Stand development

toejam · Mar 29, 2024

Does stand development cause more grain to be visible?

pentaxuser · Mar 29, 2024

On the basis that more agitation causes more grain I'd have thought not

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill · Mar 29, 2024

For me, images just appear sharper. I don't like grain so if it emphasised it, I probably wouldn't use it. Take a look at this video (at about the 3 min mark) I put together a while ago, where I compared continuous and semi-stand in Pyrocat-HD. I also like what semi-stand does to HP5 by improving its high light contrast.

Alex Benjamin · Mar 29, 2024

toejam said:
Does stand development cause more grain to be visible?

Factors that influence graininess are:

Size of film (35 mm has more visible grain than 4x5)
Speed of film (400 ISO has more visible grain than 50 ISO)
Exposure (a pushed 400 ISO film will have more visible grain than box speed or pulled)
Temperature of development (75ºF produces more visible grain than 70ºF)
Solvent or non solvent developer (Rodinal produces more visible grain than D-76)
Dilution of developer (Rodinal 1:25 produces more visible grain than Rodinal 1:100)

Stand development is most often done with non-solvent developers — Rodinal, high-acutance developer FX-2, or staining developers — but at such high dilution that the impact on graininess is not as strong. It's also done at the "normal" 20ºC temperature. All other factors still apply.

pentaxuser · Mar 29, 2024

In 3 posts excluding the OP's we seem to have covered virtually everything about the aspects affecting stand development I suppose the only thing missing is examples of stand( in various guises ) v normal agitation with all films and all developers. Anyone know of such a source?

As a very rough and ready rule of thumb it would seem that any difference in grain between stand and normal may not even be noticed by the average viewer unless it involves a large magnification of a small (35mm) negative

How did we do, toejam?

pentaxuser

loccdor · Mar 29, 2024

It's important to consider the final contrast range of the two compared images.

When I view a contrasty negative with a high range of density, the grain seems to be less apparent than when I stretch a low-contrast negative to display at the same contrast range as the first. Stand development is supposed to reduce the range of contrast on the negative, but the range of contrast on the final image also is going to be a factor.

Which means it seems stand development might be better reserved for when you can't possibly get the full range of values on the negative without burning the highlights in a traditional development. That being said, the difference in graininess is going to be small because you're not actually changing the contrast very much with stand development percentage-wise.

Think of the analogy of recording audio - when you record a voice with a microphone and it ranges between min and max volume but doesn't go over, you get a good quality recording. When you record it at half that volume and boost it to double later, you lose some quality. If you record it at 5% volume and boost it up to 100%, the effect can become very apparent. That effect is the "grain" of the audio.

Though in reality it's more complicated than that, because you're dealing with a process that has a somewhat curved instead of strictly linear response.

Practically, in my non-exhaustive testing, I didn't notice a change in grain from stand development. I noticed edge effects - an increase in micro-contrast and a decrease in macro-contrast. If stand dev has an effect on grain, it's smaller than from the other contributors on Alex Benjamin's list.

toejam · Mar 29, 2024

Alex Benjamin said:
Factors that influence graininess are:

Size of film (35 mm has more visible grain than 4x5)

Speed of film (400 ISO has more visible grain than 50 ISO)

Exposure (a pushed 400 ISO film will have more visible grain than box speed or pulled)

Temperature of development (75ºF produces more visible grain than 70ºF)

Solvent or non solvent developer (Rodinal produces more visible grain than D-76)

Dilution of developer (Rodinal 1:25 produces more visible grain than Rodinal 1:100)

Stand development is most often done with non-solvent developers — Rodinal, high-acutance developer FX-2, or staining developers — but at such high dilution that the impact on graininess is not as strong. It's also done at the "normal" 20ºC temperature. All other factors still apply.

Thank you greatly for this dose of information!

Do you know if ILFORD ILFOSOL 3 is a good option to use? From their site, I'm not sure if it's a solvent or non-solvent developer.

toejam · Mar 29, 2024

Andrew O'Neill said:
For me, images just appear sharper. I don't like grain so if it emphasised it, I probably wouldn't use it. Take a look at this video (at about the 3 min mark) I put together a while ago, where I compared continuous and semi-stand in Pyrocat-HD. I also like what semi-stand does to HP5 by improving its high light contrast.

I agree with you! The highlights look really nice with your method. I saw that your dilution was 1:1:100. It makes sense that you used water and a developer. What's the third part of the solution?

MattKing · Mar 29, 2024

Pyrocat-HD is a highly concentrated two part developer, so something like "1:1:100" means 1 part A plus 1 part B plus 100 parts dilutant (water).

albireo · Mar 29, 2024

toejam said:
Does stand development cause more grain to be visible?

My intuition would be that stand development can cause grain to become more apparent IF your stand development procedure leads to systematic overdevelopment. Overdevelopment is one of the variables associated with grain size, together with development temperature and (to a much lower extent) agitation regime.

If you overdevelop your film, i.e. you develop to a higher gamma than recommended by the film manufacturer or identified by you as optimal via your testing in a non-stand regime, you will get more noticeable grain.

Given that many stand development practitioners tend to willingly surrender temperature and development time precision (to varying amounts) and just let the soup run for 1h/2h or other simple to remember large interval of time, the risk of overdeveloping and thus producing stronger grain can be higher with stand development.

Alex Benjamin · Mar 29, 2024

toejam said:
Do you know if ILFORD ILFOSOL 3 is a good option to use?

I doubt it very much. There was an older thread about this, in which @pentaxuser had the best comment :

It looks like it is a total "stab in the dark". With a developer like Ilfosol you presumably need to know by how much it can be diluted before it becomes useless i.e. is there a minimum amount of Ilfosol needed for proper development?

I suspect that there is and this minimum may preclude what most people regard as being stand development.

Stand development in Ilfosol 3?

I have heard that this is possible, but I haven't seen any firm figures on either dilution or times. (And by stand development I am including semi-stand with occasional agitations.) Can anyone confirm, deny, or anywhere in between with caveats and cautions? Emphasis is on feasibility, not...

www.photrio.com

pentaxuser · Mar 29, 2024

#11 made me look up the Ilford minimum recommended amount per film and here's what it says:

We advise not to use amounts of concentrate less than 10ml when mixing working strength solutions as it is difficult to measure accurately such small quantities with a measuring cylinder. If it is necessary to measure out very small quantities, use a graduated pipette.

However and this seems critical, it implies that less than 10ml is not advisable but seems to be because less than 10ml is difficult to measure except by pipette rather than less than 10ml is detrimental or even disastrous for a film

So it begs the question what is the minimum for proper development of a film? I don't know and I can find nothing in the tech sheets that tells me this or tells me that there is some reason why this developer is not suitable for stand, semi-stand or extreme minimal agitation. So did I make a wrong assumption based on a gut feeling of what Ilford's wording seemed to imply

Frankly I cannot be sure

It would look it needs the question needs to be asked of Ilford

I have just looked to see if the original OP pathdoc ever asked the question of Ilford. If he did he never came back to say what the answer was and he hasn't visited since 2018

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill · Mar 29, 2024

It probably depends on the developer. With Pyrocat-HD, I use 5ml of both A and B in 1200ml water.

Alex Benjamin · Mar 29, 2024

pentaxuser said:
#11 made me look up the Ilford minimum recommended amount per film and here's what it says:

We advise not to use amounts of concentrate less than 10ml when mixing working strength solutions as it is difficult to measure accurately such small quantities with a measuring cylinder. If it is necessary to measure out very small quantities, use a graduated pipette.

However and this seems critical, it implies that less than 10ml is not advisable but seems to be because less than 10ml is difficult to measure except by pipette rather than less than 10ml is detrimental or even disastrous for a film

So it begs the question what is the minimum for proper development of a film? I don't know and I can find nothing in the tech sheets that tells me this or tells me that there is some reason why this developer is not suitable for stand, semi-stand or extreme minimal agitation. So did I make a wrong assumption based on a gut feeling of what Ilford's wording seemed to imply

Frankly I cannot be sure

It would look it needs the question needs to be asked of Ilford

I have just looked to see if the original OP pathdoc ever asked the question of Ilford. If he did he never came back to say what the answer was and he hasn't visited since 2018

pentaxuser

I also went back to the Ilford data sheet for Ilfosol 3. It states that the developer is "normally diluted 1+9 for one-shot use" and that "for greater economy it can be used with many films at a higher dilution of 1+14 with only a small trade off in image quality."

So one would still be left with two essential question regarding potentially using it for stand development: what lower dilution should be used, and if there is a small trade off in image quality at 1+14, how big that trade off becomes at a much lower dilution?

If you Google "Ilfosol 3 stand development" you find a few people who have tried it. Impossible to tell how good or interesting the results were.

Personally, with this developer I'd be more interested in the results using stand development's evil twin, i.e., extreme minimal agitation, with one of the standard dilution.

pentaxuser · Mar 29, 2024

It may be that we might not get a straight answer in the sense of an unequivocal YES or NO from Ilford if we asked it questions Unless its R&D has tried it at lower dilutions than 1+14. It would seem that from a practical aspect anything close to 1+100 requires 5 ml of concentrate in a 500 ml tank and that's a long way below the 1+14 which involves a small trade-off in image quality but of course we'll never know unless we ask the question of Ilford or try it at ever increasing dilutions until we get the point of serious impact

Once again Ilford's answer is likely to be tempered by what it regards as the dilution that gave its R&D dept its minimally acceptable image and this may well be 1+14

pentaxuser

Augustus Caesar · Mar 29, 2024

toejam said:
Does stand development cause more grain to be visible?

Greater dilution does, and greater dilutions are used in that procedure. Intermittent agitation is recommended by all mfrs.

relistan · Apr 2, 2024

Augustus Caesar said:
Greater dilution does, and greater dilutions are used in that procedure. Intermittent agitation is recommended by all mfrs.

"Grain to be more visible" is fairly subjective. That being said, I am assuming your response was based on solvent capacity of the developer. That is developer dependent. Developers already used at very high dilution in normal use don't contain much solvent and further dilution has little effect on grain.

chuckroast · Apr 2, 2024

toejam said:
Does stand development cause more grain to be visible?

Certain developers - D-23 leaps to mind - increase acutance when they are highly diluted for stand development. This is a non-issue for larger formats but can become visible for 35mm. In my case, I semistand/EMA develop all 35mm in Pyrocat-HD. The pyro stain masks the grain quite effectively, even with highly dilute developer.

Here is 35mm Pyrocat-HD semistand:

Here is 35mm in very highly dilute D-23 semistand:

Here is that same highly-dilute D-23 semistand with a 9x12cm negative - as you can see, the larger negative makes grain a non-issue:

Augustus Caesar · Apr 2, 2024

chuckroast said:
Certain developers - D-23 leaps to mind - increase acutance when they are highly diluted for stand development. This is a non-issue for larger formats but can become visible for 35mm. In my case, I semistand/EMA develop all 35mm in Pyrocat-HD. The pyro stain masks the grain quite effectively, even with highly dilute developer.

Here is 35mm Pyrocat-HD semistand:

View attachment 367194

Here is 35mm in very highly dilute D-23 semistand:

View attachment 367195

Here is that same highly-dilute D-23 semistand with a 9x12cm negative - as you can see, the larger negative makes grain a non-issue:

View attachment 367196

The bright areas seem too light. How did you print this?

chuckroast · Apr 2, 2024

Augustus Caesar said:
The bright areas seem too light. How did you print this?

It's impossible to tell without calibrating our monitors so they match.

On both of my monitors - one an ordinary display, the other one a multi-billion color monitor with an Nvidia driver card - the highlights in all those images show proper detail.

There is also a certain amount of taste in how I printed them (mine might not match yours). You can play around with your monitor brightness to see if you find something you like better.

These are scans of workbook silver prints on a very poor scanner, which may also contribute to this.

This is the curse of the internet and trying to do image comparisons.

koraks · Apr 3, 2024

chuckroast said:
It's impossible to tell without calibrating our monitors so they match.

I have to agree with @Augustus Caesar here. You've got a lot of blown out highlights in especially the first two images and I can't quite believe that they're "artistic intent". For instance, the roofline left to the vent in the first image is lost against the sky; if you sample the colors, they're all 254-255, so there's actually no separation there.

chuckroast said:
These are scans of workbook silver prints on a very poor scanner

I suspect this is the problem, really. It also explains the light edges. Scanning prints tends to be a frustrating chore. If I need a decent reproduction of a print, I'll put the scanner aside and photograph the prints instead.

chuckroast · Apr 3, 2024

koraks said:
I have to agree with @Augustus Caesar here. You've got a lot of blown out highlights in especially the first two images and I can't quite believe that they're "artistic intent". For instance, the roofline left to the vent in the first image is lost against the sky; if you sample the colors, they're all 254-255, so there's actually no separation there.

I suspect this is the problem, really. It also explains the light edges. Scanning prints tends to be a frustrating chore. If I need a decent reproduction of a print, I'll put the scanner aside and photograph the prints instead.

Yes, I'll have to try doing something different because the originals do show more detail. I may have to bite the bullet and buy a decent scanner.

I do think some of this is monitor calibration, though. On my monitor, the roofline the left of the vent clearly shows some slight separation. In the second image, the foreground sign shows just a hint of detail.

I suspect if I went back and reprinted I could bring both down and increase the available separation and detail.

I do have a more than capable digital camera, but I've never figured out how to hold either a print or piece of film flat to be able to use it for "scanning". Suggestions more than welcome.

koraks · Apr 3, 2024

I've got a decent scanner - old, but decent; it's a 4990. It doesn't do a formidable job at scanning prints, either. It's OK, but I recognize the kind of issues you scans show as well. Sure, they can be addressed to an extent, but I find I ultimately get much better results with a simple repro setup involving a digital camera and a couple strobes.

chuckroast · Apr 3, 2024

koraks said:
I've got a decent scanner - old, but decent; it's a 4990. It doesn't do a formidable job at scanning prints, either. It's OK, but I recognize the kind of issues you scans show as well. Sure, they can be addressed to an extent, but I find I ultimately get much better results with a simple repro setup involving a digital camera and a couple strobes.

How do you keep the prints totally flat?

koraks · Apr 3, 2024

chuckroast said:
How do you keep the prints totally flat?

With an appropriate lighting setup, they don't really need to be perfectly flat; it's OK if they're a little wavy. If they curl, pin or clamp them to some kind of flat surface so they remain reasonably 2-dimensional.
One reason why I find photographing prints works better than scanning them is because flatness is less of an issue. Scanning air-dried FB prints for instance always ends in disaster especially along the edges.

Stand development

toejam

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Alex Benjamin

pentaxuser

loccdor

toejam

toejam

MattKing

Moderator

albireo

Alex Benjamin

Stand development in Ilfosol 3?

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Alex Benjamin

pentaxuser

Augustus Caesar

relistan

chuckroast

Augustus Caesar

chuckroast

koraks

Moderator

chuckroast

koraks

Moderator

chuckroast

koraks

Moderator

Stand development

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency