"Stand Development" How Neg's Come Out Different As Opposed To Conventional
-
A
- Thread starter DF
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Aviphot 4x5, Techpan 120, 2x3 2422 films
- Started by MCB18
-
Want to Buy Voigtlander Perkeo w/ Color Skopar
- Started by aconbere
-
Sold Expired Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100 - 120
- Started by Adam W
-
For Sale FS: 3x4 Pacemaker Speed Graphic Camera with 4x5 Cambo Back
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold Black Nikon fm2n
- Started by Gram Nylén
Forum statistics
Good news: very tolerant of "I don't know what exposure I gave, or even what film this is, but I need to develop it anyway." Bad new: bromide drag.
Stand development, in my experience, is useful for two things: extreme compensation (i.e. compressing the image contrast, especially in highlights, without losing shadow detail) and adding apparently sharpness due to edge effects (which some consider mythical).
I've avoided it, in general; I can get all the compensation with 3 minute agitation cycles, high developer dilution, and long development, but without artifacts that come with edge effects and without (generally) bromide drag. I always know what film I have and how I exposed it, so I don't need the extreme tolerance.
Stand development, in my experience, is useful for two things: extreme compensation (i.e. compressing the image contrast, especially in highlights, without losing shadow detail) and adding apparently sharpness due to edge effects (which some consider mythical).
I've avoided it, in general; I can get all the compensation with 3 minute agitation cycles, high developer dilution, and long development, but without artifacts that come with edge effects and without (generally) bromide drag. I always know what film I have and how I exposed it, so I don't need the extreme tolerance.
The only formula I've ever had any success with for stand development is Caffenol-C-L and I've only ever used that with 4x5 Fomapan 100. Pretty much everything else, I'd second what Donald said. I've found that even one agitation at the halfway point (semi-stand) greatly reduces the chances of bromide drag. Personally, I don't believe in any "magic brews" or "magic processes" for developing film, but every photographer eventually arrives at what works best for him/her.
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
I stay away from full on stand development, as it can be very risky, especially with sheet film... mottling, bromide drag are the main drawbacks. Semi-stand is almost the same as full on stand, and is less risky. It's important to give at least a stop more exposure than what you normally give...at least in my experience. Semi-stand for me is one hour total development time, with 5 sec every 15, or 20 minutes. I use very dilute pyrocat-hd, and BTZS tubes, filled right to the brim (not the cap). It's important that the film rest vertically, not lying down flat, with a staining developer, like pyrocat. When it all works, you'll end up with a negative that is easy to print, and bloody sharp!
DF you'll find the whole spectrum of opinions if you were to search the many threads there have been on this subject over the years. My, albeit relatively subjective impression, is that while there isn't a 100% consensus on total stand development i.e no agitation at all, most will agree that total stand has a danger of what is called bromide drag so there is likely to be some risk.
What I cannot recall seeing is whether there was any sign of consensus of what the minimum safe agitation is to avoid almost any chance of bromide drag. Sadly reaching a consensus on a lot of issues is not one of our strengths
Andrew's approach would seem sensible and intuitively it causes me to ask: If a similar agitation method to Andrew's is safe then what are the benefits of no agitation at all if all other things are equal? Can, say 15 secs agitation over an hour, really have appreciably adverse effects on the state of the negs compared to no agitation at all with its known, if not-certain-to-happen risks of drag?
My intuition also says that if stand development always delivered much better negatives then why isn't the whole film user world using it?
That is not to say that there are circumstances that can arise in which semi-stand is the safer option such as not knowing what the film is or the speed at which it was exposed but already in a matter of a few posts you can see that the circumstances that suit stand or semi stand are probably few and far between
Have a look at the Ilford article on semi-stand with HP5+. Go to IlfordPhoto then the learning zone and scroll through until you get to "Uprating HP5+ with semi-stand development". The title tells you of one of the uses and an unusual one at that for semi-stand. Worth a look
pentaxuser .
What I cannot recall seeing is whether there was any sign of consensus of what the minimum safe agitation is to avoid almost any chance of bromide drag. Sadly reaching a consensus on a lot of issues is not one of our strengths
Andrew's approach would seem sensible and intuitively it causes me to ask: If a similar agitation method to Andrew's is safe then what are the benefits of no agitation at all if all other things are equal? Can, say 15 secs agitation over an hour, really have appreciably adverse effects on the state of the negs compared to no agitation at all with its known, if not-certain-to-happen risks of drag?
My intuition also says that if stand development always delivered much better negatives then why isn't the whole film user world using it?
That is not to say that there are circumstances that can arise in which semi-stand is the safer option such as not knowing what the film is or the speed at which it was exposed but already in a matter of a few posts you can see that the circumstances that suit stand or semi stand are probably few and far between
Have a look at the Ilford article on semi-stand with HP5+. Go to IlfordPhoto then the learning zone and scroll through until you get to "Uprating HP5+ with semi-stand development". The title tells you of one of the uses and an unusual one at that for semi-stand. Worth a look
pentaxuser .
I suggest you do this as part of your first test with the technique: if you are using roll film (25mm, 120) then set aside at least one frame where you photograph a blank area of gray or near-white. It can be an 18% gray card, or a white wall, or anything that is ONE value, evenly lit. Do your stand development process on this roll, and then look at the frame(s) where you photographed the blank surface and see what you get. Hint: you are looking for how even/uneven the development is, whether there are areas of differing density, mottling, etc.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2012
- Messages
- 589
I did look up stand dev. in the "search" and expected a deluge of answers but got alot of semi or unrelated stuff. Must've looked in the wrong category.
Anyhow, "compressing" the negative sounds alot like what I'd like - more noticeable/better grey/mid-tones if I'm not misinterpreting?
Think I'll go with the semi-stand.
Anyhow, "compressing" the negative sounds alot like what I'd like - more noticeable/better grey/mid-tones if I'm not misinterpreting?
Think I'll go with the semi-stand.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 3,589
- Format
- Medium Format
I have used Rodinal with stand development on a few occasions when I completely forgot circumstances of exposure or film. Results were useable. Best to keep my act together and use regular methods for development. But good to know there is an alternative.
That is about the best thing you can say about this "technique".
When I've done semi-stand, I used Parodinal 1:50, added 50% to the development time, and then agitated only every third minute. The idea, which worked pretty well, was to give the long development of a hard push, but use the reduced agitation to reign in actual contrast to normal -- and it worked pretty well. For instance (to pick a film that hasn't changed since 2005, when I first did this), for Fomapan 100, I'd give 11 minutes at 20C, agitate every 3rd minute (normal would be about 8 minutes with one minute agitation cycles). I still exposed at box speed; what I got out of it was improved shadow detail, as if the film was actually a 125 or 160 film shot at EI 100.
That said, with 35mm you can still get some bromide drag -- it's most noticeable as "shadows" from the sprocket holes, intruding in the images from whatever edge was up in the tank. Never saw it with 120 or sheet film (in tubes), though it was most likely there in a form that was less visible.
That said, with 35mm you can still get some bromide drag -- it's most noticeable as "shadows" from the sprocket holes, intruding in the images from whatever edge was up in the tank. Never saw it with 120 or sheet film (in tubes), though it was most likely there in a form that was less visible.
MattKing
Moderator
I'm not a fan.
At the very least, it will distort the characteristic curve tremendously.
As films are generally designed with a particular shape of characteristic curve in mind, that seems counter-productive to me.
If you are going to use it, do it intentionally, with a clear idea about why you are doing it.
I expect you will need to use it as much as Andrew O'Neill has before you will be in a position to have that "clear idea".
At the very least, it will distort the characteristic curve tremendously.
As films are generally designed with a particular shape of characteristic curve in mind, that seems counter-productive to me.
If you are going to use it, do it intentionally, with a clear idea about why you are doing it.
I expect you will need to use it as much as Andrew O'Neill has before you will be in a position to have that "clear idea".
It’s important to be consistent and precise as with everything else development. I think people often assume stand is an excuse to be casual.
Temperature control is also fairly important. No big fluctuations.
In my experience with Rodinal @ 100:1, an hour is simply too little.
Two hours is good though.
Bromide drag has never been a problem with medium format for me, but for sprocketed film it has come up.
Doing a single very gentle turn after half an hour is IMO not semi stand, but just a part of normal stand.
It’s just enough to shift the boundary layer a smidge, at just the right time in development.
It still retains ninety five percent of the compensation but avoids the unevenness, that small thermal differences in the tank can introduce.
For some frames with already very low contrast, in the shade for example, you are going to get a frighteningly flat, thin looking negative.
It will print and scan surprisingly well though.
Temperature control is also fairly important. No big fluctuations.
In my experience with Rodinal @ 100:1, an hour is simply too little.
Two hours is good though.
Bromide drag has never been a problem with medium format for me, but for sprocketed film it has come up.
Doing a single very gentle turn after half an hour is IMO not semi stand, but just a part of normal stand.
It’s just enough to shift the boundary layer a smidge, at just the right time in development.
It still retains ninety five percent of the compensation but avoids the unevenness, that small thermal differences in the tank can introduce.
For some frames with already very low contrast, in the shade for example, you are going to get a frighteningly flat, thin looking negative.
It will print and scan surprisingly well 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:  |