Too Slow Agitation Issue?

[Team ADOX]

1992 vintage Trix400 shot at 200ISO in a Kodak Flash Bantam. I've used this camera before and last time used it was light tight.

Developer was Rodinal for 1hr--kinda semi stand. 30 second agitation to begin then one quick flip at 30 minutes.

I've used this method before with 70mm film but not 35mm. I was looking around and read this might be too slow agitation. Approximate flip every 3 seconds first 30 seconds.

Thank you for any help.

As other members here have correctly explained, it is bromide drag caused by too little agitation. This phenomenon as well as uneven development (without drags) often occur with stand development.
Stand / Semi-Stand development is a special technique for certain very special and rare cases, like decades old unknown film for which no development times are obtainable anymore.
It is not recommended as a standard procedure, because of the risk of bromide drag, uneven development, worse tonality (worse characteristic curve).
Often users use stand development to tame high object contrasts:
ADOX Rodinal is an excellent developer for that purpose, but it works by far best not with stand development, but with agitation. You have several different options to tame high object contrast with Rodinal:
1. Modify the standard agitation rhythm: After the initial 60s agitation and than one turn every 30s, use 1 turn every 60s. The density in the highlights generally reacts to the intensity of agitation, and with this less intensive agitation you will get a flatter, more compensating characteristic curve in the highlights with more highlight detail and less contrast.
2. Use a higher dilution: Instead of 1+50, 1+75 or 1+100 can be used. Result will be a more compensating characteristic curve in the highlights with more highlight detail.
3. Methods under 1. and 2. can also be combined if needed for very high contrast situations.

As always in BW film processing, the best method is as a first step to make individual tests with a densitometer to evaluate the characteristic curve. With that method absolutely perfect results (optimal EI, optimal tonality) for the individual needs of the photographer can be obtained.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

 

[bripriuk]

Thank you Adox for an authoritative and informative post.
I've also heard of people using super-stand development with Rodinal, 1 + 300 for 24 hours with no agitation, but I haven't tried it. myself.

Brian P

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I'm still waiting for results of my own stand in water alone. I've had it going for a year now, but am not sure yet what the outcome is, gonna wait a bit longer.

It makes hell of a difference waiting for crap to come out in 30 minutes vs. a couple of years though. It's all in the commitment department, required by art directors. But using an ultrasonic cleaner to develop, that is something quite promising, got to try that one. Standard development starts to sound more and more like voodoo these days.

 

[NB23]

Stand / Semi-Stand development is a special technique for certain very special and rare cases, like decades old unknown film for which no development times are obtainable anymore.

This is such a bad recommendation. Basically
you are saying that one should 100% certainly ruin a film that is from unknown provenance by using a technique that 100% certainly ruins film. Like, wtf?

My advice is quite contrary to this. Having developed more than 5000 films throughout the years, the only bulletproof method is actually HC110 1:32 for 6 minutes with 5 inversions every 30 seconds. If one insists on using rodinal, it would be 1:25 for 6 minutes with 5 inversions every 30 seconds. Any film. Anytime. Anywhere. This is a combination that aill ALWAYS produce usable negatives, no matter what.

-Rodinal or (old) hc110 or Ilfotec-hc guarantee the least fog.
-A proper agitation scheme guarantees a proper development, a proper contrast.
-6 minutes is a good average for all films ever produced.

Really it’s simple: just never use stand development. And ESPECIALLY NOT with old films with unknown provenance. That would be the worst possible advice if you care about “saving” it.

 

[pentaxuser]

NB23 Can I conclude that as far as stand development in any form is concerned your are "agin" it as we say in the U.K.?

pentaxuser

 

[NB23]

Thank you Adox for an authoritative and informative post.
I've also heard of people using super-stand development with Rodinal, 1 + 300 for 24 hours with no agitation, but I haven't tried it. myself.

Brian P

Those “super stand people” didn’t have the IQ to realize that a 1:300 solution exhausts within the first 5 minutes (or is it 1?). Why waste 23 hours and 59 minutes?

I posted a link earlier about developing with piss. The “super stand people” should try it.

 

[Angarian]

As other members here have correctly explained, it is bromide drag caused by too little agitation. This phenomenon as well as uneven development (without drags) often occur with stand development.
Stand / Semi-Stand development is a special technique for certain very special and rare cases, like decades old unknown film for which no development times are obtainable anymore.
It is not recommended as a standard procedure, because of the risk of bromide drag, uneven development, worse tonality (worse characteristic curve).
Often users use stand development to tame high object contrasts:
ADOX Rodinal is an excellent developer for that purpose, but it works by far best not with stand development, but with agitation. You have several different options to tame high object contrast with Rodinal:
1. Modify the standard agitation rhythm: After the initial 60s agitation and than one turn every 30s, use 1 turn every 60s. The density in the highlights generally reacts to the intensity of agitation, and with this less intensive agitation you will get a flatter, more compensating characteristic curve in the highlights with more highlight detail and less contrast.
2. Use a higher dilution: Instead of 1+50, 1+75 or 1+100 can be used. Result will be a more compensating characteristic curve in the highlights with more highlight detail.
3. Methods under 1. and 2. can also be combined if needed for very high contrast situations.

As always in BW film processing, the best method is as a first step to make individual tests with a densitometer to evaluate the characteristic curve. With that method absolutely perfect results (optimal EI, optimal tonality) for the individual needs of the photographer can be obtained.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

I can agree:
What you are writing about agitation with Rodinal concerning taming contrast with 1x agitation per minute, and the recommendation for using 1+75 or 1+100 dilution for managing contrast is what I am doing for years with Rodinal, and it works perfectly.
And yes, using a densitometer is the perfect way to get best results in BW film developing. I can recommend the Heiland TRD-2 densitometer.

 

[NB23]

NB23 Can I conclude that as far as stand development in any form is concerned your are "agin" it as we say in the U.K.?

pentaxuser

Really! Why does it even exist?

Would anyone stand-fix? Of course not. Not even the “super stand people” would do that, despite their low Critical thinking.

The whole premise of rubbing hands, with soap, is to bring new unexhausted soap on the dirty area. Who in his right mind would wash his hands by leaving them in still soapy water for 10 minutes? They’ll never be clean.

Who Stand-washes their clothes?

what’s happening with people??

 

[pentaxuser]

NB23 I was I admit it being slightly whimsical and was just trying to say that from previous posts I was firmly of the opinion several posts ago that stand development has no place in your world nor do you believe in any of ours either. That point was crystal clear to me

I don't know about the others of course but I had already "got the picture" It didn't take me that many posts to "get the picture". Indeed I remained less convinced of Sal's views on a certain politician than I am of yours on stand development

pentaxuser

 

[grat]

The whole premise of rubbing hands, with soap, is to bring new unexhausted soap on the dirty area. Who in his right mind would wash his hands by leaving them in still soapy water for 10 minutes? They’ll never be clean.

Strictly speaking, concentration gradients will eventually result in the amount of dirt in the water being equal to the amount of dirt on the hand. It'll take awhile, though.

And that's the premise of stand development. Instead of using agitation to bring fresh developer into contact with the film surface, you're relying on concentration gradients and diffusion to eventually equalize out fresh developer and spent developer. It's not totally unreasonable, and hopefully someone's done the math to determine how long it takes for a given volume of water, and a given amount of developer to fully equalize... but it still smacks of pot-luck to me, and should only be used as a last resort-- regular agitation** and a higher concentration should produce a much faster, reliable result.

**Speaking of agitation, one thing that's been missing from this thread is the difference between 3-4 gentle rotations in multiple directions (my preference), vs several rapid agitations back and forth. In other words, it's not just how often you agitate, it's how you actually agitate.

 

[NB23]

NB23 I was I admit it being slightly whimsical and was just trying to say that from previous posts I was firmly of the opinion several posts ago that stand development has no place in your world nor do you believe in any of ours either. That point was crystal clear to me

I don't know about the others of course but I had already "got the picture" It didn't take me that many posts to "get the picture". Indeed I remained less convinced of Sal's views on a certain politician than I am of yours on stand development

pentaxuser

A very polite way to tell me to get over it, eh?
Yeah I know... I’m passionate.

 

[pentaxuser]

A very polite way to tell me to get over it, eh?

Perhaps more a way of trying to say that in terms of where you stand on "stand" there is little or in fact no room for doubt. Your position is clear and your responses leave no element of doubt which can be a good thing but there may come a point when it cannot be made any clearer

pentaxuser

 

[NB23]

Perhaps more a way of trying to say that in terms of where you stand on "stand" there is little or in fact no room for doubt. Your position is clear and your responses leave no element of doubt which can be a good thing but there may come a point when it cannot be made any clearer

pentaxuser

Dang! I need my own youtube channel.

 

[pentaxuser]

Dang! I need my own youtube channel.

Well one thing is certain: A lot of Youtube videos have the serious drawback of not having enough clarity.. A good presentation takes time to prepare and good delivery is a talent that is certainly not as natural as people assume it to be

Give it a go. You get a +1 for saying what you mean from me

pentaxuser