Stand & Semi Stand - Is it the Best Development Technique?

Andre Noble · May 27, 2016

Hi,

Is there a "Cliff Notes" version from anyone with extensive experience as to whether or not these two methods (stand, semi stand) produce superior negatives for enlargement compared to regular, intermittent agitation?

Thanks

Kevin Caulfield · May 27, 2016

It's not the best development technique, but it is the most forgiving.

MattKing · May 27, 2016

This should be interesting.

In my limited experience, those techniques create problems and provide markedly inferior results except in certain very limited circumstances.

They are useful when exaggerated effects are desired.

And they are useful when extreme compensation is desired.

But generally, I do not like what they do to mid-tones, and I feel that mid-tones are the most important part of most photographs.

markbarendt · May 27, 2016

No, it's not a magic bullet.

idamia · May 27, 2016

markbarendt said:
No, it's not a magic bullet.

...because a magic bullet does not exist.

chris77 · May 27, 2016

MattKing said:
This should be interesting.

In my limited experience, those techniques create problems and provide markedly inferior results except in certain very limited circumstances.

They are useful when exaggerated effects are desired.

And they are useful when extreme compensation is desired.

But generally, I do not like what they do to mid-tones, and I feel that mid-tones are the most important part of most photographs.

+1

can be useful in extreme cases, but definitely not a magic bullet.

pdeeh · May 27, 2016

MattKing said:
This should be interesting.

Or not , as the case may be, but I know what you mean.

baachitraka · May 27, 2016

Technique? No. I may look some good compensating developers instead.

Ricardo Miranda · May 27, 2016

I like Stand.

5-9-2016_021 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

baachitraka · May 27, 2016

Looking slightly muddy for me ;-)

X-tol would have kept the highlights well under control without suppressing the mid-tones.

Ian Grant · May 27, 2016

Definitely not the best techniques, I agree with Matt.

Ian

Gerald C Koch · May 27, 2016

Oh GAWD not again. No, conventional time/temperature development is the best technique. Why do you think that Kodak, Ilford,, FOMA, ... all advocate its use.

jonasfj · May 27, 2016

I have never tried it, but in theory and I guess in practice it is as compensating as it gets and you get an effect of accutance while still control the grain somewhat.

If you think you may have blown the highlights during exposure and you still want to preserve as much detail in the shadows, standing development might help you, i.e. a very contrasty subject.

At the same time you risk a lot of other problems such as bromide drag.

juan · May 27, 2016

Perhaps the manufacturers recommend time and temperature because it's the best compromise for mass commercial development.

I've used T&T, brush, rotary, development by inspection, and various minimal agitation schemes. I settled on extreme minimal agitation because I need the compensation where I live now. It may not work for you.

Try everything. Use what works.
Juan

removed account4 · May 27, 2016

Andre Noble said:
Hi,

Is there a "Cliff Notes" version from anyone with extensive experience as to whether or not these two methods (stand, semi stand) produce superior negatives for enlargement compared to regular, intermittent agitation?

Thanks

not sure if there are cliff notes. but i've done stand/semi stand for a handful of years. i mostly did it becasue
i wanted to leave the room for 1/2 hour, not because of magic bullets or thinking it worked better than other things.
it did produce nice negatives still, that i both enlarged ( 1/2 frame +35mm ) and contact printed ( 4x5 + 5x7 ) and i will not hesitate to do it again.

Gerald C Koch said:
Oh GAWD not again. No, conventional time/temperature development is the best technique. Why do you think that Kodak, Ilford,, FOMA, ... all advocate its use.

its the best technique for people who want to use that technique. nothing is written in stone with photography.
and while following the instructions on the box is a good place to start, a lot of folks stray off the path and find other ways of doing things along the way

juan said:
Try everything. Use what works.
Juan

exactly

Ricardo Miranda · May 27, 2016

baachitraka said:
Looking slightly muddy for me ;-)

X-tol would have kept the highlights well under control without suppressing the mid-tones.

And it is a lot more expensive per roll.

MattKing · May 27, 2016

Ricardo Miranda said:
And it is a lot more expensive per roll.

At 14-17 cents/roll X-Tol is more expensive?
Insert advantages of a replenishment regime here

Kawaiithulhu · May 27, 2016

If you're worried about cents per roll costs in B&W development then maybe chemistry isn't the hobby for you.
This isn't color or reversal where it's dollars of chemicals per roll costs sunk in development!

Truth of the matter from my perspective is that I've seen some horrible negatives from people using both standard and stand development, usually students who haven't gotten any smooth technique or controls down yet. (I was one of those really sloppy students, back in the day)

As far as technique goes, if you're having trouble getting quality prints from standard development practices then letting film sit for an hour is only going to make things worse. Consider that the overwhelming majority of excellent prints ever made were made using standard practices and a good eye in the darkroom...

Sorry, I don't mean to be judgmental at the beginning of the day I think it's helpful to stand back and take a look at the entire process from exposure to final print, only then can you decide if one step along the way doesn't suit your subject matter and then intelligently search for a new step to use instead of looking for magic bullets.

Ricardo Miranda · May 27, 2016

jnanian said:
its the best technique for people who want to use that technique. nothing is written in stone with photography.
and while following the instructions on the box is a good place to start, a lot of folks stray off the path and find other ways of doing things along the way

Yes, that's right and it is called "think for oneself".

MattKing said:
At 14-17 cents/roll X-Tol is more expensive?
Insert advantages of a replenishment regime here

It isn't just practical to buy packs of 5L. Where would I store 2x or more 5L containers in a small bedroom?
And it isn't that cheap. Fomadon R09 cost about £0.07 per roll.
And my new bottle of APH-09 is even cheaper at £0.04.
Besides I love Rodinal.

markbarendt · May 27, 2016

baachitraka said:
Looking slightly muddy for me ;-)

X-tol would have kept the highlights well under control without suppressing the mid-tones.

While I agree that the positive shown lacks snap, it's not reasonable to suggest Xtol or normal development would have fixed it or that stand development is the real reason it works for Ricardo.

We simply have no clue about what the negative actually looks like. What we do know is that every positive ever, that has been created from a negative, has been manipulated; it is simply the nature of the medium.

What can be said with some confidence in this case, is that Ricardo likes stand/semi-stand and that it was Ricardo's printing choices that led to this particular look.

So what? In the hands of a different printer it is almost a given that Ricardo's negative would make a positive with a very different look. That might even be driven by nothing more than an adjustment to the print exposure.

Ricardo Miranda · May 27, 2016

Kawaiithulhu said:
Sorry, I don't mean to be judgmental at the beginning of the day .

Well, sorry you just woke up! In this part of the world it is beautiful Spring evening and I don't know what I'm doing inside.
Right, lets get an OM-2N, some Fomapan 100 and get out of here!
Bye, and have a jolly good day!

MattKing · May 27, 2016

Ricardo Miranda said:
It isn't just practical to buy packs of 5L. Where would I store 2x or more 5L containers in a small bedroom?

A 4-5 litre bucket to mix in, 5 one litre bottles and a single package is all you need.

Richard S. (rich815) · May 27, 2016

I've tried it. Results can be good. But in my experience too much chance of weird streaking/fogging....

Ricardo Miranda said:
I like Stand.

5-9-2016_021 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

It's a good photo with decent tonality but I see the weirdness I often see when I've done stand development: sort of a fogging or haziness in some areas particularly over the kinky-haired girl's head on the right.

DREW WILEY · May 27, 2016

There is a reason why any successful shoe store sells more than one size of shoe! Feet are not all the same. If you have the time, experiment. I've
already spent enough time doing that, and now know what predictably works for me, and it ain't the technique in question here.

markbarendt · May 27, 2016

Richard S. (rich815) said:
I've tried it. Results can be good. Too much chance of weird streaking

It's a good photo with decent tonality but I see the weirdness I often see when I've done stand development: sort of a fogging or haziness in some areas particularly over the kinky-haired girl's head on the right.

Fogging or haziness still there?

Stand & Semi Stand - Is it the Best Development Technique?

Andre Noble

Kevin Caulfield

MattKing

Moderator

markbarendt

idamia

chris77

pdeeh

baachitraka

Ricardo Miranda

baachitraka

Ian Grant

Gerald C Koch

jonasfj

juan

removed account4

Ricardo Miranda

MattKing

Moderator

Kawaiithulhu

Ricardo Miranda

markbarendt

Ricardo Miranda

MattKing

Moderator

Richard S. (rich815)

DREW WILEY

markbarendt

Stand & Semi Stand - Is it the Best Development Technique?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency