stand development variable asa?

seanE said:

on this note, are some films better than others in regards to ''exposure range'' id imagine this would be important if using an unmetered Leica for example. i bought some ''i think it was Berger 400'' ''I'm probably spelling that wrong'' and it was praised for its ability to be pushed and puled.

Click to expand...

With my first all manual camera (blad), I was more than a little nervous about exposure and metering. Rightly or wrongly, I sense this in your mention of 'unmetered Leica'. I've used it less than 2 yrs, until very recently w/ a pitifully humble selenium cell. I had a few negs that weren't well exposed, but I was rather shocked at how few it was. I failed on shooting velvia 50 in the snow & ice. We're usually gonna get fine exposure w/ any effort at all. Getting all the finesse on weird lighting will come. If this is somehow in the ballpark of the reason for the orig. question, I hope you'll find your way to Mark B's excellent article on this site on incident metering. 'Finished going all the way through the thread again yest. 'Still digesting parts & still have no clue was is meant by SBR.

If you're simply not yet souping negatives & are curious about stand, semi-stand, etc. the good folks here & at my local shop strongly encouraged me to try normal off the rack method first & develop a consistency with it before getting fancy. I went through a pack of D-76 before trying anything else, 'cause I'd used it in the ancient past & had good results. It worked great. Most all of them do.

You'll do well. Now stop writing & post some shots!

Andrew - thank you for posting about your Pyrocat method. You got my attention w/ your recommendation for HP5 & Pyrocat-HD. Right now, I just hate to add another bottle or 3 to the collection. Which is good evidence I need to shoot more and write less.

seanE said:

on this note, are some films better than others in regards to ''exposure range'' id imagine this would be important if using an unmetered Leica for example.
i bought some ''i think it was Berger 400'' ''I'm probably spelling that wrong'' and it was praised for its ability to be pushed and puled.

Click to expand...

Some films have more dynamic range than others, but you will find wet printing way difficult if you underexpose a little or overexpose a lot.

Films have zero ability to be pushed and pulled for speed! The toe speed is fixed. Some films have a lower contrast toe than others.

If you are using an unmetered Leica you can still get every shot 1/3 of a stop or better for E6 projection using an incident selenium meter on subjects nose, better than best in camera meter the cine (and video) people still do this for jump cuts!

If you are shooting fast action in mono with a unmetered M you need to understand sunny side /16, and margin the toe.

seanE said:

on this note, are some films better than others in regards to ''exposure range'' id imagine this would be important if using an unmetered Leica for example.
i bought some ''i think it was Berger 400'' ''I'm probably spelling that wrong'' and it was praised for its ability to be pushed and puled.

Click to expand...

Go out an try to find the limits.

Pick a scene with a person in it.

Meter well then under expose one frame 2-stops under, one stop under, one at normal, and one frame 3-stops over.

Develop the roll normally. No push, no pull.

Now print each frame so that the face looks the same in each print and compare.

In an enlarger I've done this a variety of times. The only print adjustment needed is a print exposure adjustment.

scheimfluger_77 said:

Do you do the 5x7 in a tray, daylight tank, or hangers?

Click to expand...

5x7, i did it in a tray or in a hand tank " taco " and to be honest it was only maybe 2 or 3 sheets.
i haven't used hangers in decades. i've had bad experiences with hangers.
if i stand develop sheets, it isn't in a tray to be honest, mainly because i usually have too many to develop.
as i said, while i have stand developed ( and will again ) 5x7, typically i do this with 4x5 sheets
( it has been my sheet film preference ). i have 2 clunky FR tanks i load with film
i put the sheets in ( hopefully 1 in a slot, even with that tool its not easy and i am not very good )
i put water in first ( i presoak everything ) and i smack the tank to get the bubbles off, then developer goes in, smack the side of the tank again to get the bubbles off
and put the lid on. i leave, watch an episode or 2 of spongebob squarepants or do something else for 1/2 hour, listen for the buzzer
go back to the film, rock it a couple of times, pour out the developer, put in water, then fixer and it turns out great.
i started doing this when i had a ton of film to process, and too much other stuff to do at the same time. rolls come out great, sheets great too.
if i don't stand in a fr tank, i typically shuffle sheets, up to 40 in a 8x10 tray ( 4x5 and 5x7 togehter sometimes ) 8.5 mins in sumatranol D ( or 130 )
or split 5 mins dektol ( or ansco 130 ) and 4 mins in sumatranol D ( or 130 ) ... works fine for any film any iso any format.

i hope this helps.

Ok I have it now

seanE said:

Ok so film matters, But would you be safe to shoot 400 film at between 200 and 1600?
and whats this xp2 stuff, B/W you develop in c41 with 50-1600 asa capabilities?

Click to expand...

Most B&W films have a latitude of from 3-1 /2 stops over- to 1 stop under-exposure. (This does not apply to very slow films which have very little latitude.) Within this range you will get acceptable results. The keyword here is acceptable. However for optimal results it is best to stay near the manufacturers ISO rating. This also applies to chromogenic films such as XP-2.

It seems that what is acceptable with digital cameras is being conflated with what is possible with analog materials. The two systems are very different and it is best for the unsuspecting not to make any comparisons. Analog materials are NOT variable ISO.

With digital cameras you pay a price for that variable ISO dial. As you increase the ISO setting you get more noise, the digital equivalent of grain. Higher ISO more noise = more grain. So once again there is no free lunch concerning variable ISO. Can we please drive a stake through this notion's heart, please.

Mainecoonmaniac said:

So what film are you using?

Click to expand...

Hi Mainecoonmaniac, Mainly HP5 and FP4 sheet films. But I have also done it with Efke 25, TMY-2, single and double-sided X-ray (double-sided in hangers).

Ilfords XP2 is a mono C41 dye based film ie there is no silver in the image when you wet print or scan.

At 50 ISO you can wet print a poster if your dark room is big enough no detectable grain.

At 1600 ISO you will have all black zone 1 shadow detail and what passes for high ISO digital noise.

You drop it off at a mini lab or process it like colour negative at home.

seanE said:

Ok so film matters, But would you be safe to shoot 400 film at between 200 and 1600?
and whats this xp2 stuff, B/W you develop in c41 with 50-1600 asa capabilities?

Click to expand...

Here's the short version.

Yes.

Your scanner will compensate for the short comings of your exposure pretty well.

Will you get perfect negatives?


No.

Will you get good, usable scans from your negatives?


Yes.

Also works great with diafine.

Here is a link to a test I did using 400 ISO film shot from 200 to 3200 on the same roll and developed in diafine
No...it's not perfect, but the scans are more than usable.

Also, here is a blog post about it.
http://jbhildebrand.com/2011/tutorials/workflow-tutorial-2-stand-development-with-rodinal/

Andrew O'Neill said:

Hi Mainecoonmaniac, Mainly HP5 and FP4 sheet films. But I have also done it with Efke 25, TMY-2, single and double-sided X-ray (double-sided in hangers).

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info! I use Fuji HRT so I'll try stand developing the film. I get too many scratches processing the film conventionally so leaving it alone might reduce the scratches.

You really cannot justify things by saying that the scans are good or OK. The scanning software is designed to produce the best results whereas a wet print may not. So you really need to ask whether or not you will ever make a traditional print.

Gerald C Koch said:

You really cannot justify things by saying that the scans are good or OK. The scanning software is designed to produce the best results whereas a wet print may not. So you really need to ask whether or not you will ever make a traditional print.

Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to justify anything. I was merely saying that they will come out nicely if the scan is the ultimate destination. For many people that is the ultimate destination, not everybody prints in a dark room.

Gerald C Koch said:

You really cannot justify things by saying that the scans are good or OK. The scanning software is designed to produce the best results whereas a wet print may not. So you really need to ask whether or not you will ever make a traditional print.

Click to expand...

hi gerald,
not sure if your post was directed towards me
because i have said similar things, that the film looks OK... scans+enlarges (traditionally) well
i have made traditional prints and electronic ones using the method of processing i described.
and the electronic ones were made with both film scans, as well as print scans.
i've been doing this way of developing off / on for maybe 4-5 years? i can't really remember when
i started. i don't do it as often now, these days i split develop and get similar results, no matter the iso
the film was exposed at &c, maybe if someone else saw, and tried to enlarge or scan the negatives i use
they would comment differently but i don't really have much trouble.

jnanian said:

hi gerald,
not sure if your post was directed towards me

Click to expand...

No, just a general observation that scanners complicate things.

Gerald C Koch said:

No, just a general observation that scanners complicate things.

Click to expand...

I think they can obfuscate things. Most users simply don't understand how automated the process can be.