Stand development times for HP5+ in Rodinal?

[NB23]

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.

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.

 

[macandal]

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.

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.

Thanks.

 

[NB23]

Yes it's a preference.
Everything in life is about preferences.
As a man, you prefer wearing pants or skirts?

And believe me, you've seen even nicer results from regular development schemes.

 

[Shootar401]

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 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.

 

[cliveh]

I think there are a few members of APUG who do not really understand Still bath (stand) development and employ it thinking it will improve their images.

 

[StoneNYC]

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.

Turn it upside down once, and then turn it back upright, takes about 10 seconds, just once, NOT for a minute, just ONE inversion each 20 minutes.

 

[StoneNYC]

And don't listen to NB23 as he is incorrect, grain characteristics are certainly affected by agitation technique.

Also, stand is not sloppy, and can be used purposefully to tame contrast. (Slightly, not to some extreme, but to a degree).

It can also be used to correct for improper exposure if you completely botched the exposure but don't know what it is, your best chance of recovery is probably stand.

Stand will certainly to a degree give you a grainier image, but when don't properly the image will be even and just like any other technique should be used purposefully.

NB23 most likely has never actually done stand, or never properly did it, or they wouldn't be saying these things.

I don't do full stand (or in my case semi-stand [the one inversion per 20 minutes to me I call semi-stand]) often, but it's useful to know how, and know what the results might be ahead of time.

The images you can create form register development will usually be "better" to most people, but both can be lovely in the right light.

Good luck!

 

[NB23]

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?

 

[NB23]

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.

Hc110:B for 6 minutes with vigorous agitation will also always give you a usable neg. Far better contrast. With any film.
And you get to save 54 precious minutes.

You people really have 54 minutes to waste? Even if you do other things while it's "standing", at one point you have to get back to it. And then finish the process. Wash. That's a whole hour lost. And you get poorer results.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

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...

Ken

 

[Xmas]

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

 

[StoneNYC]

In my experience, rigorous agitation created much larger grain and unpleasant images compared to stand. I can only speak from my own experience.

 

[StoneNYC]

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

The intermediate agitation is only to prevent uneven development by keeping a more even amount of active developer from the top of the tank to bottom of the tank, that's the only reason. That's why a single inversion that I do takes a full 10 seconds, because it is VERY slow inversion.

 

[Xmas]

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

 

[StoneNYC]

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

Perhaps I am just overly paranoid

Anyway I'm very happy with this process, and I don't mind the arduous task of having to pay attention to my 20 minute timer

I know that it works and, it works for me and that's really all that matters right? And I can share this knowledge with others in hopes that they find their own way with some additional actual examples rather than just talk. Glad you enjoy the stand and that you're making good use of your time!

 

[NB23]

It's photography 101 stuff. Grain is not a function of agitation. End of story.

Stop spreading false infos and lies. Please.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

It's photography 101 stuff. Grain is not a function of agitation. End of story.

Stop spreading false infos and lies. Please.

But I'm not spreading any lies. And it's not the end of story. I was asking a good faith question...

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...

Ken

 

[NB23]

Im only acusing the "agitation=grain" folks.
That is total bs.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Understood.

But I'm asking about your long-standing negative opinion regarding stand development in general. I'm just curious as to what gave rise to that opinion. It's a historically well-known and well-used technique. Part of the literature of the medium. I have used it myself with better results than I would have obtained otherwise, given the harsh lighting conditions and resulting unavoidable extreme negative exposures I was dealing with.

But I realize that YMMV. So I'm just asking how and why that mileage may have varied for you.

Ken

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I occasionally use stand/semi-stand in very dilute pyrocat-hd. I use it mainly for increased sharpness and enhanced edge effects. I don't do it for every situation. A scene that is rather low to normal contrast, with lots of texture is best (for me). Large areas of even tone such as sky can be problematic (mottling). It can be a very sloppy if one employs sloppy technique. I have used several developers including Rodinal and HC-110, but the best IMHO, is Pyrocat-HD and Obsidian Aqua. I use 8x10 BTZS tubes filled to the brim. When stand is anticipated, I always shoot a backup. Just in case!
In regards to agitation and grain, I always thought it was how long the film was in the developer, rather than amount of agitation that affected grain size... no?

 

[Kyle M.]

I have some very very limited experience with Rodinal, 2 rolls of T-MAX 100, 120 to be exact. I stand developed one roll in 1:100 for 1 hour 10 inversions at start then let sit. That roll looked great except for a slight lack of sharpness. The second roll I did in 1:100 with 5 inversions every 30 seconds for 24 minutes, it came out absolutely amazing. I bought it with the intention of only using with T-MAX 100 in 120 size considering I have almost 150 rolls of that film, but I'm sure I'll be trying it out with Tri-X in 35mm soon.

 

[c6h6o3]

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 know fine photographers who use it exclusively to develop their film. It's a tool, and like all creative tools can be used to great advantage in many ways.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

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.

Yes, agreed.

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...



NB23, what do you think?

Ken

 

[TheToadMen]

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

I've seen this print in real live and I can confirm it's a beautiful print!!
(I received it from Ken through (there was a url link here which no longer exists))

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Thanks Bert! Maybe we can even get a few more BPX participants from this thread?

Holding a stand-developed print in your hands is by far the best way to see that he technique can indeed be made to effectively work.

How about it, NB23? Interested in the BPX?

Ken