Stand Development Observations

Paul Verizzo · Aug 23, 2008

Well, once again everything we knew was only partially correct.

I have never used stand development, partly because I suffer from the American syndrome of "I want it NOW!" Then, a few days ago - the DOH! moment - I realized that if I want the best possible negs, what's an hour? So, motivated by high definition formulas I mixed up:

1.6 g Metol
30 g Sodium sulfite

pH, 8.6

Bath temperature typically 83 degrees, ambient.

I first tried using it as a Bath A and then with a pH 11 Bath B. The negs were nice, the grain sucked. Well, that made sense after the fact.

So I just tried it with my box EI test neg snips as a one hour soak, inverting once. The TMY and Foma 100 were too dense and that Forte 400, unreactive as it always is, a bit too thin. But good detail, "no" grain with a 15X magnifier.

I diluted the juice by 50% and added sulfite to keep it the same. Very nice, the TMY and Foma looking close to perfect.

I decided to add some phenidone to get more shadow detail. Even though I would be using the same amount as the Metol, I knew that it would effect only shadow areas and would not add to the midtones or highlights.

Figuring the juice would now be more virile, I decided on a twenty minute soak. Agitate a few seconds, rap the tank, invert at ten minutes. Well, waddya know? Definitely less shadow detail than the metol only for an hour.

And then I thought, oh what the hell, let's try a two hour soak! More fog, as might be expected, but not anything to be concerned about. The three films were much more similar than with shorter soaks, although each was still unique. The Foma 100, a very reactive film, was pretty dense. The TMy was Red Riding Hood "Just right," and the Forte still bringing up the density rear but very nice.

In summary, 1) I doubt if there really is such a thing as "development to completion." A little bit more develops, even in the highlights, with more time. Certainly less change with each additional time segment.

2) The toe characteristics, I'm thinking, become obvious. More or less Zone I-II detail accordingly.

3) The TMY-2 seems made for this. The test neg has a Zone 0 shadow spot through bright white clouds. The lower zone shadows are well developed and the clouds are well differentiated.

4) Different dilutions and different times give decidedly different results.

5) I need to run different EI's to see the results. I expect to see a wide range of compensation.

6) Contrary to all the dire predictions about bromide drag and uneven development, they were not issues. At all. I presume this is due to the very dilute formula.

Note that I'm not so much after the perfect negative as I am obtaining high quality negatives under a wide range of conditions. Think roll film, street shooting.

I will probably dilute by 50% once again. What the heck, it's only time....

I will probably also try a several minute soak in the stuff and then finish development in maybe a pH 9 bath.

Paul Verizzo · Aug 24, 2008

Well, I guess this must have been a real snoozer, considering the feistiness of many APUGER's.

A further observation:

7) In stand development, there appears to be local convectional "agitation" and further absorption of developing agents. I made a B bath of well buffered borax and metabisulfite of the same pH, plus or minus as the experimental developer. I soaked the film for three minutes with frequent agitation in the developer, then let it sit for an hour in the 9 pH B bath. The Foma 100 had a thin, perhaps usable image, the TMY was really thin. I even did a another snip in the 1 hour soak and it was fine again.

This would lead me to believe that it may be very difficult if not impossble to concoct a high definition divided developer. Possibly a dilute metol based A and a pH 12 B. It would be hard to bring up the shadows without getting grain, I think.

p3200TMZ · Aug 24, 2008

Paul,

Not sure I can add much to your discussion except to say, I am have just started using stand development, but I am using Rodinal in 1:100 dilution for 60mins. I get the temperature close to 68°F, slowly invert for 2 full minutes at the beginning and do not touch till I dump the developer an hour later. This formula has given me the nicest negatives I have developed in 35mm, but for roll film, I am thinking only 1 minute of agitation and a slightly weaker dilution on the order of 1:125 might be a bit better, as I have had some highlights get pushed to the edge. So far I have only tried stand development with Efke 25 and 50. I will be trying Pan F and Plus-X later this week, both in 135.

For higher speed film, like Tri-X, I prefer D76 Stock with normal time and inversions so far, although there are a few people I know that like to push Tri-X to 1600 and 3200 with stand development and Rodinal.

Thanks for sharing your findings.

Thanasis · Aug 25, 2008

p3200TMZ said:
Paul,
So far I have only tried stand development with Efke 25 and 50. I will be trying Pan F and Plus-X later this week, both in 135.
QUOTE]

I'd be interested to hear about your results from stand-development of Plus-X.

Tom Hoskinson · Aug 25, 2008

Paul Verizzo said:
Well, I guess this must have been a real snoozer, considering the feistiness of many APUGER's.

A further observation:

7) In stand development, there appears to be local convectional "agitation" and further absorption of developing agents. I made a B bath of well buffered borax and metabisulfite of the same pH, plus or minus as the experimental developer. I soaked the film for three minutes with frequent agitation in the developer, then let it sit for an hour in the 9 pH B bath. The Foma 100 had a thin, perhaps usable image, the TMY was really thin. I even did a another snip in the 1 hour soak and it was fine again.

This would lead me to believe that it may be very difficult if not impossble to concoct a high definition divided developer. Possibly a dilute metol based A and a pH 12 B. It would be hard to bring up the shadows without getting grain, I think.

Paul, Forget Sulfite and Metabisulfite, try adding a bit of Catechcol, some Vitamin C, some carbonate and some water - no need for divided development then, IMHO.

Paul Verizzo · Aug 25, 2008

Thanasis said:
p3200TMZ said:

Paul,
So far I have only tried stand development with Efke 25 and 50. I will be trying Pan F and Plus-X later this week, both in 135.
QUOTE]

I'd be interested to hear about your results from stand-development of Plus-X.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't have any Plus-X although I expect to have some Arista Premium 100 by the end of the month. Looking to be the same thing.

The film, in stand development, is not the critical decision, as far as I can see at this time. The critical factor is the developer and that includes the concentration.

This afternoon I ran off a roll of Arista/Foma 100 with a wide SBR. (I was also going to do TMY but danged if I can find the rolls I loaded! Tomorrow?)

I used my formula in progress:

.6 g Metol
.6 g Phenidone
20 g Sodium Sulfite

The formula philosophy is as follows.

The Metol, as Barry Thornton has noted, is fine grain and can develop a full gamma. The low amount of metol allows edge development. Since there is no superadditive chemical such as hydroquinone or ascorbic acid, you can ignore thermal deltas of superadditive formulas. In other words, develop at any temperature, although you might have to increase or decrease time to fit your preferences.

The phenidone is used to bring up shadow detail. At the pH of 8.6, it has absolutely no effect in midtones or highlights, nor does it cause fog. It requires a goodly soak time to find all those little grains that have been zapped by light.

The sulfite is mostly to kick the Metol into action. Metol w/o sulfite is a dud. It also obviously helps with preventing oxidation. It has no effect on grain at this concentration.

Processed for one hour including a minute of initial, intermittent agitation, at about 80 degrees F. After a rap to release air bubbles, it just sat. Amazing how many chores I had to take care of in that hour!

In brief, the results are outstanding. Negs from EI 25 to 400 are printable, I'm estimating. The EI 400 (recall, this is ISO 100 film) lacks a bit of contrast, but the shadow detail is there! Depending on what paper grade you are willing to live with, EI 400 is not unrealistic. The EI 25 is pretty damned dense, but the Zone IX-X chrome bar in the shot is still graduated!

Obviously, this type of stand development has one downside, time in bath. For the benefits, I'm willing to live with that. I will certainly be experimenting with reduced times and as a divided developer.

I've ben putzing with divided developers for twenty years. This formula and process is the closest I've come to what I want. (XP2 like results.)

Paul Verizzo · Aug 25, 2008

Tom Hoskinson said:
Paul, Forget Sulfite and Metabisulfite, try adding a bit of Catechcol, some Vitamin C, some carbonate and some water - no need for divided development then, IMHO.

Ain't got no Catechcol. Wanting to stick to my self-inflicted knowledge and experience base. Standard stuff.

In twenty years, been off in more directions that the Iraq War. Want to stick to the basics.

Steve Sherman · Aug 25, 2008

Paul Verizzo said:
Thanasis said:

The film, in stand development, is not the critical decision, as far as I can see at this time. The critical factor is the developer and that includes the concentration.

Click to expand...

Developer is secondary, the most critical components of any reduced agitation development are dilution and method of agitation.

Dilution leads to exhaustion which is why the process works, be consistent with your dilutions and volume of chemistry. Agitation, never stir the developer, I have found a plunger type action works most consistently.

Most developers will work, some are much better than others, I am partial to pyro based dev. Rodinal has a good tray record with this process as well. I would not use developers which have a sulfite component to them as silver migration is more prone when sulfite is present.

Cheers

Thomas Bertilsson · Aug 25, 2008

Got nothing to add, Paul. Way over my head... Especially the pH and chemistry stuff and why it makes sense... So I'm learning from you.

- Thomas

Paul Verizzo said:
Well, I guess this must have been a real snoozer, considering the feistiness of many APUGER's.

A further observation:

7) In stand development, there appears to be local convectional "agitation" and further absorption of developing agents. I made a B bath of well buffered borax and metabisulfite of the same pH, plus or minus as the experimental developer. I soaked the film for three minutes with frequent agitation in the developer, then let it sit for an hour in the 9 pH B bath. The Foma 100 had a thin, perhaps usable image, the TMY was really thin. I even did a another snip in the 1 hour soak and it was fine again.

This would lead me to believe that it may be very difficult if not impossble to concoct a high definition divided developer. Possibly a dilute metol based A and a pH 12 B. It would be hard to bring up the shadows without getting grain, I think.

Thomas Bertilsson · Aug 25, 2008

Tried HC-110, highly diluted. First I mixed the HC-110 with four parts water to make the working solution. Then I diluted that 1+39 (50ml to 1950ml water). Then I used 500ml for each sheet of 4x5.
20 minutes, agitate at 10 minutes in 5x7 trays. Negs are 'bullet proof' meaning very dense. But I'm also approaching the minimum limit of how much syrup is needed per sheet. I conclude that HC-110 isn't very good for this type of development.
Film was Tri-X rated at 200.

Tried some Pyrocat-MC and got somewhat uneven results, but much better densities. I think the Pyrocat may be getting old though...

Rodinal next, then some fresh Pyrocat...

- Thomas

Steve Sherman said:
Paul Verizzo said:

Developer is secondary, the most critical components of any reduced agitation development are dilution and method of agitation.

Dilution leads to exhaustion which is why the process works, be consistent with your dilutions and volume of chemistry. Agitation, never stir the developer, I have found a plunger type action works most consistently.

Most developers will work, some are much better than others, I am partial to pyro based dev. Rodinal has a good tray record with this process as well. I would not use developers which have a sulfite component to them as silver migration is more prone when sulfite is present.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Paul Verizzo · Aug 25, 2008

Steve Sherman said:
Paul Verizzo said:

Developer is secondary, the most critical components of any reduced agitation development are dilution and method of agitation.

Dilution leads to exhaustion which is why the process works, be consistent with your dilutions and volume of chemistry. Agitation, never stir the developer, I have found a plunger type action works most consistently.

Most developers will work, some are much better than others, I am partial to pyro based dev. Rodinal has a good tray record with this process as well. I would not use developers which have a sulfite component to them as silver migration is more prone when sulfite is present.

Cheers

Click to expand...

I'm a little lost why agitation is being used, or is topical, in stand development. The whole concept of stand development is no agitation. As my experiments show, excellent results may be had withno agitation.

When I said that the developer is the important thing, included in that is the dilution, not just the components.

I'm not sure what you mean by "silver migration." Physical development? Too little sulfite for physical development in my sauce. And even if it were there, physical development is known for its exremely fine grain. Barry Thornton's favorite off the shelf developer was Perceptol (essentially Microdol-X) used quite diluted so that it was pretty much just Metol and sulfite. No slouch photographer, that Thornton.

Paul Verizzo · Aug 25, 2008

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Negs are 'bullet proof' meaning very dense. But I'm also approaching the minimum limit of how much syrup is needed per sheet. I conclude that HC-110 isn't very good for this type of development.
Film was Tri-X rated at 200.

I have no hands on experience with HC-110, but my thoughts are:

1. Tri-X at 200 certainly leads to your "bullet proof" negs!

2. You might be surprised at how little developer chemical is needed to effect a good stand developer. DS-12 acutance developer uses (IIRC) just over .1g metol at working dilution.

3. Building on 2, why not try "a lot more" dilution and absolutely no agitation? Film lying flat in the tray is what stand development was made for, although we have found that it works fine with vertical film, too.

4. I don't think you made mention of time in solution, although if you are reaching "bullet proof" that certainly isn't a factor. I'm using 80 degrees, cuz it's ambient for me, and one hour. I have no idea if HC-110 uses a superadditive mixture; that would not be good at elevated temps.

5. Do you mix your own? If so, try my formula. If not, PM me.

Tom Hoskinson · Aug 25, 2008

Paul Verizzo said:
Ain't got no Catechcol. Wanting to stick to my self-inflicted knowledge and experience base. Standard stuff.

In twenty years, been off in more directions that the Iraq War. Want to stick to the basics.

Metol, Ascorbic Acid, Catechol and Glycin are all very Basic, Standard - tried and true Developing agents.

Paul Verizzo · Aug 25, 2008

p3200TMZ said:
Paul,

Not sure I can add much to your discussion except to say, I am have just started using stand development, but I am using Rodinal in 1:100 dilution for 60mins. I get the temperature close to 68°F, slowly invert for 2 full minutes at the beginning and do not touch till I dump the developer an hour later. This formula has given me the nicest negatives I have developed in 35mm, but for roll film, I am thinking only 1 minute of agitation and a slightly weaker dilution on the order of 1:125 might be a bit better, as I have had some highlights get pushed to the edge. So far I have only tried stand development with Efke 25 and 50. I will be trying Pan F and Plus-X later this week, both in 135.

For higher speed film, like Tri-X, I prefer D76 Stock with normal time and inversions so far, although there are a few people I know that like to push Tri-X to 1600 and 3200 with stand development and Rodinal.

Thanks for sharing your findings.

Thanks for sharing YOUR findings! This is how we all benefit and is the miracle of the internet. When I think back to my first days of learning photochemistry, sequesterd in a college library, or hoping for something useful in the public library, debating how much to spend on copying, I can hardly believe it. I was the lone ranger on my lone quests, no one to talk to. In 2008 I am part of a world wide community zapping conversation in seconds! (Aside: When I ran a computer lab and taught basic computer skills, I told my students that I firmly believe that the period we are living in will be looked back on in history with the same reverance as the wheel, fire, and Gutenburg.)

Anyway, back to Never Never Land, Rodinal is certainly a classic stand developer. I've seen 1:200 dilutions used. (I've never used it.) Agitation/inversion in the beginning is only an assurance that there are no air bells. Othwise, it plays no role. I have poured my developer in and just rapped twice and set on the counter. Worked fine.

As Rodinal is a single agent developer, feel free to use at any desired higher temperature! I'm running 80-83 degrees and even at that, it seems to take an hour to achieve the results I'm liking.

Paul Verizzo · Aug 25, 2008

Tom Hoskinson said:
Metol, Ascorbic Acid, Catechol and Glycin are all very Basic, Standard - tried and true Developing agents.

Oh, I know. I just have never been motivated to purchase Catchecol or Glycin or Amidol and Pyro, for that matter. Sometimes cost, but even more exponentially possible variables than what I'm already struggling with frighten me!

Thomas Bertilsson · Aug 25, 2008

Paul Verizzo said:
I have no hands on experience with HC-110, but my thoughts are:

1. Tri-X at 200 certainly leads to your "bullet proof" negs!

2. You might be surprised at how little developer chemical is needed to effect a good stand developer. DS-12 acutance developer uses (IIRC) just over .1g metol at working dilution.

3. Building on 2, why not try "a lot more" dilution and absolutely no agitation? Film lying flat in the tray is what stand development was made for, although we have found that it works fine with vertical film, too.

4. I don't think you made mention of time in solution, although if you are reaching "bullet proof" that certainly isn't a factor. I'm using 80 degrees, cuz it's ambient for me, and one hour. I have no idea if HC-110 uses a superadditive mixture; that would not be good at elevated temps.

5. Do you mix your own? If so, try my formula. If not, PM me.

Thanks Paul.

1. I always rate Tri-X @ 200 and has worked fine for the past five years in all other developers.
2and3. I should definitely experiment more. I have four more 'experiment' sheets I can use, so here I go. Tonight it begins!
4. 20 minutes @ 75*F (I turned on my green safelight for a few seconds after 15 minutes and found the negatives WAY dense already)
5. Nope. Never have. Don't have a scale, don't have the patience, although I probably should work on both the scale and the patience... so I'll send you a PM.

- Thomas

Tom Hoskinson · Aug 25, 2008

"Oh, I know. I just have never been motivated to purchase Catchecol or Glycin or Amidol and Pyro, for that matter. Sometimes cost, but certainly even more exponentially possible variables!"

Other folks have done a lot of the work, already, see:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Very easy to make a good Stand Developer from the Pextral Two-Bath.

Also from Rodinal, Crawley's FX-2 and Agfa 8.

removed account4 · Aug 25, 2008

Paul Verizzo said:
Oh, I know. I just have never been motivated to purchase Catchecol or Glycin or Amidol and Pyro, for that matter. Sometimes cost, but even more exponentially possible variables than what I'm already struggling with frighten me!

if you don't have any catchecol, just dump some instant coffee in your strange brew ... i think there is catchecol in the cheapest of instant coffees ...

Steve Sherman · Aug 25, 2008

Paul Verizzo said:
I'm a little lost why agitation is being used, or is topical, in stand development. The whole concept of stand development is no agitation. As my experiments show, excellent results may be had withno agitation.

When I said that the developer is the important thing, included in that is the dilution, not just the components.

I'm not sure what you mean by "silver migration." Physical development? Too little sulfite for physical development in my sauce. And even if it were there, physical development is known for its exremely fine grain. Barry Thornton's favorite off the shelf developer was Perceptol (essentially Microdol-X) used quite diluted so that it was pretty much just Metol and sulfite. No slouch photographer, that Thornton.

Few photographers have had success with pure Stand development, typically even toned areas will show evidence of development artifacts. If you are having success with the technique than I am glad to hear it is working for you.

A more accurate description is the "exhaustion of the developer" is the important component to the process.

Silver migration is a term associated with developers which have higher amounts of sodium sulfite. Sulfite attacks the edges of silver halides as the development process is taking place. These particles of silver get redeposited throughout the surface of the film causing a loss of accutance as well as film speed. This redepositing of reduced silver is the chief way a "fine grain developer" such as Microdol X produces a grain masking effect leading to the reputation of yielding fine grain.

p3200TMZ · Aug 25, 2008

Paul Verizzo said:
Thanks for sharing YOUR findings! This is how we all benefit and is the miracle of the internet. When I think back to my first days of learning photochemistry, sequesterd in a college library, or hoping for something useful in the public library, debating how much to spend on copying, I can hardly believe it. I was the lone ranger on my lone quests, no one to talk to. In 2008 I am part of a world wide community zapping conversation in seconds! (Aside: When I ran a computer lab and taught basic computer skills, I told my students that I firmly believe that the period we are living in will be looked back on in history with the same reverance as the wheel, fire, and Gutenburg.)

Anyway, back to Never Never Land, Rodinal is certainly a classic stand developer. I've seen 1:200 dilutions used. (I've never used it.) Agitation/inversion in the beginning is only an assurance that there are no air bells. Othwise, it plays no role. I have poured my developer in and just rapped twice and set on the counter. Worked fine.

As Rodinal is a single agent developer, feel free to use at any desired higher temperature! I'm running 80-83 degrees and even at that, it seems to take an hour to achieve the results I'm liking.

Thanks for starting this thread. While I am a complete neophyte and mixing my own developer is something I would like to do, but am too lazy and being in Australia means that supply sources are very thin, I have decided to stick with Rodinal at the moment.

And while we all long for the 'good old days', I must agree that the miracle of the internet is one of the best things that has happened to me in my lifetime. I have learned some much and made some many great and wonderful friendships because of the world-wide-web, that I would find it difficult to give up my internet connection.

Back to the subject at hand...

A roll of Efke R25 rated at speed, pre-washed for a minute or so, used 500ml of Rodinal 1:100 at approx. 20°C, use slow inversions for a full 2 minutes at the beginning, the left stand for 58 minutes. Water bath and fixed for 4 minutes.

Torn | Royal National Park | Sydney, Australia 2008
Dead Link Removed
Norita 66 | Noritar 160mm f4.0 | Efke R25 | Rodinal 1:100

While most of the negatives were fine, I did find a tendency toward the highlights being pushed close to the edge if the exposure was slightly over. So for next roll of Efke R25 I will use a slightly weaker dilution, 1:125(4cc for 500ml) and only agitate for 1 minute at the beginning.

The negatives that were a little too dense were the exposures where I tended toward over-exposure.

In my little experience with stand developing, I have found it increases the effective speed of the film by 1/2 stop or so. So instead of my normal routine of exposing for the shadows and letting the highlights fend for the themselves, it is better to expose for the highlights because stand developing seems to open up the shadows by a stop or so.

Also, it is a well known fact that the Efke emulsions handle underexposure much better than overexposure, so combined with the shadow opening characteristics of stand development, any overexposure could spell trouble.

Just my take on it...

Paul Verizzo · Aug 25, 2008

Steve Sherman said:
Silver migration is a term associated with developers which have higher amounts of sodium sulfite.

I think you will agree that the amount of sulfite that I am using is certainly not high. That's 20 grams/liter - which I can probably reduce w/o noticably effecting anything - which has no possibility of silver redepositing on the emulsion.

Paul Verizzo · Aug 25, 2008

Nice shot, Miller!

Tom Hoskinson · Aug 26, 2008

Paul Verizzo said:
I think you will agree that the amount of sulfite that I am using is certainly not high. That's 20 grams/liter - which I can probably reduce w/o noticably effecting anything - which has no possibility of silver redepositing on the emulsion.

20 grams of sulfite per liter is a lot of sulfite for an acutance developer. FX-1 has 5 grams per liter, FX-2 has 3.5 grams per liter...

Paul Verizzo · Aug 26, 2008

Tom Hoskinson said:
20 grams of sulfite per liter is a lot of sulfite for an acutance developer. FX-1 has 5 grams per liter, FX-2 has 3.5 grams per liter...

OK, I was imprecise in what I was trying to say. I mixed my original bath with the intention of reusing and replenishment. Hence, higher sulfite.

Twenty grams is very low if you are thinking of sulfite as an effective silver solvent. That's what I was hoping to convey.

Does it impact the acutance? Perhaps in some major blown up comparison, but not in real life.

Steve Sherman · Aug 26, 2008

Paul Verizzo said:
OK, I was imprecise in what I was trying to say. I mixed my original bath with the intention of reusing and replenishment. Hence, higher sulfite.

Twenty grams is very low if you are thinking of sulfite as an effective silver solvent. That's what I was hoping to convey.

Does it impact the acutance? Perhaps in some major blown up comparison, but not in real life.

It might help those of us who would like to help if we understood exactly what you hope to accomplish by using a reduced agitation development or specifically Stand development.

Stand Development Observations

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency