a tray is a pain. Plus, you need a biiiiiig tray.

Note also that my experience is with using a fair amount of developer (2 litres) for each development session. I've no idea how this might affect the propensity for drag, if any.

The differences in the emulsions are not a factor. The fact that the bromide can't move when the glass plate is perfectly horizontal prevents the streaks. I'm sure that some agitation was used even in these cases. I use gentle agitation, two inversions once per minute.

 

[chuckroast]

The differences in the emulsions are not a factor. The fact that the bromide can't move when the glass plate is perfectly horizontal prevents the streaks. I'm sure that some agitation was used even in these cases.

I cannot comment on glass plates as I have never used them, but I have absolutely found that propensity for drag/streaking can be affected by the film/dev combon. In particular, old 2x3 Plus-X sheet film in Pyrocat-HD streaks but it doesn't in D-23 when semistand developed.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

No, it's the movement of the by-products that causes the streaks. The by-products are acidic and inhibit the development process, so when they stream down the film on reels, they leave areas of less density in their wake. In printing, these show up as dark streaks. This is essentially the same as "bromide drag", which can be seen in old B&W motion pictures, especially newsreels from WWII. This rarely appeared in Hollywood films, because agitation was carefully controlled. Newsreel and combat films were not given such careful treatment. You can see the streaks in footage of airplanes silhouetted against the sky. Where there is something dark, the developer does not yield so much bromide, so the areas above and below the dark area recieve more development, and appear as broad light streaks.

I don't mean to sound difficult, but a lot of what you write hardly sounds credible. I am not a scientist, but your suggestions of how molecules flow across immersed surfaces do not sound right. Since you are a newcomer writing under a screen name, it would be easier to give your observations credence if you would be kind enough to offer citations to supporting texts so we can put them into a logical construct, instead of the ipse dixits of your current posts.

 

[chuckroast]

No, it's the movement of the by-products that causes the streaks. The by-products are acidic and inhibit the development process, so when they stream down the film on reels, they leave areas of less density in their wake. In printing, these show up as dark streaks. This is essentially the same as "bromide drag", which can be seen in old B&W motion pictures, especially newsreels from WWII. This rarely appeared in Hollywood films, because agitation was carefully controlled. Newsreel and combat films were not given such careful treatment. You can see the streaks in footage of airplanes silhouetted against the sky. Where there is something dark, the exposure is less, and the developer does not yield so much bromide, so the areas above and below the dark area receive more development, and appear as broad light streaks.

Again, I have empirical experience to the contrary. Not that you're wrong (because I have no idea), but that you can absolutely have film in suspension in a tank for an hour, agitate only once at the beginning and once at the midpoint, and not experience streaking.