Stand or semi-stand and D76.

[Stephanie Brim]

Has anyone tried stand development with D76? If I was going to try it, would you suggest diluted or non? How long? I was planning on using this entire package of D76 1:1 for economical reasons...but I have a roll of Pan-F that I really, really want done well. Stand or semi-stand seem to be a very good way to get them done right and NOT blow the highlights.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Well, I'm doing it anyway. I'm crazy. Someone want to throw me a number for 1:1 as to a good time to finish?

 

[bobbysandstrom]

stephanie, if it's an important roll I would do a test first! Not just for times but for any weirdness with development at the edges! I posted recently some tests and detailed the process with fp4 and rodinal for stand development. Check them out.

 

[Daniel Lawton]

Generally speaking, most people use higher dilutions for stand or sem-istand development since the goal is to help bring about local exhaustion of the highlight areas and increase acutance. D-76 at 1:1 sort of defeats this purpose. I've used D-76 1:3 semistand (reduced agitation) on Fp4+ with sucess though I'd have to check my notes to find the time I used.

 

[df cardwell]

Ilford publishes a D76 / ID11 1+3 development time of 15' @ 68 degrees, with normal agitation ( 10 seconds per minute ).

A good compensation for reduced agitation to one per 5 minutes is 1.5x.

Try it out.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

It wasn't a really good roll...double exposures.

And it's already done, BTW. Scans of the negatives to follow. It worked decently well, methinks.

 

[gainer]

Ilford publishes a D76 / ID11 1+3 development time of 15' @ 68 degrees, with normal agitation ( 10 seconds per minute ).

A good compensation for reduced agitation to one per 5 minutes is 1.5x.

Try it out.

I second the motion, and it works for any developer. Multiply the time for agitating 5 seconds every 30 seconds to get the time for semi-stand. If you do D-76 1:1 for, say, 10 minutes with agitation, do it for 15 minutes with agitation for 5 seconds at 0, 5 and 10 minutes.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

You guys are an hour late...or more.

I'm scanning now. I'm done with three strips. I got mixed results, but not all of it is bad. Just interesting. I'll be uploading the entire roll so you can see what was overexposed/overdeveloped and what wasn't. To tell you the truth, I'm thinking that it was more over/underexposure that gave me the mixed results, not the developer/dilution for the stand developing.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I'm almost done scanning so I'll post my conclusions and then the URL to the directory where the photos will be - the entire roll is going up for your perusal as evidence.

I'll be trying this again, mainly because of the fact that I did double exposures on this roll. A lot of the photos turned out rather well, but some turned out a bit overexposed or overprocessed. I expected that. I've learned that D76 1:1 can be used as a stand developer, but you'll want to use a shorter time than I did, perhaps 35 minutes, to have it work better. If the shots weren't doubles in many cases it would have worked pretty well. I also seemed to suffer bromide drag, so I'm thinking that perhaps using a semi-stand method with 1:1 may be better, but I'll make that conclusion after I finally fix the time.

Anyway, the reason I really did this was because someone told me not to. It was a throwaway roll anyway, but I think I came up with some interesting stuff...at least a few things. I have the philosophy that you have to try things...as many things as you can...to try and understand what you're doing. I'm experimenting with photo chemicals because I want to understand the process better. It's a learning experience (even if I do screw up royally once in a while).

The results of my experiment are in this directory and will be up for a while before I can have some kind of a layout there, so sorry in advance. I'll work on that this week.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Oh, and one other thing that could or could not be a factor. The D76 was expired at the end of last year. I doubt it would make a big difference if any, but it was a factor I didn't want to leave out.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Results

Good for you Stefanie-nver take anyones word on anything. You'll learn a hell of alot more by trying something than than reading about it on the web...
Best, Peter

 

[Stephanie Brim]

That's one thing I learned in my chemistry class...the teacher hated me for that.

A story. When I was young (about 10) I had a chemistry set. I loved the thing and I used it every day. The book told me that I should not mix two of the chemicals. I did it anyway, though outside with goggles and gloves on (I was young, not stupid). Heat reaction that broke the test tube. Never did it again, but it was a hell of a lot of fun watching it happen.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Also, someone pointed something out to me on RFF that I should probably share here as well: This is not roll order. It is scan order. I didn't scan these in order as they came out of the roll. I'm going to try to do another roll today and scan in roll order from the first frame on the reel to the last...maybe this will give a better insight into...something.