stand development variable asa?

[seanE]

i read an article sting that what ever the film just give it 60min and you will get good enough results, dose that mean that if you use a film with a wide exposure range you could push and pull a stop or two on the same role of film.

 

[darkosaric]

I am using semi stand for one hour when I am using toy cameras - with single shutter speed you are going in over and under exposure almost always. It is a good approach to compensate - but if you have "normal" camera then it is always better to use one iso values for the whole film.
And for B&W films plus minus one stop is practically nothing anyhow.

 

[removed account4]

seanE
i can only speak about using sumatranol130 for stand development,
what it is, is photographers roasted sumatra beans brewed and then washing soda and vit c added to it
then 1-2 oz of spent or stock ansco130 mixed in / L
it processed all my films stand development in 1/2 hour, no matter the format, camera ( everyting from 1/2 frame to box to 5x7 ),
iso, lighting, way i exposed the latent image color or b/w ... i did this for a number of years. so the short answer is yes, it can happen, the long answer is
it depends on the developer and what dilution and how you use it. if you don't have ansco130, you can probably substitute dektol
i have used dektol instead for everything but the stand development routine, and it seems to be a good substitution ..

as with everything
YMMV ( your washing soda, vit c and coffee might be different than mine )

good luck !

 

[Gerald C Koch]

A film's speed is determined by the formulatiion of the emulsion. This means that Kodak or Ilford can design a medium speed film with an ISO of 125. Now most developing agents like Metol or paraminophenol (Rodinal) do not fully develop the latent image. However the phenidones including Dimezone under certain conditions do fully utilize the ISO speed. However jiggery-pokery like stand development cannot. No developing tricks can create shadow detail that is not there. So stand development can be useful in certain situations to effect the characteristic (H&D) curve (think the Zone System). However it cannot increase the effective film speed above the ISO rating.

So if you truly believe that stand development can increase film speed (and from previous posts there are quite a few) then I have some land in south Florida that I'd like to sell you.

 

[Rich Ullsmith]

OP's operative words: good enough results

I get good enough results with 1 hr at 1/2 dilution with rodinal or pmk (1+100 and 1+2+200 respectively).

Get better results by titrating dilution, for example in harsh light maybe 1+110, and in softer light 1+90. It is easier for me to alter and control than agitation or temp.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

i read an article sting that what ever the film just give it 60min and you will get good enough results, dose that mean that if you use a film with a wide exposure range you could push and pull a stop or two on the same role of film.

Typically the latitude of a film [its exposure range] is related to its speed. Slow films have little latitude while fast films have more. It all has to do with the statistical proportion of small grains to large grains. In a slow film all the grains are small while in a fast film there is a mix of grain sizes from small to large grains grains predominating. A medium speed film would lack the larger grains. Larger grains have more activation sites (the result of deviations from an ideal crystal structure) than smaller ones. Hence they are more sensitive to light. So you cannot somehow magically convert a slow film into a fast one.

Delta or T-grain emulsions have the typical shape of the silver halide grains changed by a bit of solid-state chemistry. This change in the shape of the silver halide grains gives them a greater cross-sectional area without making them greater in volume. Thereby more activation sites are presented to the light making the emulsion faster. If you look at a photomicrograph of a delta or T-grain emulsion you will see that the grains are triangular in shape and flat. Hence the name corresponding to the triangular shape of the Greek letter delta.

Stand development alters the shape of the Characteristic Curve (H&D curve). It does this by shortening the middle or straight line potion. This makes any under-exposure less visible to the human eye. However it cannot create information (shadow detail) that is not placed there by the exposure. Ex nihilo nihil fit.

 

[HiHoSilver]

Sean, I read a similar string - maybe the same. 'Started at Mr. Leica & followed his thread to a site that he thought was the best description of the stand process. The claims were pretty big. ISO, temps - mostly don't matter. Those are big claims. Another site on the same topic had alterations saying stand prefers cooler temps, that the results from mixed ISO shots on roll film weren't perfect, but were quite useable - especially for his scan/dig. manipulation workflow. One claim that seemed consistent was that pushing a fast film did well - pushing 400 to 1600. This would fit w/ Geral's point about having to have some large grains to work with. I've recently tried semi-stand w/ HC-110 and Rodinal One Shot. One roll each. Both turned out very pleasing results. One member here recommended HP5 + stand dev. w/ Pyrocat-HD. I've not tried that yet, but his results looked gorgeous.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

It matters to me. I want good shadow separation and depth. I always use EI 250 with HP5, EI 64 with FP4 in Pyrocat-HD. Personally, I prefer semi-stand (agitated only twice for 10 sec).

 

[markbarendt]

i read an article sting that what ever the film just give it 60min and you will get good enough results, dose that mean that if you use a film with a wide exposure range you could push and pull a stop or two on the same role of film.

I think you are using terms in the wrong way.

Yes you can shoot at various exposure levels with any negative film on the same roll. That isn't a push or a pull, believe it or not, that's the norm. (The Theory of the Photographic Process Hardcover – December, 1977)

An increase in camera exposure is just offset by a corresponding printing adjustment, as are reductions.

That does not require special development and it's true of most any film development regime. Stand development is by no means required, nor is it necessarily better than "normal" development.

Next...

Push means to "develop extra". It is the same adjustment as "plus" development.

Pull means to "develop less". It is the same adjustment as "minus" development.

The adjustment of camera exposure, to "reduce" or "increase", is actually a separate decision.

Push and pull change how the print looks in relation to a specific printing criteria, not what shows up as detail on the film or the print.

 

[Xmas]

i read an article sting that what ever the film just give it 60min and you will get good enough results, dose that mean that if you use a film with a wide exposure range you could push and pull a stop or two on the same role of film.

No if you want to do that you need to use XP2+ in normal c41, OK from 50-800 ISO.

Stand for 60 minutes 1:100 20C Rodinal gives you high contrast and good toe speed in most films.
Normal ISO!
If you overexpose two stops you will likely have burnt highlights.
If you underexpose two stops you won't have shadow details.

It is not like setting auto ISO.

All you gain is you can put eight different films in the same multi tank!

 

[markbarendt]

No if you want to do that you need to use XP2+ in normal c41, OK from 50-800 ISO.

While XP2 is a film that Ilford advertises this fact about, it is far from the only film that that is possible with. For 400 speed films I use the 50-800 EI range all the time with HP5, Delta 400, and Tmax 400 and all in normal development. I've yet to find a 400 speed negative film this won't work with.

This simply exploits the natural latitude inherent in negative film.

Stand for 60 minutes 1:100 20C Rodinal gives you high contrast and good toe speed in most films.
Normal ISO!

As I understand it, the thought behind stand development is that it gives more time for the shadows to develop where the developer stays strong (which pack more detail on the toe, also known as contrast compression), develops mid tones to normal contrast, and then the developer exhausts in the highlight areas (compressing the highlights on the curve). It is intended to make printing easy without burn or dodge

The glaring problem with this theory in my head is that to utilize these "advantages" well in an easy straight print; three exposure values have to land perfectly on the paper. To do that camera exposure would have to be a near perfect hit to place compressed toe tones, mid-tones, and compressed highlights. Exposure variances would accentuate the tone compression (and muddiness) at either end when printed.

Conversely normal development with a long straight line full of well separated tones would possibly require more burn and dodge to print but have more separation of tones/contrast/snappines and more latitude. On a straight print normally developed films may appear to lack highlight detail, the reality though is normally that they just need burning in.

If you overexpose two stops you will likely have burnt highlights.
If you underexpose two stops you won't have shadow details.

It is not like setting auto ISO.

I agree that reducing camera exposure by 2 stops will affect how much shadow detail can be printed, one should know their limits, on the extra exposure side though with say HP5 or Tmax 400 I have no reservations about shooting 4-6 stops over if needed; EI 25, 12, 6. There's plenty of head room for most shots on most negative films and especially in the 400 ISO range.

All you gain is you can put eight different films in the same multi tank!

And that is a significant benefit for many of us. When shooting any C-41 film there is rarely any thought given to "how" to develop the film, every film gets the same treatment 3:15 at 100f, constant agitation. That is way cool.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I've been slowly testing stand development. I'm actually impressed by the process. I like to use HC-110 1:100 for about an hour. I would think you can variable ASA, but I wouldn't go below box speed. This part I like with stand development, hot highlights exhaust the developer faster than shadows. But I don't think developer would bring up under exposed highlights. I've been trying Pyrocat HD and I've gotten streaky development.

 

[HiHoSilver]

Maine, you're doing full stand? My roll w/ HC-110 (yeah, single instance) was w/ 1:150. 'Followed a process from a thread on Flickr that called this 'dilution J'. The 'J' stands for Joker (his words). He called for a single inversion @ 20 min & only soaked for 45min. I soaked 55 & was very pleased. No streak/spots w/ HC-110 or Rodinal One Shot (at 1:100, 2 inversions @ 30 min mark). I remembered the purpose of the mid inversion(s) was to avoid streaks they referred to as bromide drag.

 

[Xmas]

While XP2 is a film that Ilford advertises this fact about, it is far from the only film that that is possible with. For 400 speed films I use the 50-800 EI range all the time with HP5, Delta 400, and Tmax 400 and all in normal development. I've yet to find a 400 speed negative film this won't work wit
This simply exploits the natural latitude inherent in negative film.

XP2+ will do 20x30 foot posters at 50ISO of high contract scenes better than or comparable with any 50 ISO film or better shadows than any 400 ISO AT 800... In mini lab standard processing.

All you get from dilute stand is 8 different films in same multi tank, it is a compromise not a gain.

 

[seanE]

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?

 

[scheimfluger_77]

... ( everyting from 1/2 frame to box to 5x7 ) ...
good luck !

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

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I'm not telling the whole truth

Maine, you're doing full stand? My roll w/ HC-110 (yeah, single instance) was w/ 1:150.

I agitate the first minute then let it stand. The streaking is not from HC-110, but from Pyrocat HD. I just started to use it.

But I like the results from the 1:100 dilution. It's from concentrate, not stock solution.

 

[markbarendt]

XP2+ will do 20x30 foot posters at 50ISO of high contract scenes better than or comparable with any 50 ISO film or better shadows than any 400 ISO AT 800... In mini lab standard processing.

All you get from dilute stand is 8 different films in same multi tank, it is a compromise not a gain.

I truly agree that XP2 can do great things and I'm not a fan of stand development.

Standardized processing (like C41 is) though is sweet. My last experiment with this on the B&W side was with Delta 400, HP5, and FP4 in the same tank in a normal continuos agitation RolloPyro process and it worked really well, only required minimal contrast adjustments when printing.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've been trying Pyrocat HD and I've gotten streaky development.

I've only gotten streakiness with HP5 and FP4 with full on stand development. To counter that, I don't give the film a prebath, and I semi-stand (agitation at the beginning for 30sec, 5sec a third of the way in, 5 sec two thirds in). I stand them in BTZS tubes. I always shoot a backup, just in case!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

And I always dilute Pyrocat-HD 5ml of both A and B solutions, to 1200ml water. That amount will totally film an 8x10 BTZS tube. Develop time is anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour.

 

[markbarendt]

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?

With any film, reducing exposure from the box rating reduces the amount of available shadow detail. The real question with regard to acceptability is, will it affect important shot detail in the print?

Box speed does have a safety factor built in, for some people that's plenty and even at two stops under they are happy, for others box doesn't get them enough; you need to try for yourself.

On the extra exposure side EI 50 is probably safe for any B&W negative film not just XP2, again you should test for yourself.

 

[seanE]

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.

 

[MattKing]

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?

I sense the danger of someone equating in their mind the adjustable sensitivity of digital sensors with the somewhat adjustable response of films.

There are no films or processes that give you variable "ASA" (now actually "ISO") capabilities.

This is because the ASA/ISO criteria for negative films are heavily weighted toward ensuring sufficient shadow detail and contrast. And if you under-expose film, it is shadow detail and contrast you lose, with the same never to be retrieved.

If you use a 400 ISO film but set your meter to 1600, than a properly metered scene which includes a normal range of tones will yield a negative that is two stops under-exposed. Which means that you will lose shadow detail and contrast.

But sometimes, you can live with the lost shadow detail and contrast, providing that the rest of the scene is rendered well. That is usually accomplished by adjusting the contrast of the film in the regions where there is enough light hitting it to capture that detail. That adjustment of contrast is how those specialized processing options and more flexible films allow you to get better results when exposure is not optimum.

Stand development techniques permit you to boost the contrast in the near shadow and mid-tone parts of the under-exposed image, while compensating in the highlight parts, which helps prevent those highlights from blocking up. The process distorts the response of the film in order to make large portions of the negative printable in a way that helps the resulting print look more pleasing. It does not, however, rescue meaningful amounts of the shadow detail and contrast lost due to under-exposure.

XP2 is a C41 processed black and white film. C41 processes result in dye clouds in the resulting negative, rather than silver grains. If you over-expose XP2 the resulting more dense dye clouds retain more detail than overly dense clumps of silver grains, so you can print through them more easily. This allows you to increase the contrast more at the printing stage, so it can help as well with under-exposed negatives.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Thanks for the tip

And I always dilute Pyrocat-HD 5ml of both A and B solutions, to 1200ml water. That amount will totally film an 8x10 BTZS tube. Develop time is anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour.

So what film are you using?

 

[MattKing]

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.

As in my previous post, "pushing" and "pulling" refer to development that, respectively, increases or decreases the overall contrast of a roll of developed film.

Under exposed film gives results that often look better if it is developed to a higher contrast.

Over exposed film is usually best served by normal development. But if a film is shot under conditions of very high contrast, you can improve the negatives by increasing the exposure a bit (over exposing it) and then pulling (decreasing) the development to bring the contrast down.

If you are working without a meter, you can expect to get both under and over exposure on the same roll. In that case it is best to:

1) use a film that handles over-exposure really well. XP2 is a good example, as is Tri-X. Others will have their favourites;
2) choose exposure settings that are more likely to over-expose than under-expose the film.