"Stand Development" when is it called for.......if ever?

Pyrocat doesn't oxidize as readily as some other soups, which is why it's pretty good at continuous agitation in drums and can last long enough for a decent stand time before it turns to useless goop.
You'd really have to use the same soup under the three main agitation regimes to have a valid comparison: stand/semi-stand + continuous + 30/60s intervals.

Some photography fellow at a University should really sit down and write a paper on these techniques and formulations with proper math and images. Real people don't normally have time, inclination, or funding for that!

I'm throwing my hat in the ring.

I stand at times. It's economical for iffy film that I don't care much for. Drop in walk away. It works for me.

Ignoring the nitty gritty science, I don't care about what's happening on a molecular level. If it looks alright to me it has merit. Also, to the claim of ruined negatives due to stand, I've ruined negatives with regular developers too. I can be stupid all sorts of ways.

I went to minimal agitation for more control. Not a density numbers person, but the visual difference between a diluted HC-110 vs dilute minimal agitation Pyrocat-HD is distinct. For high contrast scenes I could not nail down time in dilute HC-110 even at 1-100.
Dilute Pyrocat is slower to add density, yet remains active, and thus allows me some flexibility. I generally take 2 of each shot and process the first one at N, N-, or N+ then adjust time or maybe agitation as needed. I am beginning to like a slightly thinner negative than I liked in the past and find I can bump contrast more easily in the enlarger rather than try to tame it.

paulbarden said:

David,
I can’t help but think that if you didn’t see any difference between the two, then you didn’t really examine the images. Read the “info” page to see what I said about the two negatives, please. I stated quite clearly what I feel the images demonstrate.
All I am saying is that “stand”development might offer some creative controls that might not be as easily had by other methods, and only sometimes is it “useful”: by no means is it the Unicorn Of Film Processing.

Click to expand...

Well I have looked again at the images and re-read your text. The differences between the two scans are pretty minimal and I feel that they could easily be matched in either the darkroom or on a computer.

paulbarden said:

Did anyone look at the two examples I provided a link to?? I would like to think they would have promoted some constructive dialog, but no such luck. I guess once we make up our minds about something, that's the end of the story. Ahh, human nature.

Click to expand...

I did, but I am not sure what you are trying to tell? The differences between the two images (level, brightness, contrast) could just as well come from digital post-processing or any automatisms in the scanner software. Any differences in the development process would only have been visible if you scanned both negatives together in one pass with identical settings and even such a test would have little or no significance. Important is IMHO the prints you can make and if the differences between the negatives are so subtle, that you can easily achieve or correct them with minor grade and exposure compensation when printing, the differences between the negatives are irrelevant.

FWIW: Unless in a hurry, I stand develop because I find the process more convenient. Especially in the summer months, it is tedious in my living environment to keep the developer at a consistent temperature and I find it boring to baby-sit the developer tank for 10, 15 or perhaps even 20 minutes just to agitate it every 30 seconds. I don't pretend to achieve any major pictorial advantages from it and with all the different kinds of films I have 'abused', I have not one single time experienced technical problems like uneven development or bromide drag. Generalisations like 'Rodinal 1+100, one hour works for everything' is perhaps also taking it a bit too far. Even if it might give printable negatives if you go into the extremes of what is possible with variable grade papers, most films benefit from an adapted development time even when stand developing. Just as with regular development, faster films need less 'juice' and slower films more 'juice' either by modifying the time or the concentration of developer.

*sigh*
Never mind.

paulbarden said:

*sigh*
Never mind.

Click to expand...

That is of course a healthy and mature reaction when someone disagrees with you.

Tor-Einar Jarnbjo said:

That is of course a healthy and mature reaction when someone disagrees with you.

Click to expand...

This is of course how to conjure a rude and demeaning response when someone declares it futile to defend their observations.

Kawaiithulhu said:

You'd really have to use the same soup under the three main agitation regimes to have a valid comparison: stand/semi-stand + continuous + 30/60s intervals.

Some photography fellow at a University should really sit down and write a paper on these techniques and formulations with proper math and images. Real people don't normally have time, inclination, or funding for that!

Click to expand...

This suggestion gets my endorsement. Currently my jury is still out on the subject.

pentaxuser

Attached a couple of curves approximately copied from a Crawley article on compensating development, BJP 2.16 2000.
The more dilute the solution the more compression of highlights .
Likely this is also true of stand development (usual caveats about that apply).

So I added two red lines. They are defined by the range photographic paper can reproduce. These lines move in tandem up or down depending on the exposure of the paper. The spacing between the lines is fixed by the grade of the paper. At grade 2 the spacing is about 1.0 vertical.

The lower line (@0.1) is print black, everything below that line has no detail or tone in a print. The upper line (@1.1) is to represent print white everything above that line has no detail or tone in a print.

In this example nothing on the curve above 1.1 shows in the print. That fancy shoulder has no effect on the print.

To take advantage of that fancy shoulder on that 100 speed film you would need to use EI 25 or 12 or 6 Or ... and correspondingly more enlarger exposure (scanning moxie) to tease out what you want on paper (or screen).

Between the lines in this example note that the 1+39 line is flatter, that means it has lower contrast, just like a pull affects a print.

markbarendt said:

Between the lines in this example note that the 1+39 line is flatter, that means it has lower contrast, just like a pull affects a print.
View attachment 188743

Click to expand...

surely its the other way round and 1+39 is more contrasty that 1+9 (unless i'm being totally thick here which cannot be ruled out)

Craig75 said:

surely its the other way round and 1+39 is more contrasty that 1+9 (unless i'm being totally thick here which cannot be ruled out)

Click to expand...

The steepness of the curve is what indicates contrast, the steeper portions of line indicate more contrast.

1+39 is slightly steeper (more contrast) at the shadow end (at the toe), but less contrasty in mid and higher print tones. In the ultra highlights 1+39 goes flat, low contrast. So, it could be said that in this case better (not more) shadow detail was available but the cost was that the mid and higher print tone/contrast was sacrificed to get that.

1+9 should print snappier/better looking faces, in this case.

Another thing to remember is that the detail outside the lines is usable/printable, it simply requires burn and dodge to get it to print; the very high tones on the 1+10 curve are going to be much snappier if burned in than what the 1+39 curve offers.

This type of analysis/doing the math allows you to choose which curve suits your needs.

markbarendt said:

The steepness of the curve is what indicates contrast, the steeper portions of line indicate more contrast.

1+39 is slightly steeper (more contrast) at the shadow end (at the toe), but less contrasty in mid and higher print tones. In the ultra highlights 1+39 goes flat, low contrast. So, it could be said that in this case better (not more) shadow detail was available but the cost was that the mid and higher print tone/contrast was sacrificed to get that.

1+9 should print snappier/better looking faces, in this case.

Another thing to remember is that the detail outside the lines is usable/printable, it simply requires burn and dodge to get it to print; the very high tones on the 1+10 curve are going to be much snappier if burned in than what the 1+39 curve offers.

This type of analysis/doing the math allows you to choose which curve suits your needs.

Click to expand...

cheers mark - so more shadow separation, mid tones running basically parallel to each other then compressing highlights after 7 or so stops. Printing on harder grade and you should get even more shadow and midtone separation and highlights becoming more like 1+9 is what I am taking from this - which sounds no bad thing. After around 10 stops either way its going to a lot of printing jiggery pokery either way to get those details onto paper but that very shallow shoulder at 1+39 is going to make those highlights pretty dull even at high grade so one would actually be better printing normal scenes at 1+39 (if you want a lot of separation between tones) and high contrast scenes at 1+9 so those extreme highlights are still on straight portion of film before the shoulder.

Your red lines seem to validate a common practice, for contrasty scenes overexpose (cf average metering) and underdevelop..
This would appear to mean that a curve on the top right hand corner would then fall between the red lines.
In curve A the highlight would be blown out, in curve B it would print OK.

I bet the OP has learned a lot since asking his question.

Craig75 said:

cheers mark - so more shadow separation, mid tones running basically parallel to each other then compressing highlights after 7 or so stops. Printing on harder grade and you should get even more shadow and midtone separation and highlights becoming more like 1+9 is what I am taking from this - which sounds no bad thing. After around 10 stops either way its going to a lot of printing jiggery pokery either way to get those details onto paper but that very shallow shoulder at 1+39 is going to make those highlights pretty dull even at high grade so one would actually be better printing normal scenes at 1+39 (if you want a lot of separation between tones) and high contrast scenes at 1+9 so those extreme highlights are still on straight portion of film before the shoulder.

Click to expand...

Harder paper moves the lines closer, that means there will be even less range printed from the negative. You lose highlight or shadow detail. There is no free lunch. If it’s outside the red lines it is black or white and shows no detail period.

Alan Johnson said:

Your red lines seem to validate a common practice, for contrasty scenes overexpose (cf average metering) and underdevelop..
This would appear to mean that a curve on the top right hand corner would then fall between the red lines.
In curve A the highlight would be blown out, in curve B it would print OK.

Click to expand...

That is the general way it works. Reducing development enough to get what you are suggesting though will provide a very ‘muddy gray’ print though. Also to get the top of the curve in would be a huge pull well outside the range of normal use.

Burn and dodge are the appropriate tools to get the details off the upper end of the curve.

I get the extreme "antipathy" (under-exaggeration, anyone?) toward stand. Tried it once, lost interest myself. I do understand the idea behind it and the mechanics of why it "should" work.

But for me, judging stand developed negs (or any negs) via a web scan seems somewhat pointless, without "the math" as mentioned here. My take on evolving my process has been "does the neg print easily on my setup? Is dodging and burning going to be 100% a creative tool vs. a rescue mission?" I don't feel qualified to make any empirical statements about a process (or especially a negative) I haven't taken from scene to final print. (Which is why I can firmly say things like "Rodinal dilution affects visible grain, whereas reasonable temperature adjustments do not" - because I've tested the hell out of it.) If I felt a need for stand devloping, I'd have to read up everything I could and start testing it. I just don't feel the need right now; I really want repeatable results.

I spend a fair amount of time coaching the new generation of kids-getting-into-film, and they all seem fascinated by stand - "it's a magic bullet, you don't need thermometers or timers or process controls or experience or testing", and - I think - the same differentiator that made them shoot film in the first place: "It's different", and in that difference is some fast-track secret-sauce to special images. The same reason they buy up expired film - "it might have some groovy unique look!" A look that's not repeatable and is a product of chance, but will make them look like they've pulled off something artsy. Not saying this is universal, but I see enough of it to understand how that could piss off an old-timer. (And I know expired film for some people is simply for cost savings - talking high school and college kids to a great degree. And most of them are scanning, not printing).

I imagine people who've empirically tested their film and dev combos for ISO and dilution and time get put-off by the "I can't be bothered to agitate a tank" or whatever attitudes? I dunno, but sheesh, if there are people who've tested and dialed in and found specific reasons to do stand for specific image qualities (or people that like shooting but don't like minding a timer), let 'em at it, chill out, and focus on advising the next generation of shooters on the facts about the process. If one fact is "throw the film in and an hour later you get negs that are - at least - scannable", hell, let 'em try it. At some point we'll have people that want more control and understanding, and there's a world of inarguable, solid info out there when the time comes.

markbarendt said:

Harder paper moves the lines closer, that means there will be even less range printed from the negative. You lose highlight or shadow detail. There is no free lunch. If it’s outside the red lines it is black or white and shows no detail period.

Click to expand...

Hmm yes. I looked at those curves for ages too and still didnt understand the implications.

So its maximising shadow separation v highlight separation according to dilution.

Cheers mark that was a battle for me to get my head round. Thanks for your help

Since post 66 only "correct" stand development giving approximately the same slope of the curve, "gamma" has been discussed.
The students that want different are correct, they can stand develop to "gamma infinity" as expounded by Mortensen.
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Mortensen/mortensen.html

Film curves are interesting, but the real test is how the negative prints on the paper you’ve chosen. Shoot and develop the film with the paper or scanner in mind.

Alan Johnson said:

"gamma infinity"

Click to expand...

now you're talking !

juan said:

Film curves are interesting, but the real test is how the negative prints on the paper you’ve chosen. Shoot and develop the film with the paper or scanner in mind.

Click to expand...

I remember working for an old photographer that said you "build" you negative for the paper you want to use. I do both print and scan. More scanning than printing because I don't have much time to spend in the darkroom anymore. But I'd like to be able to an "electronic" proof with my scanner to preview how the neg is going to print. I remember decades ago, I worked in a film lab that had a Kodak PVAC machine that allowed a printer to pre balance filter backs before going into the darkroom.

Craig75 said:

Hmm yes. I looked at those curves for ages too and still didnt understand the implications.

So its maximising shadow separation v highlight separation according to dilution.

Cheers mark that was a battle for me to get my head round. Thanks for your help

Click to expand...

With regard to the shadow separation, it depends on the EI you use when shooting in the field, placement on the curve is a variable. If you open up your camera a bit more when you shoot all the tones move right correspondingly.

The practical effect of this is that tones that may have been on the toe are now up where the film curve is steeper, so camera exposure can fix the problem too. With slightly more camera exposure the whole negative is more dense which then requires more enlarger exposure (different scan and adjust settings). That extra enlarger exposure moves the red lines (the black and white points) up higher. With that change you are off the toe and the shadow tone separation issue is moot.

Ample camera exposure is a more reliable fix for shadow detail problems than trying to overdevelop the film toe.