Stand development

[Dwayne Martin]

hi gang, I over exposed a roll of FP4 125 by about 1.25 stops. I was shooting window light portraits with a rolleiflex and didn't notice my meter was set to ISO 50. I'm thinking about a true stand development in Rodenal 1:100 to slow down the highlights. I have lots of great negatives of this model already so I don't mind taking a gamble. Does this sound like a good solution or should I just reduce my normal development in D-76 1:1?
Thoughts appreciated,
Dwayne

 

[John Wiegerink]

hi gang, I over exposed a roll of FP4 125 by about 1.25 stops. I was shooting window light portraits with a rolleiflex and didn't notice my meter was set to ISO 50. I'm thinking about a true stand development in Rodenal 1:100 to slow down the highlights. I have lots of great negatives of this model already so I don't mind taking a gamble. Does this sound like a good solution or should I just reduce my normal development in D-76 1:1?
Thoughts appreciated,
Dwayne

If it were me I'd just reduce my development time with your normal developer instead of playing with Rodinal 1:100. That's just me of course and I'm sure you'll here something different from some other folks here. You're not over-exposing by much so you should even be okay near your normal times. I don't know what film format you are using, but I have had some uneven development with Rodinal 1:100 and 120 film (HP5+).

 

[Leigh B]

Rodinal is already a compensating developer.

Your over-exposure is trivial. Just use the Rodinal, maybe reducing development time by 10% or so.

So-called "stand" development is total hogwash IMO.
It may have been useful with non-compensating developers, as a way to exhaust developing agent in highlight areas.
It accomplishes nothing with a compensating developer.

- Leigh

 

[John Wiegerink]

Rodinal is already a compensating developer.

Your over-exposure is trivial. Just use the Rodinal, maybe reducing development time by 10% or so.

So-called "stand" development is total hogwash IMO.
It might have been useful with non-compensating developers, as a way to exhaust developing agent in highlight areas.
It accomplishes nothing with a compensating developer.

- Leigh

Leigh,
His normal developer is D-76 1:1.

 

[mrred]

As Leigh suggested, it's only 1 stop over so no need to worry. A 1 stop pull with Rodinal usually give a highly detailed image, so you might have done yourself a favour. The big thing would be to use gentle agitation and not vigorish.

As another suggestion, when I developed with WD2D+ the suggestion from the formulator was to shoot 1 stop over. Pyros naturally protect the highlights.

 

[Dwayne Martin]

Thanks guys, I realize the overexposure isn't that big of a deal but I've had problems with white out skin tones in this particular setting. The model is fair skinned to boot.
D

 

[Dwayne Martin]

Another factor in the equation is that I have no darkroom so I develope in a Jobo. I don't think the Rodonal is best for constant agitation.
D

 

[Leigh B]

I don't think the Rodonal is best for constant agitation.

Correct.
Rodinal wants minimal gentle agitation.

Using constant agitation totally defeats its compensating effect, as you observed. .

- Leigh

 

[mrred]

You might want to consider developing this one by hand using a small tank.

 

[Leigh B]

I have many pounds of negs developed stand; far from hogwash.

Stand development is one of those religions advocated to the heavens by devotees, but not found to be of benefit by skeptics.

Have you developed identically composed and exposed film normally, and compared the results? Probably not.

As I said earlier, it was a way to achieve compensation back in the days before compensating developers were introduced.
Anyone who has no desire or ability to use modern chemistry and techniques might find it beneficial.

- Leigh

 

[Dwayne Martin]

You might want to consider developing this one by hand using a small tank.

That's a great idea. Maybe an inversion every 30 seconds? What delution would you recommend?
Dwayne

 

[Jim Noel]

Don't use a developer, or technique with which you are not completrely familiar.

 

[mrred]

That's a great idea. Maybe an inversion every 30 seconds? What delution would you recommend?
Dwayne

The last time I used forma 100, I used 1:100 for 7 mins. I agitated once every minute but swished it like twirling a glass of wine....gently. The MDC suggests 19 minutes at that dilution. I would sacrifice a roll to test first.

 

[Bill Burk]

I would strongly suggest that you do not change your development time from whatever time you originally planned in your originally-planned developer, D-76 1:1

Highlight blocking is a side-effect of increased contrast. You don't have that situation. You have the same contrast you would have had with normally-placed exposure.

Increased exposure would create a negative similar to the negative you planned with no change in development time.

If you routinely rely on the shape of the toe to make your pictures work, then you may have something to be concerned about. Otherwise your original time should be good.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I would strongly suggest that you do not change your development time from whatever time you originally planned in your originally-planned developer, D-76 1:1

Highlight blocking is a side-effect of increased contrast. You don't have that situation. You have the same contrast you would have had with normally-placed exposure.

Increased exposure would create a negative similar to the negative you planned with no change in development time.

If you routinely rely on the shape of the toe to make your pictures work, then you may have something to be concerned about. Otherwise your original time should be good.

+1 Develop normally, print longer. The negative will be denser but not contrastier.

Ignore all the (bad) advice to reduce development time or apply compensation techniques; they will only result in a flat negative with overexposed shadows. Forget stand developing as well if it is not a normal technique for you. The erroneous assumption for the above proposals is that a moderately overexposed negative needs its contrast reduced. It doesn't.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Lachlan Young]

In the midst of all this, no one seems to have noticed that not only does Ilford suggest an EI of 50 as a possible rating of FP4, but they suggest 8 mins in ID11/ 9 minutes in D76 at 1+1 at 20c. Doing that would comfortably bring the contrast under control (perhaps even too much control). Either way, somewhere between 8 and 11 minutes is likely to be right.

 

[bernard_L]

I would strongly suggest that you do not change your development time from whatever time you originally planned in your originally-planned developer, D-76 1:1

+1
FP4 has an incredibly long/straight D/logE curve, at least in D-76 1+1. If you use a compensating development, you will compress and lose separation in the highlights, just what you want to avoid.
overexposure by 1 stop is trivial; I bet that if you were shown two frames normal and +1, you would pause before identifying which is +1.

 

[Dwayne Martin]

Hi everyone, I'm very appreciative of all of the advice. I've decided to stick with my normal time 8:30 sec in the jobo.
Ralph Lambrect worked that time out for me with a densitometer and a series of test negatives, in case anyone is interested. I'll post results when I'm done,
Thanks
Dwayne

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The exposure is well within the film latitude. Just develop it normally. The negatives will be a bit denser than usual but will print fine.

BTW I'm with Leigh on the matter of stand development. When it works it distorts the tonality of the negative and when it doesn't well ...

 

[Craig75]

i'd reduce your development time or your negatives will be more contrasty than you are used to/expecting.

 

[john_s]

Overexposed by a bit more than a stop? I'd develop normally and you may well find that they are the best negatives you've ever made. Especially for portraits: you might find the lack of shadow around eye sockets enhances the look. I might develop a trifle less (but I do that anyway).

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Rodinal is already a compensating developer.

Your over-exposure is trivial. Just use the Rodinal, maybe reducing development time by 10% or so.

So-called "stand" development is total hogwash IMO.
It may have been useful with non-compensating developers, as a way to exhaust developing agent in highlight areas.
It accomplishes nothing with a compensating developer.

- Leigh

Have you ever tried Pyrocat-HD and stand or semi-stand? You wouldn't say hogwash if you had.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

i'd reduce your development time or your negatives will be more contrasty than you are used to/expecting.

Exposure determines density but development controls contrast. Reducing the development time will reduce density BUT also contrast. This creates another set of problems. Just use you regular developer, one that you are familiar with for your regular time. The resultant negatives will be a bit denser than usual but will have the contrast you expect. No special treatment or developers are needed.

 

[pdeeh]

this thread is a beautiful example of why newcomers to film can quickly get the impression that it is an impossibly arcane and complicated business, requiring all sorts of tricks and manoeuvres in even the most straightforward situations.

whereas it is of course incredibly simple.

 

[pentaxuser]

this thread is a beautiful example of why newcomers to film can quickly get the impression that it is an impossibly arcane and complicated business, requiring all sorts of tricks and manoeuvres in even the most straightforward situations.

whereas it is of course incredibly simple.

That may be true but this is surely only the case if you compare it to working out if B&H are now shipping chemicals or will be doing in the near future.

pentaxuser