Stand development

Tom Hoskinson · Nov 18, 2004

Here is the uncropped 8x10 Azo Contact Print that the previously posted detail was taken from.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

wfwhitaker · Nov 18, 2004

Francesco said:
The main compartment of the tube is made about 1 or 1.5 inches higher than the film's top edge when fully inserted (film is inserted long side vertical). This would allow one to fill the tube with developer and have the film lying about half and inch or so below the water level. Screw on the tube cap and start the development procedures accordingly.

What kind of "tubes" are we talking about here? Something other than a JOBO drum, it appears.

philldresser · Nov 18, 2004

wfwhitaker said:
What kind of "tubes" are we talking about here? Something other than a JOBO drum, it appears.

We're talking about BTZS tubes as described in Phil Davis book Beyond the Zone system. I and many others have simply made our own from normal diy materials

Do a search on APUG and I am sure you will find details of how to make them big enough for 8x10 (10x8)

Phill

Francesco · Nov 18, 2004

wdemere said:
I'm pretty sure that BTZS tubes (at least the 4x5 tubes I have) are NOT made this way. You must agitate fairly often (roll every 10-15 seconds at the least) or you get nice lines on your negative. I get this effect even when overfilling the cap as much as possible. Though I suppose you could fill the entire tube with developer if you wanted, but that defeats the convenience/purpose of the cap.

Just a warning to those who might try it....

I use Pyrocat HD 1:1:120 and need only 25 ml of A and B solutions to develop 4 sheets of 8x10 film. The amount of fixer I use is about 1 liter and is poured onto an 8x10 tray. I do not throw the fixer out after one session. I reuse for a few more then replenish with fresh fixer when appropriate.

Regarding the convenience of the cap. I start by filling it with water and then roll the tubes for 5 mins for the presoak. I also use the cap after I dump the developer - I fill it again with water for a 1 minute rinse before removing the negative from the tubes and laying it out on the tray with fixer.

Over 200 sheets of 8x10 developed using minimal agitation and not one unevenly developed.

PROVISO: I would not use minimal agitation for negatives in which sky area comprises more than 50 per cent of the scene. Minimal agitation has a tendency to "smudge" sky areas if there are enough of it (see AZO forum for more on this).

Francesco · Nov 18, 2004

wfwhitaker said:
What kind of "tubes" are we talking about here? Something other than a JOBO drum, it appears.

I use a modified BTZS 3-piece tube designed by Donald Miller. It comprises a cap, a middle piece, and a third piece, the main compartment. The middle and third piece will accomodate an 8x10 sheet of film with room to spare (this is a must) when screwed together. The 3-piece design allows for easier insertion and removal of the sheet of film.

Loose Gravel · Nov 18, 2004

Anybody here doing 'total development' or 'development to completion'. I don't know what to call it. Years ago, Oliver Gagliani told me about his developement of Super XX in exhausted D23. D23 has lots of sulfite, so it dissolves silver. He would put his film in a tank and let it go for a day. He'd get some development and some plating of dissolved silver onto his negative. Always wanted to know more about this.

lee · Nov 18, 2004

Loose Gravel said:
Anybody here doing 'total development' or 'development to completion'. I don't know what to call it. Years ago, Oliver Gagliani told me about his developement of Super XX in exhausted D23. D23 has lots of sulfite, so it dissolves silver. He would put his film in a tank and let it go for a day. He'd get some development and some plating of dissolved silver onto his negative. Always wanted to know more about this.

I know a guy here in DFW that used to process film in Microdol-x that he made up once a year. He would run expired paper and film thru it ahead of time. I think he called it a Green Mambo Quick Shot. He somehow figured out that this process would give him the look of 1:3 Microdol-x without the issues he had with the dilution to 1:3. I never tried it or really understood it but he liked it and since he had studied with Harry Callahan and Aaron Siskind at Rhode Island School of Design I figured he might know something I did not know.

I have a friend that used to assist Oliver Gagliani in workshops. I will email him and ask him if he knows anything about this.

lee\c

mark · Nov 18, 2004

Francesco said:
I use Pyrocat HD 1:1:120 and need only 25 ml of A and B solutions to develop 4 sheets of 8x10 film. The amount of fixer I use is about 1 liter and is poured onto an 8x10 tray. I do not throw the fixer out after one session. I reuse for a few more then replenish with fresh fixer when appropriate.

Regarding the convenience of the cap. I start by filling it with water and then roll the tubes for 5 mins for the presoak. I also use the cap after I dump the developer - I fill it again with water for a 1 minute rinse before removing the negative from the tubes and laying it out on the tray with fixer.

Over 200 sheets of 8x10 developed using minimal agitation and not one unevenly developed.

PROVISO: I would not use minimal agitation for negatives in which sky area comprises more than 50 per cent of the scene. Minimal agitation has a tendency to "smudge" sky areas if there are enough of it (see AZO forum for more on this).

I don't know about anyone else but this confuses me. If you are using the tubes with this little amount of solution how long do you let it stand? The least amount of time standing I have read about is ten minutes. This would seem, to me to cause seriously uneven development as I thought the idea was to keep the negative submerged evenly.

Would you mind explaining, in detail, your process.

Mateo · Nov 18, 2004

Loose Gravel said:
Anybody here doing 'total development' or 'development to completion'. I don't know what to call it. Years ago, Oliver Gagliani told me about his developement of Super XX in exhausted D23. D23 has lots of sulfite, so it dissolves silver. He would put his film in a tank and let it go for a day. He'd get some development and some plating of dissolved silver onto his negative. Always wanted to know more about this.

This is what Ryuijie does and he uses Super XX and D23 in those Yankee 4x5 combo tanks. I once tried looking up info on this process but this is the first mention I've seen of it. I guess this would be extreme stand developement.

Francesco · Nov 19, 2004

mark said:
I don't know about anyone else but this confuses me. If you are using the tubes with this little amount of solution how long do you let it stand? The least amount of time standing I have read about is ten minutes. This would seem, to me to cause seriously uneven development as I thought the idea was to keep the negative submerged evenly.

Would you mind explaining, in detail, your process.

Mark, at a 1:1:120 dilution, that would amount to 25ml of A: 25ml of B: 3 liters of water. My tubes take approximately 1.5 liters of liquid to be full.

Donald Miller · Nov 19, 2004

mark said:
I don't know about anyone else but this confuses me. If you are using the tubes with this little amount of solution how long do you let it stand? The least amount of time standing I have read about is ten minutes. This would seem, to me to cause seriously uneven development as I thought the idea was to keep the negative submerged evenly.

Would you mind explaining, in detail, your process.

Mark,

Since the tubes that Francesco uses are of my design, my tubes use a like amount of developer. What I do is I insert the film into the tube body and place that (open ended) into a tempered water bath and presoak the film for five minutes (in darkness). Then I dump the water from the tube and screw on the tube extender. This totally encloses the sheet of film. Next I pour in the developer that I have prepared to totally fill the tube. Then I screw on the cap. I place this whole assembled tube on it's side into the tempered water bath and rotate the tube for one and one half minutes. The I turn the tube on end and allow it to stand for one third of the total development time. At that time I turn the tube on it's side and rotate once again for ten seconds. I then again turn the tube on end and allow it to stand for one third of the total development time. At that time I once again turn the tube on it's side and rotate for ten seconds. At the end of the third standing period I unscrew the cap and pour the developer into a container. I next pour in the stop bath and screw on the cap and rotate the tube (on it's side) for thirty seconds. Then I unscrew the cap and pour out the stop bath into a container. I remove the tube extender, pull out the sheet of film and place it into the tray with fixer. Obviously the room lights can be on at all times that the tube is capped.

My total development time can vary from 16 minutes (Efke PL100-SBR7 for enlarging) to fifty minutes (Efke PL100-SBR5 for Azo).

Hope that this explains this to your understanding.

Donald Miller

matt miller · Nov 19, 2004

Donald Miller said:
I next pour in the stop bath and screw on the cap and rotate the tube (on it's side) for thirty seconds. Then I unscrew the cap and pour out the stop bath into a container. I remove the tube extender, pull out the sheet of film and place it into the tray with fixer. Obviously the room lights can be on at all times that the tube is capped.

I do this part a little bit differently. When the development time has expired, I remove the cap, pour out the developer, remove the film, and place it in a tray of stop. I leave the room lights off, but have the safe light on. I haven't seen any signs of fogging. In fact, I read Dead Link Removed that, after development, you can remove the film from the tube & place it into the stop with the room lights on & no fogging. I haven't tried it with the room lights on, it makes me nervous.

lee · Nov 19, 2004

Loose Gravel,
I got this answer from my friend Frank this AM:

Lee:

You've come to the right person.....I even know the image the guy is
talking about. Oliver made an image of some aspens (I never knew the film
was Super XX -- I thought it was Ansco Versapan) and with only about 1-stop
difference in illumination between the darkest and the brightest areas of
the image, he developed the negative for about 24-hours in used D-23. But
he didn't just let it sit there, it must be agitated constantly for the
first hour, then at about 15-minutes intervals for the next 3-4 hours, and
then once each hour after that. I have seen the negative and it looks
positively silvery on the emulsion side. I have used the technique with
Versapan with good results. When that film was no longer available, I did
the same thing with the old Ilford FP-4. Then came TMax-100, and through
experimentation, I found that 1.5 hours in straight D-76 with 5-ml/per ltr
of 1% benzotriazole would take TMax100 to completion -- several of the
assistants to Oliver (I was an assistant instructor at his workshops in
Virginia City for seven summers in the 1980's) started referring to the
procedure as "Snot Development" -- meaning to develop the snot out of the
film. You can develop the snot out of any film so long as the highlight
densities are building faster than the film base + fog -- IOW's, so long as
you are building tonal range. While I have used this technique with TMax
100 in 120 film size, it does tend to get a bit grainy. For the past
couple of years, I've had very good luck with Ilford PanF Plus in straight
D-76 + the 1% BZ -- it takes very nicely to extreme extended
development.....easily N+4
(which is essentially Snot).

Hope this helps.....

Frank

So there you are....

lee\c

mark · Nov 19, 2004

Francesco said:
Mark, at a 1:1:120 dilution, that would amount to 25ml of A: 25ml of B: 3 liters of water. My tubes take approximately 1.5 liters of liquid to be full.

Okay. I thought 25ml total (including the water). Makes a hell of lot more sense now.

mark · Nov 19, 2004

Thanks donald. You had explained this to me before and, if I was not having issues with my tubes I would give it a try with them.

sanking · Nov 19, 2004

mark said:
Thanks donald. You had explained this to me before and, if I was not having issues with my tubes I would give it a try with them.

My own method of minimal agitation is similar to what Donald and Francesco describe. I use a 1:1:150 dilution of Pyrocat-HD and process in tubes. I agitate four times during a development period, for about 1.5 minutes at the beginning of development, and then for about 10 seconds at the beginning of the second, third, and final development period.

I basically use two system, depending on size of film. For very large film, 7X17" and 12X20" I develop in individual ABS plastic tubes, with a sealed cap on the bottom and a removable cap on the top. The tube is long enough so that the developer will cover the top edge of the film by about 1". I first pre-soak the film in separate tray, and then insert it directly into the tube with the developer already in, put on the cap and process with agitation. I remove the film from the tube for stop bath, fixing and final washing.

The other system is for 5X7" film, but you could just as easily use it for 4X5 or 8X10" film with appropriate size tubes. I process this size film in open ended PVC plastic tubes which are placed in a 11X14" Beseler drum. I presoak the film and then place it inside the tubes, then when all are ready I plop them into the drum, which already contains the necessary amount of developer. I agitate by moving the tubes up and down in the solution, rapping them on the bottom from time to time to dislodge air bubbles. Then I place the top on the drum and turn on the lights until the second agitation period. When development is complete I remove the tubes and place them in a tray filled with 1/2 strength stop bath. I can process up to 7-8 5X7" sheets at a time with this method and drum size, or up to 9-10 4X5" sheets, though I use 4X5" film only for testing purposes.

With both systems described above the tubes are standing on end, i.e. in vertical orientation, during develpment so that the film is at all times completely immersed in the developing solution.

I have not tried the slosher method of development but it sounds like it would work fine, but given the smaller amount of chemistry in use it makes sense to use the stronger 2:2:100 dilution, as Tom indicates he does.

I definitely do not recommend either extreme minimal or stand agitation in trays. Every time I have tried this type of development in trays it has resulted in very uneven development from streaking and bromide drag.

Sandy

juan · Nov 19, 2004

I, too, had trouble with unevenness when I tried minimal agitation in trays.

I use a method similar to Sandy's. I use paint buckets from the hardware store to hold my open-ended PVC tubes. One for prewash and one for developer. I reuse the prewash bucket for stop. Of course, this must be done in the dark, but that poses no problem for me. A five gallon bucket will hold 5 8x10 tubes, and would hold six if I could find the thinner walled PVC. I use a 1 1/2 gallon bucket for 4x5 and 2x3. That bucket will hold 8 tubes.

I'll also comment on an earlier post in this thread about avoiding temperature shock. My negatives have improved greatly since I gave in to the high temperatures here in Florida, and I began to use development methods based on the temperature of my wash water. In the summer, I can't get it lower than 80F, so I worked out developing times at 80F. My winter times, when wash water drops to 74F, are longer. This has been working very well for me.
juan

mikewhi · Nov 19, 2004

lee said:
Loose Gravel,
I got this answer from my friend Frank this AM:

Lee:

You've come to the right person.....I even know the image the guy is
talking about. Oliver made an image of some aspens (I never knew the film
was Super XX -- I thought it was Ansco Versapan) and with only about 1-stop
difference in illumination between the darkest and the brightest areas of
the image, he developed the negative for about 24-hours in used D-23. But
he didn't just let it sit there, it must be agitated constantly for the
first hour, then at about 15-minutes intervals for the next 3-4 hours, and
then once each hour after that. I have seen the negative and it looks
positively silvery on the emulsion side. I have used the technique with
Versapan with good results. When that film was no longer available, I did
the same thing with the old Ilford FP-4. Then came TMax-100, and through
experimentation, I found that 1.5 hours in straight D-76 with 5-ml/per ltr
of 1% benzotriazole would take TMax100 to completion -- several of the
assistants to Oliver (I was an assistant instructor at his workshops in
Virginia City for seven summers in the 1980's) started referring to the
procedure as "Snot Development" -- meaning to develop the snot out of the
film. You can develop the snot out of any film so long as the highlight
densities are building faster than the film base + fog -- IOW's, so long as
you are building tonal range. While I have used this technique with TMax
100 in 120 film size, it does tend to get a bit grainy. For the past
couple of years, I've had very good luck with Ilford PanF Plus in straight
D-76 + the 1% BZ -- it takes very nicely to extreme extended
development.....easily N+4
(which is essentially Snot).

Hope this helps.....

Frank

So there you are....

lee\c

Turns out I own one of these original Gagliani prints of the Aspens. It is a 4x5 contact print. Not only is there a lot of contrast, but there is a never-ending amount of detail in the image. The more you look, the more you see. Oliver mentions this negative in the video about him.

-Mike

rakuhito · Nov 20, 2004

i do a stand development using a tank and 4x5 film hangers. dilute rodinal 1:100 and develop 2 hours for efke 25 and 100. suppose i could go longer or shorter. haven't really tried too much because two hours seems just fine. start with a pre-soak of a few minutes and then agitate in the developer for about a minute. then agitate once for 30 seconds after the first hour or so.

never had uneven development and everything looks great enough.

though i know i should be all into technical this or technical that... but for the most part i just love being able to make and eat dinner while the film develops. and that most everything turns out something usable. i've never been a careful photographer, nor do i want to be, and this system seems to work out always to my surprise and delight. like magic.

for what it's worth, i've always been fascinated by this article at unblinking eye: "mortenson revisited" which suggests underexpose (expose for the highlights) and overdevelop (develop for the shadows). why not? that's what i figure, and worry about.

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Mortensen/mortensen.html

of particular interest in the aformentioned article is the idea of developing for a week and keeping the developing tank in the refridgerator!!! anyone know more about this sort of thing???

lee · Nov 20, 2004

bump

lee\c

Poco · Nov 20, 2004

"the idea of developing for a week and keeping the developing tank in the refridgerator!!!"

I once left a neg in Rodinal 1:320 for 5 days. Turned out okay with very compensated highlights but also loss of shadow detail. I think the dilute rodinal probably exhausted itself or oxidized to inactivity and any time beyond 6 or so hours was wasted.

mobtown_4x5 · Nov 20, 2004

Hey this is a thread I can enjoy- stand develop rocks!

I am also a not-so-scientific photographer , I like to go get a cup of coffee while my negs develop- I use semi-stand development in trays. I have not found the need to use foriegn objects in the developer or roll my negs into individual little cylinder (thank God). I found the article on Mortenson very interesting- certainly a different approach from our usual "expose the shit out of it and worry about the highlights later" ala Adams approach.

Food for thought. I remember reading somewhere that Atget (sp?) used stand quite a bit. I've also heard that glycin developers are best for this- does anyone have an opinion on this? What is the best glycin developer? The best developer for stand? I have used Rodinal, but I'm wary to try PMK for fear of uneveness.. keep the info coming! Would stand-development be a recognized sect of the church of Rodinal ?

Matt

Tom Hoskinson · Nov 20, 2004

The Church of Rodinal is Non-Sectarian!

c6h6o3 · Nov 20, 2004

mobtown_4x5 said:
What is the best glycin developer?

Harvey's Panthermic 777

mikewhi · Nov 23, 2004

I have wondered with this stand development like Gaglianai used to do where there was a lot of silver in the chemistry, would a slight electrical current accelerate any 'plating' action that may go on. This is a total wild-assed guess on my part as I know squat about chemistry but I have wondered for a while now if introducing a small amount of electricity from, say a 9-volt battery, would help the plating action?

I you think popping your film\dev into the 'fridge would be a kick, how about plugging it in and coming back in 8 hours<g>?

Any ideas about the practicality of this? I'm sure someone, somewhere has tried this...

-Mike

Stand development

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency