Stand Development of Roll Film: Drop the Film Into the Developing Solution?

[ame01999]

The Film Developing Cookbook recommends FX2 and TFX2 for stand development at 1+1 dilution, and notes that roll film should be dropped into the developing tank, presumably so the developer can be absorbed quickly and evenly.

I remember doing this when developing Tech-Pan in its produce-a-low-contrast-curve solution back in the day, but I haven't tried stand development myself, and was wondering if other people do this drop maneuver?

The GSD-10 instructions recommend stand development as the default method, without any mention of dropping the film into solution, but I don't know if that developer is particularly close to FX2. Photo Formulary's TFX2 is supposed to be exceptionally resistant to streaking -- would that make it also resistant to uneven development? Thanks.

 

[MattKing]

Historically, that was what was recommended for all Kodak films in all Kodak developers in all Kodak literature.

 

[koraks]

would that make it also resistant to uneven development?

No way.

 

[pentaxuser]

I have never understood what is the scientific reason why you need to drop the whole film into the tank as opposed to pouring the developer in

Dropping it in takes say a fraction of a second, pouring it in means that the bottom of the reel gets the developer maybe 5-8 sec before the very top but the difference ín terms of total immersion time for say a development time of 10 mins is just over 1% and in a stand development time of maybe 60 mins becomes a fraction of that 1%

pentaxuser

 

[mshchem]

I have never understood what is the scientific reason why you need to drop the whole film into the tank as opposed to pouring the developer in

Dropping it in takes say a fraction of a second, pouring it in means that the bottom of the reel gets the developer maybe 5-8 sec before the very top but the difference ín terms of total immersion time for say a development time of 10 mins is just over 1% and in a stand development time of maybe 60 mins becomes a fraction of that 1%

pentaxuser

I. The good old days when people were using Nikor tanks with 8 35mm reels this was good practice. If it takes more than 15 seconds to get solutions in and out, this makes sense. I've never needed to do this because I never used the bigger tanks. Also makes sense with color or when development times are short.

 

[Milpool]

I have never understood what is the scientific reason why you need to drop the whole film into the tank as opposed to pouring the developer in

Dropping it in takes say a fraction of a second, pouring it in means that the bottom of the reel gets the developer maybe 5-8 sec before the very top but the difference ín terms of total immersion time for say a development time of 10 mins is just over 1% and in a stand development time of maybe 60 mins becomes a fraction of that 1%

pentaxuser

It has more to do with how the liquid enters the tank and causes uneven wetting (splashing for example) than the filling time per se, particularly with long filling times.

But when it comes to stand development or other techniques with very long intervals between agitation cycles, non-uniformity is guaranteed. There is no way around that. Whether the degree of non-uniformity is acceptable or not for different formats depends on how busy the picture is, how dark/light the tone reproduction, and of course the viewer.

 

[pentaxuser]

I. The good old days when people were using Nikor tanks with 8 35mm reels this was good practice. If it takes more than 15 seconds to get solutions in and out, this makes sense. I've never needed to do this because I never used the bigger tanks. Also makes sense with color or when development times are short.

Yes I can see sense in what you say in your examples although when I did C41 in a Jobo processor I never noticed any difference using a 1510 or 1520 single reel tank but even with an 8 reel tank and the time needed to cover all reels means that for stand dev the difference in time from the bottom reel to the top one is insignificant compared to the overall development time

I am convinced that there is something in our psyche that gives us comfort to follow something in wríting laid down by "those who must know" or said by someone who appears to be an "expert" without questioning the circumstances in which the rule was given or statement made. As was the case in the famous experiment of "increasing" the electric shock as an incentive to do better when that person got tasks or questions wrong might have resulted in death had the shocks been real


pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I expect the Kodak recommendations were a holdover from the days when most film was developed in deep tanks - often by technicians with nicotine stains on their fingers and cars with manual chokes .

 

[mshchem]

I expect the Kodak recommendations were a holdover from the days when most film was developed in deep tanks - often by technicians with nicotine stains on their fingers and cars with manual chokes .

Boy, those were the days!!!

 

[mshchem]

Yes I can see sense in what you say in your examples although when I did C41 in a Jobo processor I never noticed any difference using a 1510 or 1520 single reel tank but even with an 8 reel tank and the time needed to cover all reels means that for stand dev the difference in time from the bottom reel to the top one is insignificant compared to the overall development time

I am convinced that there is something in our psyche that gives us comfort to follow something in wríting laid down by "those who must know" or said by someone who appears to be an "expert" without questioning the circumstances in which the rule was given or statement made. As was the case in the famous experiment of "increasing" the electric shock as an incentive to do better when that person got tasks or questions wrong might have resulted in death had the shocks been real


pentaxuser

I agree with you 100%