stand development: hc-110, d-76 or microphen?

rippo · Dec 28, 2007

yes i know, rodinal is the be-all, end-all for stand development. however i don't have any on hand, and i'd like to try it with what i have, if suitable.

are any of these three developers suitable? if so, can someone suggest times and dilutions please?

this is all because of my attempts at finding a better way of developing 4x5 and 2x3 sheet film. currently i use the 'taco' method, with a rubber band around the film, in a daylight tank. it works, with occasional corner scratches (more so on the 2x3, as it has more room to wiggle). but i'm limited to four 4x5s or five 2x3s.

i've got an old Fr brand adjustable sheet film tank. i can do up to 12 sheets at a time, and it adjusts from 2x3 to 4x5. except...i get massive flow marks and edge over-development when using normal agitation methods. so, using what i have, stand development might fix this.

TheFlyingCamera · Dec 28, 2007

Actually, the be-all end-all of Stand development is Pyro, but that's another discussion. You MAY have some luck with the sheet film tank, you may not. I think the only thing it would work with is pure stand development. Only way to find out is to try it with some test shots you aren't emotionally invested in. HC-110 might work at one of the higher dilutions; I've not used it so I can't comment. D-76 is a very active developer and I don't know that it is good for stand development techniques.

Tom Hoskinson · Dec 28, 2007

rippo said:
yes i know, rodinal is the be-all, end-all for stand development. however i don't have any on hand, and i'd like to try it with what i have, if suitable.

are any of these three developers suitable? if so, can someone suggest times and dilutions please?

this is all because of my attempts at finding a better way of developing 4x5 and 2x3 sheet film. currently i use the 'taco' method, with a rubber band around the film, in a daylight tank. it works, with occasional corner scratches (more so on the 2x3, as it has more room to wiggle). but i'm limited to four 4x5s or five 2x3s.

i've got an old Fr brand adjustable sheet film tank. i can do up to 12 sheets at a time, and it adjusts from 2x3 to 4x5. except...i get massive flow marks and edge over-development when using normal agitation methods. so, using what i have, stand development might fix this.

IMHO none of the developers you named is really suitable for Stand Development. Any of the Pyrocat Developers will work fine, as will Crawley's FX-2 and several other Glycin based developers and Rodinal is ok too (but Rodinal is certainly not the be-all, end-all for stand development).

Stand development is not a good fix for massive flow marks and edge over-development when using normal agitation methods...You should not be having these problems with any of the three developers you mentioned.

I suggest practicing your film handling and development agitation techniques with the lights on. Sacrifice a few sheets of film to the learning process.

rippo · Dec 28, 2007

thanks guys.

the reason why i thought stand development might be the solution is because i didn't have any flow marks when using a two-bath developer (Anchell/Troop's TD-201), with no agitation on the B solution. i'd use this more often, but my negs aren't always as contrasty as i'd like.

Tom, it's probably not my agitation techniques. i've seen other people complain about this Fr tank for the same reasons. and i don't get over-development using other tanks.

the thing is just so convenient if it worked though! it's huge and takes a lot of liquid, which is another argument for stand development.

i know i'd need to experiment, but i figured i could save a few bucks and at least reduce the amount of film i'd have to burn to find out.

Tom Hoskinson · Dec 28, 2007

rippo said:
thanks guys.

the reason why i thought stand development might be the solution is because i didn't have any flow marks when using a two-bath developer (Anchell/Troop's TD-201), with no agitation on the B solution. i'd use this more often, but my negs aren't always as contrasty as i'd like.

Tom, it's probably not my agitation techniques. i've seen other people complain about this Fr tank for the same reasons. and i don't get over-development using other tanks.

the thing is just so convenient if it worked though! it's huge and takes a lot of liquid, which is another argument for stand development.

i know i'd need to experiment, but i figured i could save a few bucks and at least reduce the amount of film i'd have to burn to find out.

Matt, please describe your FR tank processing procedure, step by step, for us.

rippo · Dec 29, 2007

well first i should probably describe the tank. it's a cubical shaped tank, and takes 1.5 liters of liquid approximately. there's a holder inside for up to 12 sheets of film. the film slides in from the top, and the ridges are curved so as to curve the film. the ridges that hold the film in place are about 3/8" high. so the film's rebate area has 3/8" on either side that has impeded flow of some sort. the gaps are pretty wide, perhaps 1/8".

the tank is not invertible. therefore i agitate by grabbing alternate corners and pulling up and down, to slosh the developer around. i make sure to alternate pairs of corners each agitation period. and every once in awhile i'll pick the tank up and swirl it around instead, again at an appropriate agitation period.

which is 5 seconds for every 30 seconds of development.

rinse, fix, wash.

gainer · Dec 29, 2007

Try rocking the tank from side to side so that the flow is parallel to the film. It seems to me that you have only motion at some angle to the film, and that there might be dead, or at least deader areas in the center of the sheet. I used to have one of those tanks, but hadn't had much to do with it before I lent it to someone and never got it back.

ricksplace · Dec 29, 2007

I use HC110 at 1:100 semi-stand. One inversion only every three minutes. Total time 20 minutes.

DWThomas · Dec 29, 2007

I own one of those FR tanks. I don't remember it being so bad back when I was using it in the 60s and 70s, but many of those old negs look pretty bad along the edges today -- maybe the fixer didn't circulate so well either. I think they made the grooves super deep to compensate for the coarse intervals in the width adjustment. At any rate, the last time I did any 4x5 (Worldwide Pinhole Photo Day 2005 & 2006) I tray developed because of this problem.

If I ever seriously go back to 4x5, I will look for some other option. I suppose one might be able to cut the ribs down and round off the edges. That would be a lot of work, and might screw up its future use for other film sizes. The fact that I own one from back when is a sure sign it was cheap -- and probably a compromised design!

DaveT

sly · Dec 29, 2007

Hmm, I've got one of those tanks and I have not noticed your problems. I agitate every 30 sec for 5 sec. Typically I gently rock holding opposite corners, then with the next agitation it sits flat on the sink and I gently swivel it back and forth. Alternate back and forth through the development time. So far only trouble with the tank was when I tried to get by with 48 oz of developer rather than 1.5 liters. They are not the same! Sly

rippo · Dec 29, 2007

gainer: my gut tells me that wouldn't be enough to fix the problem, but i don't know until i've tried! so i will give a try. thanks!

rick: thanks, i'll give the semi-stand development a try. less agitation is the key i think, whether semi or full. i appreciate having some starting numbers to work with.

dave: i agree, it's not worth modifying to any major extent. but i'm a big fan of working with what i have (or what someone's given me for free, which in this case i've got two of these things from two different people...hmm, that should tell me something?).

tray development is inconvenient for film, for me. the taco method works but is limited. i got some (free, of course!) cibachrome tubes and a motor base from someone recently, and was all excited...but they don't have any ridges inside to secure film, so it's probably a bust. the motor base is cheap and will no doubt fail as soon as i spend money on a jobo tube.

i suppose i should break down and try tray dev, just to say i have. but it takes 1/2 hr to convert the laundry room into a darkroom, so i only do that for printing. which means i'd be doing it on the floor of the bathroom...

first, i'll try the tips above.

rippo · Jan 5, 2008

well rats. i tried stand development in HC-110 tonight, and still got 'burn marks' from the ridges of the film holders in the Fr tank. 1:185 HC-110, agitate for 30 seconds and let it sit for an hour. film was Arista.edu Ultra 100, 2x3 format. i even put the film in with the emulsion side going the other way, as it appeared to keep the edge of the film away from the ridge more.

so far the only success with this tank has been with a two-bath developer (Anchell/Troop TD-201). looks like i'll have to make up a full 2 liters, and deal with some film-speed loss. or is it just flat negs, i don't know. or not use the darn thing and continue with the taco method for now.

23mjm · Jan 5, 2008

I kinda like D-76 cheap can get it everywhere and is a solid all a round developer.

pkrentz · Jan 5, 2008

HC-110

rippo said:
well rats. i tried stand development in HC-110 tonight, and still got 'burn marks' from the ridges of the film holders in the Fr tank. 1:185 HC-110, agitate for 30 seconds and let it sit for an hour. film was Arista.edu Ultra 100, 2x3 format. i even put the film in with the emulsion side going the other way, as it appeared to keep the edge of the film away from the ridge more.

so far the only success with this tank has been with a two-bath developer (Anchell/Troop TD-201). looks like i'll have to make up a full 2 liters, and deal with some film-speed loss. or is it just flat negs, i don't know. or not use the darn thing and continue with the taco method for now.

You need to forget the tank, with 2x3 film use tubes 2 1/2 inches long, 1 inch dia. with caps on the end, you will use 75-80 cc of 1:100 of HC-110 for 60 minutes, you can't mix methods. Pat

Ole · Jan 5, 2008

I have a tank somewhat similar to that, and have found it almost completely worthless.

Only "almost", because I have used it successfully with half-strength FX-2:

Prewash
Pour out water, pour in developer
Pour out developer, then pour it back in
Repeat developer pouring twice more
Let sit for 90 minutes or so

Pour out developer
Pour in water (or stop), do the out/in a couple of times
Then do the same with the fixer.

For any other purpose I would rather use just about anything else. I believe even a black plastic bag would give more even development.

PHOTOTONE · Jan 5, 2008

Nobody has mentioned this, but it is quite relevant. "Some" films seem to be more prone to developing streaks and marks than "Other" films. Now I can't give you a list, but just from my personal experience..Forte 200 seems to always develop streak free in hangars in my deep tank with only minimal agitation, whereas Fomapan 200 requires almost constant agitation to develop streak free. I know this from experience. If you are using a "difficult" to manage tank like the FR, then not only the developer, but your film choices will affect your success.

While over the years I have tried most small, and large sheet film tanks, the knowledge I have gained tells me this: There is probably some combination of film and developer that will give you good results with the FR tank. I would consider developers that would give you a long processing time as being the most appropriate choices.

rippo · Jan 8, 2008

pkrentz said:
You need to forget the tank, with 2x3 film use tubes 2 1/2 inches long, 1 inch dia. with caps on the end, you will use 75-80 cc of 1:100 of HC-110 for 60 minutes, you can't mix methods. Pat

what do you mean by "you can't mix methods"?

i'm doing stand development in the tank...finding a use for the free tank (rather than buying something else) is the goal.

hmm...tubes. perhaps i should try cutting some pvc pipe, open ended, and then use these as film sleeves inside the tank. it's a good sized tank, so i could out a few sheets in there. not the 12 that the tank was designed for. then i could do stand development. must look into that.

rippo · Jan 8, 2008

Ole said:
I have a tank somewhat similar to that, and have found it almost completely worthless.

Only "almost", because I have used it successfully with half-strength FX-2:

Prewash
Pour out water, pour in developer
Pour out developer, then pour it back in
Repeat developer pouring twice more
Let sit for 90 minutes or so
(edit)

hey Ole. perhaps my 30 second initial agitation is too much for this combo?

i wanted to try FX2, but i didn't have the ingredients for it lying around, and ordering chemicals for something that might not work seemed like 'plan B'.

i don't think i did a pre-soak on this one, thinking it was going to be sitting long enough that it didn't matter. perhaps that was a bad idea.

PHOTOTONE said:
Nobody has mentioned this, but it is quite relevant. "Some" films seem to be more prone to developing streaks and marks than "Other" films. (edit)

I would consider developers that would give you a long processing time as being the most appropriate choices.

phototone: that's why i was thinking stand development. for film, i've tried two kinds so far: Arista.edu Ultra (aka Fomapan), and Tri-X 320. i've only tried the Artista with stand development so far.

at some point, testing this tank will become more expensive than buying something else. i should probably give up before then!

-matt

Paul Howell · Jan 8, 2008

You may want to try a divided developer such as Dinafine, Divided D23
or D76. Dinafine try 4 mints A and B, a quick bang or two on the counter to dislodge any air bubbles, one or two gentle tilts to start and then 1 tilt every mint. 4 mints rather than 3 will give even development.

rippo · Jan 8, 2008

thanks Paul. that's sort of what started all this. i tried the tank using TD-201 from the Anchell/Troop formula. it seemed to work and not leave over-development marks. however i didn't have enough solution made up for this large tank, so i haven't been able to do a definitive test. divided developer leaves my negs looking a little flat...i may need to mix up a double dose and give it some proper testing. i needed reminding that i might be getting too far off course here, with this developer experiment.

Tom Hoskinson · Jan 8, 2008

Black ABS pipe

rippo said:
hey Ole. perhaps my 30 second initial agitation is too much for this combo?

i wanted to try FX2, but i didn't have the ingredients for it lying around, and ordering chemicals for something that might not work seemed like 'plan B'.

i don't think i did a pre-soak on this one, thinking it was going to be sitting long enough that it didn't matter. perhaps that was a bad idea.

phototone: that's why i was thinking stand development. for film, i've tried two kinds so far: Arista.edu Ultra (aka Fomapan), and Tri-X 320. i've only tried the Artista with stand development so far.

at some point, testing this tank will become more expensive than buying something else. i should probably give up before then!

-matt

A piece of Black ABS pipe of the right length and diameter will work fine for stand development. That's what I use to develop my 2.25 inch X 3.25 inch sheet film. Ive successfully semi-stand developed with FX-2, Rodinal and Pyrocat.

Missi · Mar 4, 2013

HC 110 does do well in stands....

the good weather ride by ^ Missi ^, on Flickr

This is a 1+99, 90 minute stand. 30 s agitation at 30, and 60 min mark, with initial agitation of 60 s.

Gerald C Koch · Mar 4, 2013

If you experience flow marks then your agitation is too vigorous.

stand development: hc-110, d-76 or microphen?

rippo

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Tom Hoskinson

rippo

Tom Hoskinson

rippo

gainer

ricksplace

DWThomas

sly

rippo

rippo

23mjm

pkrentz

Ole

Moderator

PHOTOTONE

rippo

rippo

Paul Howell

rippo

Tom Hoskinson

Missi

Gerald C Koch

stand development: hc-110, d-76 or microphen?

Membership Council

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency