Stand Development Too Dense?

Alan9940 · Dec 24, 2018

Just started experimenting with stand development and I'm a bit confused as to why my negatives look over-developed. I shot RPX 100 at EI64 and developed in Rodinal 1:100 at 20C for 1 hour. My development procedure was: slow, gentle inversions for the first 30 secs; tank sat in 20C water bath for 30 mins.; two slow, gentle inversions at the halfway mark; tank sat for another 30 mins. Stop, fix, wash as normal.

Yes, I'm aware that...technically...my procedure should probably be called semi-stand, but I've read that there are many variations on so-called "stand development." On with the story... I've read that it really doesn't matter what film is developed this way, what exposure index it's shot at (maybe, within a stop or so either way), that temp control ain't that important, etc.

All that said, though, my negatives came out too dense. I've, also, read that the highlights generally develop in the first 15 - 20 mins so it doesn't seem reasonable to use typical development controls like reduce development time by 20% to control the highlights? Therefore, for those with stand development experience I'm wondering what controls, if any, are available to me with this development technique to control the highlights?

Thank you for any insight provided.

jtk · Dec 24, 2018

Alan... What standard are you using when you say "too dense?" Does it scan/print OK or is something seriously wrong (such as exposure).

I'm guessing you rated 64 hoping to gain highlight detail but the premise of scanning is that you'll post-process and scanning does better with tonal range and contrast than do development controls.

I always scan and inkjet print, have never used Rodinal with silver paper. My standard developer for silver paper used to be Edwal FG7 without sulfite...gave me all sorts of control (Ansel Adams advised FG7 in person but never admitted it in print). I use Rodinal for its look and resolution.

I stand process 35mm in Rodinal 1+100. The only inversion I do is for the first few seconds, then once slowly, half way through. You're right: time and temp aren't critical (tho temp should match fix and wash). Shortening it won't hurt or get you anything useful. I use Photoshop or derivatives (Lightroom or NIK) for controls.

My few experiences stand processing 120 created significant uneven development, top to bottom (Nikor reel).

ic-racer · Dec 24, 2018

Are you having to print on paper grades 1.5 and lower? If so, I'd go ahead and shorten development time 20% and see how those print.

Kawaiithulhu · Dec 24, 2018

jtk said:
120 created significant uneven development, top to bottom

Maybe some heat convection going on that's only noticeable because of the taller volume, and if you're in a stainless tank sitting on a surface not the same temperature as the soup? Just a random guess.

ic-racer said:
Are you having to print on paper grades 1.5 and lower? If so, I'd go ahead and shorten development time 20% and see how those print.

Would lowering the dilution also help in that situation? I would think that continually reducing time until something worked would negate the whole point of trying stand development in the first place?

revdoc · Dec 24, 2018

Kawaiithulhu is correct. In stand development, dilution is your contrast control. I'd try a test film at 1:150. If that's still too much, 1:200.

Andrew O'Neill · Dec 24, 2018

As stated, dilute the developer more. And in my books, you are doing stand development. For me, semi-stand is 5 sec agitation every 15 minutes to total development time of an hour. What's your reason for doing stand?

Alan9940 · Dec 24, 2018

jtk said:
Alan... What standard are you using when you say "too dense?" Does it scan/print OK or is something seriously wrong (such as exposure).

My standard is a densitometer. The high values in my stand developed negs measure about 1.60 which is significantly higher than my typical target density of 1.25 - 1.35 over fb+f. There is nothing seriously wrong; I scanned a couple of the negs earlier today and the resulting image files are fine. I'm pretty sure if I used a low grade filter in the darkroom, I could pull a decent analog print from these negs, too.

jtk said:
My few experiences stand processing 120 created significant uneven development, top to bottom (Nikor reel).

The only issue I saw was a very slight density difference along the outside edges (left/right film edge) of the neg. Easier to fix on the desktop than in the darkroom, though.

Alan9940 · Dec 24, 2018

ic-racer said:
Are you having to print on paper grades 1.5 and lower? If so, I'd go ahead and shorten development time 20% and see how those print.

Haven't printed these in the darkroom, yet, but I'm guessing they will require a grade 1 or, maybe, even a 0.5 to print properly. I really don't think a 20% reduction (in my case, this would be 12 mins) in development time would mean much, since the idea behind stand development is that the highlights basically develop to completion between agitation cycles (if you use any between the start and end) while the shadows continue on. Don't know anything for fact, but I've read that the highlights usually develop in 15 - 20 mins. Therefore, my thinking is that even if I cut development time to 40 mins (approx a 34% reduction for me), the high values will still develop to about the same density of my 60 min development.

Alan9940 · Dec 24, 2018

Thank you for suggesting increasing the dilution ratio. That was my thought, too!

Alan9940 · Dec 24, 2018

Andrew O'Neill said:
What's your reason for doing stand?

No particular reason other than that I typically shoot in harsh sunny conditions here in the desert southwest and I hypothesized that stand development might help contain occasional run-away high values. Also, I use minimal agitation and EMA (extreme minimal agitation) techniques when developing sheet film, especially with Pyrocat-HD, and I like the results.

OK, I'll admit it...I like to play, too!!

Andrew O'Neill · Dec 25, 2018

I stand/semi stand in Pyrocat-HD as well. It's the bomb.

removedacct1 · Dec 25, 2018

After several tries at "stand" development with 120 roll film, I abandoned it as a bad idea: not once did I get a roll that wasn't significantly more dense on the bottom edge than the rest of the roll. Totally unsuitable technique for roll film, IMO.

Andrew O'Neill · Dec 25, 2018

paulbarden said:
After several tries at "stand" development with 120 roll film, I abandoned it as a bad idea: not once did I get a roll that wasn't significantly more dense on the bottom edge than the rest of the roll. Totally unsuitable technique for roll film, IMO.

Full on stand development is VERY risky whereas semi-stand is safer regardless of format... That wee bit of agitation makes all the difference. What developer did you use?

pentaxuser · Dec 25, 2018

paulbarden said:
After several tries at "stand" development with 120 roll film, I abandoned it as a bad idea: not once did I get a roll that wasn't significantly more dense on the bottom edge than the rest of the roll. Totally unsuitable technique for roll film, IMO.

I have never developed sheet film but my understanding is that it is done in a tank as is 120. My thoughts were that a 120 roll curved in a tank is really the equivalent of several sheets which also "stand up" in a tank so I wonder why the bottom of a 120 roll should be adversely affected in the way you describe but not a sheet film? The other thing is that "denser on the bottom edge" usually suggests that the bottom edge received more "development" than the rest of the film but if it is all covered by the same developer and that coverage lasts for a long time, namely an hour, I wonder how the bottom edge has become denser?

This is me asking genuine questions and a sneaky way of trying to "rubbish " your findings

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill · Dec 25, 2018

I've never had the bottom develop more than the top... the only problem I encountered with full on stand was severe bromide drag...
.

jtk · Dec 25, 2018

Andrew O'Neill said:
Full on stand development is VERY risky whereas semi-stand is safer regardless of format... That wee bit of agitation makes all the difference. What developer did you use?

There's nearly zero "risk" in "full-on" stand with 35mm. The reason it's a problem for 120 is that the chemistry at the bottom becomes different than the chemistry at the top.

The third biggest virtue of Rodinal 1+100 is that development time isn't critical. The second biggest virtue is the edge effect, which washes away if you agitate. The first biggest virtue is the way Rodinal depicts grain.

I don't think I'd use Rodinal/stand if I printed wet process.

Alan9940 · Dec 25, 2018

pentaxuser said:
I have never developed sheet film but my understanding is that it is done in a tank as is 120.

Sheet film can be developed in a tank, but many use trays (both open and closed) and tanks/hangers (not the same as a 120 roll film tank.)

removedacct1 · Dec 25, 2018

pentaxuser said:
I wonder why the bottom of a 120 roll should be adversely affected in the way you describe but not a sheet film?

pentaxuser

I process all sheet film in a tray, not in any kind of tank. For me, "stand" development (with Rodinal) is something I have used a few times, just to evaluate the technique, but I have not found it capable of imparting special qualities to my negs, so I don't use it nowadays.

jtk · Dec 25, 2018

paulbarden said:
I process all sheet film in a tray, not in any kind of tank. For me, "stand" development (with Rodinal) is something I have used a few times, just to evaluate the technique, but I have not found it capable of imparting special qualities to my negs, so I don't use it nowadays.

I don't think Rodinal's distinct character (grain, edge effect) can be seen without significant enlargement, therefore I wouldn't use it for contact prints.

Based on my experience with 120 (uneven top-to-bottom) I'd avoid stand with sheet film.

pentaxuser · Dec 25, 2018

Thanks,Paul. I appreciate how sheet film in trays means that the whole sheet goes under the developer at once and stays there and there are those who claim that the 8-10 secs max to fill a tank can affect bottom of the film development as opposed to the top in short development times but I do still wonder why a few seconds might make a difference in what is an hour's worth of immersion.

However if it didn't work for you with 120 then I understand why you might not want to repeat it. As a bit of a sceptic I do accept that stand or even semi-stand might not impart special qualities to negs but with semi-stand in particular I also wonder why there are any special drawbacks to it

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill · Dec 25, 2018

I never use trays for sheet for semi-stand or stand. I use BTZS tube for sheet film. I feel that it works best when film is verticle/on it's side. Edge effects are not washed away with semi-stand and Pyrocat.

Andrew O'Neill · Dec 25, 2018

pentaxuser said:
Thanks,Paul. I appreciate how sheet film in trays means that the whole sheet goes under the developer at once and stays there and there are those who claim that the 8-10 secs max to fill a tank can affect bottom of the film development as opposed to the top in short development times but I do still wonder why a few seconds might make a difference in what is an hour's worth of immersion.

However if it didn't work for you with 120 then I understand why you might not want to repeat it. As a bit of a sceptic I do accept that stand or even semi-stand might not impart special qualities to negs but with semi-stand in particular I also wonder why there are any special drawbacks to it

pentaxuser

The special qualities for me is enhanced edge effects.

removedacct1 · Dec 25, 2018

Andrew O'Neill said:
The special qualities for me is enhanced edge effects.

Fair enough, but I'll stick with Pyro for that.

removedacct1 · Dec 25, 2018

pentaxuser said:
Thanks,Paul. I appreciate how sheet film in trays means that the whole sheet goes under the developer at once and stays there and there are those who claim that the 8-10 secs max to fill a tank can affect bottom of the film development as opposed to the top in short development times but I do still wonder why a few seconds might make a difference in what is an hour's worth of immersion.

However if it didn't work for you with 120 then I understand why you might not want to repeat it. As a bit of a sceptic I do accept that stand or even semi-stand might not impart special qualities to negs but with semi-stand in particular I also wonder why there are any special drawbacks to it

pentaxuser

I can only repeat what others have said to me about this, and its possible that its speculative. But what I gather is that during the 30-60 minutes that the tank sits undisturbed, development products (bromide?) drift towards the bottom of the tank and have the effect of increasing developer activity in the zone where they built up. Its got nothing to do with the speed at which the tank gets filled - as you said, a few seconds cannot possibly make any difference.

Andrew O'Neill · Dec 25, 2018

paulbarden said:
Fair enough, but I'll stick with Pyro for that.

That's why i use pyrocat for semi stand.

Stand Development Too Dense?

Alan9940

jtk

ic-racer

Kawaiithulhu

revdoc

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Alan9940

Alan9940

Alan9940

Alan9940

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

removedacct1

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

jtk

Alan9940

removedacct1

jtk

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

removedacct1

removedacct1

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Stand Development Too Dense?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency