That's nice. So, after the initial minute of agitation, you do it two more times. These last two times, you also do a minute each or you turn it upside down and up and that counts as one inversion?
Thanks.
That sounds like a preference, doesn't it? It sounds like for you stand development is not worth trying. I respect your opinion, but I do want to try it. I've seen some very nice results using this method.Please don't treat this as scientific. As a matter of fact, stand is your worst sloppy method.
If it's about "saving time", stand is also the worst. Better use hc110:A for 3 short minutes or rodinal 1:10. Always beats stand.
just leave it for an hour and a half with 3 inversions halfway throughout the cycle. it wont get you the best negative you could get but it will give you workable results.
That's nice. So, after the initial minute of agitation, you do it two more times. These last two times, you also do a minute each or you turn it upside down and up and that counts as one inversion?
Thanks.
That's almost exactly what I do 1:100 for sixty minutes 5 inversions at the start and 2 midway. Works well with unknown film and always gives a usable neg.
Stone, take a loupe and tell us which HP5 grain is bigger, the one from Stand development of the one from a thoroughly agitated negative.
You will notice that the Stand is bigger because, altough it was not agitated, it stayed in the developer for a longer period of time. What does this tell you? hm?
hmmm?
Hi NB23
It tells us you are saying
'do what I say not what I do.'
Stone has complained bitterly about the increased grain with agitation... after he bought a Jobo.
the grain is dependent on activity x time rather than time
so use of borax (like in D76) or dilution or lack of agitation will improve grain.
dilution and no agitation are syngeric for fine grain but stop development in high lights and slow it in mid tones very flat negs...
Donno why Stone does the intermediate agitation.
Think you need to crawl under Stone?
Noel
HiStone
I use 5x and 8x Patterson tanks.
And file negs and repair cameras for the 60 to 120 minutes wh ile the kitchen timer ticks.
There is probably thermo syphon ie circulation in my tanks.
Noel
It's photography 101 stuff. Grain is not a function of agitation. End of story.
Stop spreading false infos and lies. Please.
Just out of idle curiosity, where does this bias against so-called stand development come from?
I hear it over and over from a few here that it's a hideous non-mainstream technique. But early bottles of Rodinal listed stand development times right on the label. For both films and plates.
Is it because it sometimes generates a different looking negative? One that might be outside of the normal expectation envelope? One that requires a different printing regimen?
Developing one's negatives in a tanning developer also gives different looking negatives. Yet I hear no hue and cry saying to never, ever try that...
Minimal agitation development is all about controlling contrast, whether it be to tame it or enhance it. It especially accentuates micro contrast in the midtones. The added apparent sharpness is a side benefit.
I've posted this example link before... (there was a url link here which no longer exists).
It's from an 8x10 sheet of FP4+ fully stand developed in Adonal/Rodinal (1+100) for 60 minutes with no intermediate agitation. The negative base exposure was an extreme 7 minutes at f/32 in order to register the background foliage. That worked, but it left the illuminated sign face itself severely overexposed and the potential macro contrast unusable.
Stand processing didn't completely correct that. But it narrowed the gap sufficiently so, as noted in the accompanying comments, a workable 3x burn of the sign face rendered the desired "brilliant" glowing-in-the-darkness visual sense that I experience every night when I drive past that location.
Without applying the technique of minimal agitation, this photograph would not have been possible.
And at no time was I wearing a skirt...
Ken
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?