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

[harlequin]

Dear APUG Members,

I have worked for several photographers who shot medium and large format and would use the following for high visibility Gallery quality photos, I have shot B+W for 4 decades and followed similar chemical guidelines when it comes to film processing...

a) D76 1:1 with FP4
b) Rodinal with Tri X
c) Xtol with Tmax and PanF

I wonder when does one decide that a particular shot needs stand development?

I know Kodak and Ilford and Adox has spent millions on R+D to bring us consistently good results,
why go outside the margin, what really is to be gained? The attempts I have made with it on 120 film
and 4x5 is a rather muddy, mottled result. As my grandfather used to say, "Time is Money" and you have
just wasted another hour....if you can get a perfectly useable negative in 12 minutes or less, why increase
risk of base fog while souping for an hour...or more.....?

What is the criteria for an image to go thru stand development?

I get that you don't want to burn out the highlights and pickup a few lumens in the shadows...but at what cost.
I don't have much graded #4 paper left anyway....

If Modern Photography were still alive, on the cover they might address it as follows....
"Stand Development" the process de jour..?

Please enlighten me.....

Thanks

Harlequin

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

I personally think that stand development is to B&W darkroom work what HDR is to digital: a useful technique in extreme circumstances that turned into a cult that ruins it for everyone
I think that either look unnatural unless the subject truly needs the extended range promised, and in the stand variety the subject matter can support the edge effects.

Pictures of Sonny and Spot standing in a neon sunset with hyper-granular sand in the foreground and halos around the pilings of the pier... not so much.

 

[removedacct1]

My experiments using "Stand" development for 120 roll film formats produced unsatisfactory results every time, and were quickly abandoned. However.....

See: https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulbarden/37084266351/in/dateposted/

 

[jim10219]

It's a tool. If you know how and when to use it, it can be extremely effective and make you a more effective photographer. Knowing how and when takes some experience, however.

So if you want to add that tool to your repertoire, then be prepared to waste a bunch of film, chemicals, and time getting familiar with it. After you've done it a hundred times you'll get a feel for what it does, how it works, and when to use it. If you don't want to learn how to do it, then don't do it.

 

[markbarendt]

I wonder when does one decide that a particular shot needs stand development?

IMO the decision is A) about wanting a magic bullet or B) not wanting to spend ‘12 minutes’ paying attention to a tank every 60 seconds.

In my 9 years here I’ve only seen one set of curves done that support the thought that stand/semi-stand is a practical process and that example does not use the normal EI. In fact it requires extra exposure to get the ‘benefits’ in that case, rather than the typical reduced exposure the proponents of stand typically extol.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Stand development is described in books on the Zone System where modification of the tonal scale is desired. Its use may be warranted under unusual conditions. However it is never described as a general purpose technique. As such it has reached cult status.

 

[NJH]

2 Bath looks much more interesting and useful, both Barry Thornton and Ansel Adams described the process. Thing is it requires more work and thought to apply than just bunging some Rodinal into a tank for an hour.

 

[removedacct1]

I’ve only seen one set of curves done that support the thought that stand/semi-stand is a practical process and that example does not use the normal EI. In fact it requires extra exposure to get the ‘benefits’ in that case, rather than the typical reduced exposure the proponents of stand typically extol.

Quite right: if you intend on experimenting with this technique, expect to give your film at least one full stop more exposure (over box speed). The mythology often suggests that stand development will "compensate" for underexposures, which I guarantee you, it will not.

 

[MattKing]

Are you including "Semi-Stand" in your enquiry?
If so, it seems to me that Andrew O'Neill would be a good one to talk to. He gets very satisfying results from semi-stand. He is, however, exposing negatives with Alternative Processes in mind, and often has an intermediate hybrid step in his processes.
To my mind, the edge effects possible are the best reason to consider extended, minimal agitation procedures. Followed closely by the potential for compensation, as long as that is not over-done.

 

[markbarendt]

Myths suck.

 

[markbarendt]

The problem with myths is that the costs are paid by those who don’t know better.

The teacher gets status, the student gets the bill without a real fix.

 

[removed account4]

harlequin

i don't know what the mythologies are that surround stand or semi stand development. the main time i found them useful was when i was too lazy
to stand around and agitate film in tanks or shuffle film in trays cause i didn't have the time.
so i poured some ansco 130 spiked sumatranol c into the tanks and left the room for about 30 mins.
i came back it was done. i got fantastic results ... .

the reality of things is there is no magic bullet, there is nothing as a perfect negative or perfect print and if you set the bar low you are happy with most results.. ( do that all the time )

have fun !

john

 

[Siompa]

I’ve tried stand once when I forgot what iso I’ve shot a couple of rolls at. Threw them all in one tank and rodinal 1:100 for an hour and it worked okay.

That said, I agree that many think that stand develop is easier ( myself included at first) when it’s much easier and quicker just to use the recommended procedure.

If you can’t keep the highlights within 5 stops it’s not the developing technique you need to work on

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

So stand, semi-stand is all a myth? Try telling that to my negatives that are eye blistering sharp, compared to my negatives that received regular treatment. Stand, semi-stand in Pyrocat-HD (extremely dilute), gives extreme edge effects. These negatives print nicely on silver papers, as well as for my Kallitypes and Carbons. They scan nicely for when I want a digital negative.
So to answer the OP's question, I stand/semi-stand when I have a lot of texture and I want to emphasise that. And I don't do stand/semi-stand because I am lazy.

 

[David Allen]

Stand development is a totally useless fad that leads too many people into having rubbish negatives. The parameters of photography have been for over 100 years clear: exposure controls the amount of shadow detail and development controls how much contrast the negatives have (and whether the highlights remain printable). There is not, has never been and will never be a 'golden bullet' in terms of developing film. Photography involves you personally deciding which compromises you want to make such as speed against granularity, sharpness against fine grain, definition against loss of box speed, etc. This is, and has always been, the reality of analogue photography.

Many people on this forum state that you should use the box speed and development times established by the manufacturers as your starting point. Very good advice until you want to take control of your process to achieve the results that you personally want.

If you refine your process with whatever film, whatever developer and a fixed exposure point you just do not need to use all of these ‘exotic’ development procedures to get good results. Any ‘normal’ film developer used to it’s parameters will give you good results.

For example, with roll film you have the problem that you can’t develop each image individually ( no +1 or - 1 development). However, after a few boring tests you can pin everything down by exposure and a standard development regime.

If you want to learn how to do this, just send men a PM.

Bottom line is that the advantages of stand development is a myth that is far too often suggested on these analogue websites.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Eric Rose]

I'm with Andrew on this. Use whatever you want but don't cast derogatory comments on those that use something you don't.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

As I stated earlier, stand development gives me razor sharp negatives when I deem it necessary. By stating it as a totally useless fad is ridiculous. David, have you even tried stand or semi-stand with Pyrocat-HD with large format film? If you have, you would not make that statement.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Looking at Flickr, I see lots of beautiful images done with Stand or Semi-stand development. I'm particularly interested in Pyrocat HD.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=pyrocat HD stand

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Try it. I've been very happy with the results. There are several people who use it quite successfully.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Some people here really leave me scratching my head sometimes. They've got a real hate on for anybody who uses staining developers, or test their materials. The final image is what matters, and how you get there is one's choice. Happy shooting this weekend, everyone!

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Some people here really leave me scratching my head sometimes. They've got a real hate on for anybody who uses staining developers, or test their materials. The final image is what matters, and how you get there is one's choice. Happy shooting this weekend, everyone!

The proof the pudding is in the eating. The proof in the neg is in the printing. Or in the scanning in some cases

Happy shooting as Andrew says.

 

[eddie]

I’ve never done any stand/ semi-stand development but, after following Andrew’s work, if he says it’s valid I have to believe there’s something to it. I don’t think he’s reached his conclusion without thorough investigation.

 

[removed account4]

Some people here really leave me scratching my head sometimes. They've got a real hate on for anybody who uses staining developers, or test their materials. The final image is what matters, and how you get there is one's choice. Happy shooting this weekend, everyone!

hi andrew ..
i know what you mean .
a lot of people leave me scratching my head too !

oh well, what can you do .. its life i guess ...

john

 

[tomfrh]

I stand develop almost exclusively. Semi-stand technically, because I shake it every now and then.

In my case stand development is called for because I can't be bothered with thermometers, clocks, dev charts etc etc.

In my opinion the negs come out well. I use TMAX100 and TMAX400 films.

Not quite sure why people are so bitter about stand development, but there ya go...

 

[markbarendt]

I stand develop almost exclusively. Semi-stand technically, because I shake it every now and then.

In my case stand development is called for because I can't be bothered with thermometers, clocks, dev charts etc etc.

In my opinion the negs come out well. I use TMAX100 and TMAX400 films.

Not quite sure why people are so bitter about stand development, but there ya go...

Your use of stand is a good use of stand. You have real reasons and it's easy to prove that stand solves your problem. There is nothing wrong with your logic or even suggesting others try it for that reason.

Where I get sideways with people promoting stand is when they claim that there is compensation in the highlights and more shadow detail and it still has snappy mid-tones and it prints easier. On that point, until somebody actually shows us their math from a proper test proving that it works that way, I'm calling BS.