Stand development gave thin negatives

Dhar · Feb 10, 2007

I just developed my first few rolls of film in nearly two decades. Thanks to lurking around here and reading a lot, I'd become interested in stand development and wanted to try it. I also like going broad before I go deep in a subject, so I developed three rolls in three different developers. Some might say that's a bad idea, but I think it was instructive, as you'll see.

The three rolls of film are 35mm Promax 400 (some off brand that was cheap and therefore experiment-worthy). One developed in D-76, one in Rodinal, and one in pyrocat-HD. The D-76 was in my wife's point and shoot, which I think overexposed the film. But that's not the issue...it's the density. Here are scans of the results (all with the same settings and unmanipulated).

D-76 1:1, agitate first 30 sec, then 5 sec every 30 sec thereafter for 11 minutes:
Dead Link Removed
Density looks decent to me, though I'm no expert.

Pyrocat-HD 1:1:200, 5 minute presoak in water, 60 sec agitation, stand for 45 minutes:
Dead Link Removed
You can see the stain (yay!), but it looks a tad thin to me.

Rodinal 1:200, 5 minute presoak in water, 30 sec agitation, then stand for 2 hours:
Dead Link Removed
Definitely looks too thin.

So the question is...what happened? All three films were developed in single-reel stainless steel tanks. My first thought is that while the dilutions were correct, there just wasn't enough developer in the pyrocat and Rodinal to get the job done. Would I have better luck developing a single roll in a double-reel tank?

Thanks!

-g.

User Removed · Feb 10, 2007

First one looks over exposed and maybe overdeveloped.
Second one looks underdeveloped.
Third looks underexposed and underdeveloped.

avandesande · Feb 10, 2007

1:200 rodinal is very tricky and not recommended for most situations. I have always had good results wiht 1:100 for 30 minutes, 5 min agitations.

timd · Feb 10, 2007

I'll second the 1+100 Rodinal - my "standard" routine is 4 inversions per minute for the first 3 minutes, 30 minutes stand, 1 inversion, and another 30 mins.

1:200 in a standard tank is less Rodinal than is normally recommended; IIRC the Agfa line is not to use less than 5ml of concentrate.

Tom Hoskinson · Feb 10, 2007

Also, you need to print the negatives, (especially the Pyrocat negatives) the visual appearance of the negs can be deceiving.

“The visual density of images developed in pyrogallol, pyrocatechin, ortho-phenylenediamine and para-phenylenediamine is lower than the photographic density; in other words, these images have greater printing density and contrast than is apparent to the eye.”
“The ratio of the visual and the photographic gamma is termed the color coefficient. The color coefficient depends upon the amount of preservative (sulfite) in the developer and the conditions of development as well as the developing agent used.”

The effect of variations in the amount of sulfite in pyrocatechol and pyrogallol developers is shown in the table below.

Sulfite in grams per liter Color Coefficient

50……………………………1.16
25…………………………….1.24
10…………………………….1.45
5………………………………1.80

Color Coefficient Table from Jones and Wilsey, J Franklin Inst. 185,231 (1918)

Thus, a low visual density negative that was developed in a low sulfite pyrocatechol or pyrogallol developer may exhibit high printing density and contrast.

Reference: Neblette C.B., 1961: Photography, Its Materials and Processes
Chapter 17, Developers and Development,
Page 237, Tanning Developers

The Pyrocat developers are low sulfite tanning and staining developers that contain Pyrocatechin.

reellis67 · Feb 10, 2007

First off, please don't mistake me for an expert, *but* I do regularly develop film using Rodinal 1:200 using stand development and I can say that your negative is not what I get when I use this combination.

Two things come to mind:

1) you stated that you used a 1-reel tank. I never use these with dilute developers because I don't think that you can get enough developer in the can to do the job properly. I always use a 2-reel tank with a single roll of film loaded on the bottom reel for stand development - and the results are always good.

2) Since each of these is a different scene it's not a good way to compare results. I would suggest burning an entire roll (24) on one scene - the same time, same aperture, same subject, same everything. Then, in the darkroom or changing bag, cut lengths of film and develop them using these methods. This will give you only one variable - the developer. Anytime you change more than one thing you lose the ability to isolate causes accurately.

- Randy

Tom Hoskinson · Feb 10, 2007

reellis67 said:
First off, please don't mistake me for an expert, *but* I do regularly develop film using Rodinal 1:200 using stand development and I can say that your negative is not what I get when I use this combination.

Two things come to mind:

1) you stated that you used a 1-reel tank. I never use these with dilute developers because I don't think that you can get enough developer in the can to do the job properly. I always use a 2-reel tank with a single roll of film loaded on the bottom reel for stand development - and the results are always good.

2) Since each of these is a different scene it's not a good way to compare results. I would suggest burning an entire roll (24) on one scene - the same time, same aperture, same subject, same everything. Then, in the darkroom or changing bag, cut lengths of film and develop them using these methods. This will give you only one variable - the developer. Anytime you change more than one thing you lose the ability to isolate causes accurately.

- Randy

Excellent advice from Randy IMO.

I would add, also use a tripod and a cable release.

Shawn Dougherty · Feb 10, 2007

I develop my 35mm film with Rodinal, stand development.

T-max100 @ 100, Rodinal 1:125 for 45 minutes. Agitation for 1st minute, then for 30 seconds at the halfway point.

APX100 @ 100, Rodinal 1:125 for 1hour. Agitation for 1st minute, then for 30 seconds at the halfway point.

I've found this to give consistent results. Best. Shawn

Edit: I develop 1 roll in a two real stainless tank.

Markok765 · Feb 10, 2007

I have noticed my stand developed in rodinal 1:200 negs are thinner than normal, but they show the same amount of detail at grade 3

PatTrent · Feb 10, 2007

timd said:
I'll second the 1+100 Rodinal - my "standard" routine is 4 inversions per minute for the first 3 minutes, 30 minutes stand, 1 inversion, and another 30 mins.

I recently tried that on two rolls, each, of PanF+ and FP4+ with great success. If anything, the negs were a little too dense, although they printed beautifully on either #2 or #3 grade paper (depending on whether it was 35mm or 120 film).

timd · Feb 11, 2007

PatTrent said:
I recently tried that on two rolls, each, of PanF+ and FP4+ with great success. If anything, the negs were a little too dense, although they printed beautifully on either #2 or #3 grade paper (depending on whether it was 35mm or 120 film).

I can't speak for the printing, because I scan the negs, but that's been my experience - Ilford films (of the non-Delta variety, at least) seem to respond particularly well to standing. And it's a lot less hassle than hovering over the tank with a stopwatch

Dhar · Feb 11, 2007

Thanks for the advice, all! Seems like I need:
1 reel in a double tank for more developer
Less dilution
More "control" shots
I'll give it a go and report back here.

Oh, and Tom, I was excited to be able to give my first printing a go this weekend as well (especially since this might show the pyrocat negs may not be a problem). Unfortunately, my paper developer from Photographer's Formulary had a hole in one of the bags of chemical...metol everywhere! Foiled again!

-g.

karavelov · Feb 11, 2007

Rodinal is not so friendly to high speed films (400 ASA). On one hand, you loose a lot of the nominal speed of the film. That's why it looks underexposed. It is very good for 50-125 ASA films. On another hand, 120 minutes in 1:200 dilution stand is the procedure for 100 ISO films that I follow. That's why it looks 400 ASA film is underdeveloped.

After some years experience with rodinal now I have switched to Pyrocat.

Best regards

Dhar · Feb 12, 2007

Results are in

Well, the results are better and worse. Following the excellent advice I received here, I went out and shot a whole roll of the same subject, same exposure, same everything. Then I split the film up among three tanks and developed. Each image is the same part of the frame, with a corner that shows a scan of a piece of the film tongue, developed with the image it's associated with, to check density. Again, all scans are unprocessed other than clipping. Here's what happened.

Tank #1 - Single-reel tank, partial roll
D-76 1:1, 11 minutes
Agitate 30 sec, then 5 sec every 30 sec thereafter
This is my "control" tank, just to check how D76 does with this film/camera combo
Dead Link Removed
Density looks good. Maybe a bit overdeveloped? At least it provides some sort of baseline.

Tank #2 - Double-reel tank, partial roll
Rodinal 1:100, 60 minutes total
5 minute presoak in water
Agitate 4 times per minute first 3 minutes, then one inversion at the 30 minute mark
Dead Link Removed
Density looks much better than it did the other day! Thanks, guys!

Tank #3 - Double-reel tank, partial roll
Pyrocat-HD 1:1:200, 60 minutes total
5 minute presoak in water
Agitate 4 times per minute first 3 minutes, then one inversion at the 30 minute mark (it worked for Rodinal...sounds like a decent semi-stand for Pyrocat. Or maybe not...)
Dead Link Removed
What the?!? What happened here? There's hardly any frame number, but the "tongue test" shows good density.

It gets odder (to me, anyway...maybe you'll be thinking "you young fool"...). Here are several frames of the Pyrocat-developed film:
Dead Link Removed
That one frame in there is pretty dense. But if you look closely, you can see that it's only part of the frame. I didn't do anything different from the Rodinal development and I stirred everything up, so it doesn't seem like a mixing problem.

I'm flummoxed...any further advice?

-g.

Ole · Feb 12, 2007

Stand developed negatives will be thinner, due to the compensation effect: The developer gets exhausted in the highlight areas, and without replenishment from agitation they will stop developing very quickly - giving thin highlights.

The shadow areas are more dependent on the developer than on agitation, and your pyrocat negatives seem to have lost a lot of film speed! I know that Pyrocat-HD doesn't give as much speed as some other developers, but this is worse than I would have thought.

Dhar · Feb 12, 2007

I know that Pyrocat-HD doesn't give as much speed as some other developers, but this is worse than I would have thought.

Yeah...it seems like the earlier "why is my neg so thin" problem I had was an improvement on this! Perhaps less dilution on the pyrocat next time, like 1:1:50 or 1:1:100?

-g.

sanking · Feb 13, 2007

Dhar said:
Yeah...it seems like the earlier "why is my neg so thin" problem I had was an improvement on this! Perhaps less dilution on the pyrocat next time, like 1:1:50 or 1:1:100?

-g.

I use 1.5:1:200. However, something may be wrong with your Pyrocat-HD. I get about the same speed, or perhaps slightly more, with Pyrocat-HD compared to D76 1:1. There is really so much difference between the shadow densities in your tests that I would suspect something is wrong with the developer, or the mix. With 50 minutes of develoment time one should expect a very well-developed negative, assuming exposure was right.

Sandy

Dhar · Feb 15, 2007

You may very well be right -- further tests are no better. Perhaps I cross-contaminated the solutions without knowing?

In any case, a new batch of pyrocat in my next PF order. Gives me a good reason to *make* that next order, too! Thanks, Sandy!

-g.

noseoil · Feb 16, 2007

Use 1:1:150 (not lower than 68f to start) for your pyrocat test and see how it looks. Should be much better. I had problems with 1:1:200, not quite enough reaction for my tests (temp becomes a factor). tim

Stand development gave thin negatives

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency