Interesting that you mention stand development. We are getting away from the subject asked on this thread, but I have often read about what you have just stated concerning accutance. However, I haven't seen much objective evidence that stand processing does indeed improve the accutance . If one does careful film testing using densitometers and step tablets then one can determine with a reallly good degree of certainty the developing time for a given subject brightness range such that one can obtain reasonably consistent negatives using the Jobo at a given temperature with a given developer at a specific dilution. No problems with shadow details, or highlights, unless I have done a poor job with my incident metering. Hence, again, I wonder if you might have some references that can point me in the right direction as to objective evidence that compares accutance with stand development versus development with constant agitation-same subject, same subject brightness range, same temperature, same developer at the exact same dilution. Prints made on the same enlarger, same paper, etc., etc. I certainly would like to learn how to make the best prints and negatives that I can, and perhaps stand development would yield better results in some situations. I'm going to move our discussion to another thread so that we can benefit from the experience of those who have also used both stand and agitation developing. Great that you brought the subject up. Thanks.
Edwin
