Stand development???

stradibarrius · Sep 23, 2010

I see many post where they have used the "Stand development" method and I was wondering about pros and cons of the method.
One pro that seems obvious is you can walk away for awhile.

removedacct3 · Sep 23, 2010

One contra... not every film or developer is suited for stand development

Thomas Bertilsson · Sep 23, 2010

Uneven development is very common when doing standing development.

But some possibilities are undeniable. When you use highly dilute developers (Rodinal is especially good for this, according to my own experience), for a long time without agitating, areas of the negative that received a lot of exposure will have the developer that's adjacent to the film plane exhausted pretty quickly.
And areas of the film that did not receive a lot of exposure will have the developer last for a pretty long time, improving shadow detail (and subsequently film speed).
I have seen prints from Tri-X negatives exposed at EI 25,000 processed this way, and the results were acceptable. Not great. But acceptable.
Developing this way will 'even out' differences in exposure and density from frame to frame on a roll of film. Overexposed frames can live pretty happily next to underexposed ones.

You can also gain some edge effects where areas of high density are directly adjacent to areas of low density. Sharp shifts in tonality, along an edge, will get this 'super sharp' appearance. Some like it, others don't.

It's something that isn't for everybody, but that can yield some pretty impressive results with enough practice. See Steve Sherman, for example.

- Thomas

vedmak · Sep 23, 2010

try pmk

if the question is clear tonal separation in extreme lighting conditions, pyro developers will blow the socks off the stand development. In one of his books saint Ansel had a picture of a light bulb developed in pyro developer, try to do that one on a working light bulb with Xtol

Thomas Bertilsson · Sep 23, 2010

vedmak said:
In one of his books saint Ansel had a picture of a light bulb developed in pyro developer, try to do that one on a working light bulb with Xtol

(I think I will. Sounds like a challenge.)

Travis Nunn · Sep 23, 2010

This might be a good thread to read....
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Dan Henderson · Sep 23, 2010

Some people cite uneven development and/or "bromide drag" with stand development.

I have never tried stand development, defined as the only agitation being at the beginning of development. But I have been using semi-stand development, which I define as 1-1/2 minutes of initial agitation followed by 10 seconds of agitation at the half point in the total developing time. I have been using this routine with Pyrocat HD for about 6 months and I am getting nice, snappy, printable negatives with no ill effects.

Marco B · Sep 23, 2010

vedmak said:
if the question is clear tonal separation in extreme lighting conditions, pyro developers will blow the socks off the stand development. In one of his books saint Ansel had a picture of a light bulb developed in pyro developer, try to do that one on a working light bulb with Xtol

You mean something like this ...

Tri-X 400 in D76 1:1 at 6.30 minutes pull development, deliberately overexposed for detail in shadows ("Expose for the shadows"), I measured an about 11-13 stop / EV range.

You don't have to be a saint , nor risk uneven development as in stand, to do this (if you can afford to have slightly longer exposure times):

For an even better impression of the amount of shadow detail, see the images against a dark backdrop on my personal website here (the light APUG background makes images look darker):

http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/haarlem_by_night/slides/DN1_0266_17.html
http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/haarlem_by_night/slides/DN1_0267_7.html

And a side/sight of Adam's I didn't know , from here:

Ansel Adams TIME Cover & "The Cover That Missed", 1979
cover & c print, signed, unique (printed in 1984 in an edition of 25)
"The only photographer to appear on the cover of TIME, photo by me, signed by Ansel Adams, September 3, 1979. The Cover That Missed inscribed with, 'For David Hume Kennerly, The cover that Missed! Ansel Adams, NY-9-5-79' . The photograph underscores Ansel's playfulness and fine sense of humor. He had a pair of glasses with no lenses, and demonstrated them in a vivid visual fashion."

Shawn Dougherty · Sep 23, 2010

vedmak said:
if the question is clear tonal separation in extreme lighting conditions, pyro developers will blow the socks off the stand development. In one of his books saint Ansel had a picture of a light bulb developed in pyro developer, try to do that one on a working light bulb with Xtol

You know you can stand develop with some pyro developers, right? =)

Thomas Bertilsson · Sep 23, 2010

Standing development is also about boosting micro contrast, and general contrast, when you're photographing low contrast scenes.
I was shooting pinhole using Kodak Plus-X film a year or so ago, and used 120 film to make 6x6 negatives. I would process them in 1+200 dilution Rodinal at 70 degrees F for 60 minutes with 10s agitation at the 30 minute mark, and a full minute of agitation at the start.

I got negatives that printed well on Grade 3 paper from scenes that were foggy and low contrast, as well as scenes that were fairly brightly lit in the middle of the day with normal contrast.
Attached prints are almost straight prints at Grade 3 (left one is Forte Polygrade and right one Fomabrom Variant).

It is a great tool for anybody to use.

- Thomas

Marco B · Sep 23, 2010

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Standing development is also about boosting micro contrast, and general contrast, when you're photographing low contrast scenes.

....

I got negatives that printed well on Grade 3 paper from scenes that were foggy and low contrast, as well as scenes that were fairly brightly lit in the middle of the day with normal contrast.

So, essentially this was a "push" development, however the stand development used to control or limit grain sizes? Less agitation, so finer grain? :confused: Do I understand you right for these specific images?

Thomas Bertilsson · Sep 23, 2010

The negative making the print on the left was a scene of flat lighting. Very flat.
The negative making the print on the right was in normal contrast lighting if you discount the rising sun.
They were both developed for the same amount of time, believe it or not. So it evened out the contrast range between the two negatives - automatically within the process.

- Thomas

Marco B said:
So, essentially this was a "push" development, however the stand development used to control or limit grain sizes? Less agitation, so finer grain? :confused: Do I understand you right for these specific images?

c6h6o3 · Sep 24, 2010

vedmak said:
if the question is clear tonal separation in extreme lighting conditions, pyro developers will blow the socks off the stand development. In one of his books saint Ansel had a picture of a light bulb developed in pyro developer, try to do that one on a working light bulb with Xtol

The negative for the picture you mention was developed in Windisch Catechol, a pyro based developer. The reducing agent in this formula is pyrocatechin, which is different from the reducer in PMK, pyrogallol. Pyrocatechin is also the reducer in Pyrocat HD which many fine printers use for semi-stand or minimal agitation development.

It's not a case of stand development OR pyro development; I know many photographers who get beautiful results using stand development WITH pyro.

Gerald C Koch · Sep 24, 2010

c6h6o3 said:
The negative for the picture you mention was developed in Windisch Catechol, a pyro based developer. The reducing agent in this formula is pyrocatechin, which is different from the reducer in PMK, pyrogallol. Pyrocatechin is also the reducer in Pyrocat HD

This is a minor point but it's rather confusing when someone uses the term pyro for pyrocatechin when must people will think of pyrogallol when they see pyro. Older literature is particularly bad in this respect. The accepted chemical names are catechol and pyrogallol. Pyrocatechin is a very old name and best left in the past.

Shawn Dougherty · Sep 24, 2010

Gerald C Koch said:
This is a minor point but it's rather confusing when someone uses the term pyro for pyrocatechin when must people will think of pyrogallol when they see pyro. Older literature is particularly bad in this respect. The accepted chemical names are catechol and pyrogallol. Pyrocatechin is a very old name and best left in the past.

As someone who only started foolin' with pyro in 2004... =) Things have changed. In my experience, I'd estimate that 90% or more of those I speak with who use "pyro" use some form of Pyrocat.... Even on the boards it seems to be far and away the most popular - and everyone seems to refer to it as "pyro".

Have you found differently?

c6h6o3 · Sep 24, 2010

Shawn Dougherty said:
As someone who only started foolin' with pyro in 2004... =) Things have changed. In my experience, I'd estimate that 90% or more of those I speak with who use "pyro" use some form of Pyrocat.... Even on the boards it seems to be far and away the most popular - and everyone seems to refer to it as "pyro".

Have you found differently?

I started using PMK about 20 years ago. At that time 'pyro' meant pyrogallol. That's what Adams referred to as pyro in The Negative and other books. If he developed a negative in catechol and used it as an example he would call it that and not 'pyro'. About 10 years ago I started using ABC pyro, which is also pyrogallol based. I've never associated the word 'pyro' with catechol or even Sandy's Pyrocat.

I think the recent association of 'pyro' with catechol in its many guises is purely the result of Sandy King's choice of name for the groundbreaking developer he invented.

Gerald: I will henceforth excise the word 'pyrocatechin' from my vocabulary. I place that misnomer in the same class as calling a substance as alkaline as pyrogallol 'pyrogallic acid', which some vendors still do.

Shawn Dougherty · Sep 24, 2010

That does it, I'm just sticking to Rodinal.... this nomenclature is too complicated for me. =)

stradibarrius · Sep 24, 2010

Rodinal or HC110 are so easy to use and easy to get in my area. I do like XTOL too but HC110 is easier to mix for one shot development.

c6h6o3 · Sep 24, 2010

Shawn Dougherty said:
That does it, I'm just sticking to Rodinal.... this nomenclature is too complicated for me. =)

I'll have to try that stuff some day. After all, it was good enough for Brett Weston.

Thomas Bertilsson · Sep 24, 2010

I am basically on a single developer regime, but recently bought a bottle of Rodinal just to try some standing development again. Call me crazy.
I'll be sticking to a single developer at least 95% of the time.

- Thomas

c6h6o3 said:
I'll have to try that stuff some day. After all, it was good enough for Brett Weston.

Dan Henderson · Sep 24, 2010

Like Shawn (hi Shawn, it was good to meet you last weekend) I am relatively new to pyro type developers. But even before using it I associated the word "pyro" with pyrogallol developers such as PMK. It seems to me that "pyrocat" (small p) would be a good word to associate with pyrocatechol type developers, like Pyrocat or Dixactol.

2F/2F · Sep 24, 2010

I would check out the book "The Darkroom Cookbook" by Steve Anchell (and by "check out," I also mean that it may be available at a library near you). There are five useful paragraphs on stand development that will do more for you than piecing together tidbits from the Internet as your first introduction to the technique. One paragraph is introductory, one is on advantages, one is on disadvantages, and two that explain the basics of how to employ the technique.

sanking · Sep 25, 2010

c6h6o3 said:
I think the recent association of 'pyro' with catechol in its many guises is purely the result of Sandy King's choice of name for the groundbreaking developer he invented.

Gerald: I will henceforth excise the word 'pyrocatechin' from my vocabulary. I place that misnomer in the same class as calling a substance as alkaline as pyrogallol 'pyrogallic acid', which some vendors still do.

Pyrocatechin is rarely used these days for catechol, but pyrocatechol is a perfectly good modern equivalent, and in some respects has more use in the scientific literature.

When I developed the Pyrocat formula I used the name Pyro in it because whether you call the chemical pyrocatechin, pyrocatechol, or just catechol it does the same thing in development as pyrogallol, i.e. it stains and tans when used in solutions low in sulfite.

I would also note that in The Film Developing Cookbook, Anchell and Troop treat both pyrogallol and pyrocatechin in the same chapter, Tanning Developers.

That said, I find it perfectly reasonable to use the term "pyro developer" to refer to either pyrogallol or pyrocatechol.

Sandy

chaptastic · Sep 25, 2010

2F/2F said:
I would check out the book "The Darkroom Cookbook" by Steve Anchell (and by "check out," I also mean that it may be available at a library near you). There are five useful paragraphs on stand development that will do more for you than piecing together tidbits from the Internet as your first introduction to the technique. One paragraph is introductory, one is on advantages, one is on disadvantages, and two that explain the basics of how to employ the technique.

Could you possibly provide a page reference (or section)? I'm interested in trying stand development but can't seem to find this passage in the book. Thanks!

Lee L · Sep 25, 2010

chaptastic said:
Could you possibly provide a page reference (or section)? I'm interested in trying stand development but can't seem to find this passage in the book. Thanks!

Stand development is covered in the 3rd edition, pages 39-40.

The 2nd edition only has one paragraph for agitation, mentioning 10 seconds/minute and continuous shuffling for sheet film in trays.

If you don't have the 3rd edition, you won't find stand development mentioned.

Lee

Stand development???

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency