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

ONF, I have to agree with Michael.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I was responding to a post in which was stated, "There are no magic bullets". I was trying to point out that there are different kinds of bullets for different purposes... just as there are different developers and developing methods for different final image outcomes. The differences may be somewhat subtle but they do exist.

Magic Bullets??? My 22-250 prefers flat base pills, but yours might like boat tails...........we all have things we prefer and things we don't. The biggest problem is convincing ourselves we like something that's either not working or working no better than what we already have. That said, I do have a 11x14 print taken with my Rollei of a steam locomotive on an extremely bright overcast day. The film was Acros rated at EI 80 and developed in Rodinal 1+100 semi-stand for 1hr. It is absolutely one of the best prints I have from Acros 100. Excellent detail even down into the deep blacks. There is even detail in the very bright semi-cloudless sky. This was the very first time I tried semi-stand or stand for that matter and I don't think I could have done any better with anything else. That said, I tried the same developer scheme on HP5+, Foma 200 and some Delta 100. The results? Certainly nowhere near as good as Acros and Rodinal 1+100 that's for sure. I've tried it with PanF+ and it was fine with that too, but I actually like Perceptol 1+1 or 1+2 a little better with PanF+.

Ian Grant said:

There does appear to be a sudden obsession in more recent years with stand and semi stand development and it's mostly from less experienced photographers.

It's not ideal with smaller formats but can be more useful when contact printing LF negatives. People are expecting far more than they are getting from it and in most cases would get higher quality using standard techniques.

Ian

Click to expand...

I resemble that. I'm paying attention & I particularly note that few of the accomplished guys do stand or semi. I do love the accutance & contrast, but I do think Matt is on to something about mid-tones being where its at. Prob. my last 7 rolls were PyroHD semi. I'm not at all unhappy w/ the results, but thought I'd try regular agitation instead of semi. Negs are drying (35mm), and another roll 120 waits for results before proceeding. 'Went back to look at prior negs for mid-tones, and It seems they're there & fine, but I wanted to compare w/ normal agitation.

Being the less experienced guy, I'd have to be stupid not to pay attention here.

Old-N-Feeble said:

RE "no magic bullets": It's true there are none but there are many different kinds of bullets... wad cutter, spire point, hollow point, round nose solid, as well as different weights and materials. Forgetting calibers, each type of bullet is better for specific needs. I'm just playing devil's advocate regarding the magic bullet analogy.

Click to expand...

'Smiling here. You forgot scintered tungsten...

I'm not a believer in magic bullets, but maybe another 10k images & I'll remember enough to choose which bullet fits best.

FWIW, the knowledge put out here is superb & much appreciated.

Personally, my track record with stand development is pretty poor. I've tried a lot of variations since 2008 when I started to find more posts about it on the forums. Every now and again I'll land a winner, but it's the exception to the rule.

One thing I found was that stand developed negs were poor to enlarge. I shoot primarily 6x6. This particular shot really glows as a print:



But it doesn't like to be enlarged bigger that 7"x7". It's fuji acros on a tripod. It's starts to take on a very ugly quality. I've seen this in other stand developed negs.

Something to consider perhaps.

Marco Buonocore said:

doesn't like to be enlarged

Click to expand...

Is that because the edge effects become objectionable or is there another reason?

Kawaiithulhu said:

Is that because the edge effects become objectionable or is there another reason?

Click to expand...

Yes, I think that was the reason. Whatever edge effects or mackie lines or however they're called don't seem to enlarge very well. That's my experience at least.

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

Click to expand...

I love stand development. The Jobo ATL does the development while I stand by and have a beer. But I have noticed that the effect of the beer is only short term and wears off until the negatives are dry (i.e. the next day), so the superior quality effect does not last!

Seriously: Use the process which suits you best. If you like "magic" stand development, do it! If you like "boring non-magic" agitation, do it! If you are lazy and use a machine, do it! But with all the variety there is, non will be best to the General public, but it will be the best for you!

It may well be that wet printing is the missing link, but I seem to get mid tone definition by regular or semi-stand agitation