Tri-X & R09 - stand development temperature

[koraks]

as requested

Your negatives appear to show zones of stronger development towards the top. There are also faint 'shadows' of the sprocket holes in those areas. You might want to inspect the negatives closely to see if it's just a digital artifact, or an actual defect in the negatives.

Edit: I just rechecked the light table 'scan'. I'm virtually certain you've got the exact kind of problem that stand development brings the risk of. See here a curve-adjusted version of the cat-in-the-box (ain't it cute when they do that ) that emphasizes the problem:

Note the 'bag-like' zone of higher density in the center of the frame. This might be (part) natural lighting, except for the darker spots immediately underneath the top row of sprocket holes; it's the clearest in the full frame shown and then the 2nd sprocket hole from the right. Once you notice it, it also becomes fairly easily visible in other places. It may not look like much of a problem in most images, but try and shoot an open sky or any other larger surface of even tone or a mild gradient. There will be problems if you print or process such images.

When testing with stand development and reduced agitation schemes, be sure to include a couple of shots of scenes with large swathes of even tone, preferably along the edges of the film as this is where problems tend to show up the most. Such scenes should render with perfect evenness.

 

[MattKing]

Hi Matt,

Yes, I concur that the negatives are under-exposed (or under-developed whichever is technically correct). I believe this is due to too little R09 developer in there (only about 4ml) and the stand time (50 min) is a little short. I will adjust these and try again next time.

yossi

No - this isn't showing under-development. Changing the development time isn't going to help with those shadowed areas that lack detail. During camera exposure, not enough light got to the film in the first place - i.e. it is under-exposed - and developing it longer or with more developer won't help with that.
Extended development times and reduced agitation schemes can't repair that problem. All they can do in some circumstances is improve the appearance of the rest of the under-exposed scene. In essence, extending the development increases the contrast of the mid-tones and highlights, while reduced agitation helps prevent too much density in those highlights - at the risk of uneven development and mid-tones that tend to look "blah".

 

[pentaxuser]

Hello,

Thanks for the great advice. I will try that out for the next roll.

Last night (we are in different time zone btw) while I was reading all the above posts, I was trying out my first stand development.
Film: old ARISTA Premium 400 (long expired but cold-stored in fridge so still good). Shot at ASA1600.
R09 (1:100) I made 505ml but poured in only about 400ml (think this is a mistake.)
Normal agitation for first 4 min then sit for 50 min. (I just use this as a starting point and see how the result is like... )
I used ice cubes to try and maintain the temperature to be around 20 degree C. (probably around 20-22 during the whole duration.)

Result: I don't know how to describe, so link two scans here for comment. (feel really bad about all the dust spots on the neg. I definitely need to work on that department.)

I kinda like the grains and the contrast but shadow details could be better. (I think maybe 50 min is too short? or 4ml of R09 is too little? )

Anyway, it is a fun experiment for me. Seeing that I could shoot a picture of my beloved cat in so dim lighting at ASA1600 and his eye appears so clearly in the final image is just sooo good. I aim to get better result the next time. Wish me luck.

So if I have understood what you have said correctly, yossi, this is effectively Foma 400 expired film. shot at 1600 in low light and stand developed except that you used normal agitation for the first 4 mins but he rest was no agitation at all for the next 50 mins.

Frankly these 2 shots look great, especially the one of the cat. The only parts with hardly any detail are the farthest ear and no detail at all is the part of the collar underneath cat's chin which in that area of the cat and the shadow formed by the box's side is to be expected

I wonder what we'd have said if you had put this picture in the gallery and it had not been part of a thread where we expect there to be "problems"

By the way I agree with Matt that extending the time is unlikely to improve matters especially as with so little developer I strongly suspect the developer is exhausted by 60 mins

Depending on what time, and money you have and your desire to experiment then by all means try developing the same or similar scenes as you did with stand to see how much of an improvement you can make.

For what it is worth my opinion is that there will be none other than the convenience of doing it that way in terms of keeping the temperature at 20C for a short period

You have done a great job here in my opinion

pentaxuser

 

[Don_ih]

My expectation is, if the 50 minute stand development was at a fairly high temperature, the developer would exhaust more quickly in the midtone and highlight areas, which would make the shadow areas lose detail, These pictures don't seem like Foma 400 at 1600 stand developed in 1:100 rodinal. I'd expect much thinner negatives. How did you meter? What camera did you use?

 

[yossi]

So if I have understood what you have said correctly, yossi, this is effectively Foma 400 expired film. shot at 1600 in low light and stand developed except that you used normal agitation for the first 4 mins but he rest was no agitation at all for the next 50 mins.

Frankly these 2 shots look great, especially the one of the cat. The only parts with hardly any detail are the farthest ear and no detail at all is the part of the collar underneath cat's chin which in that area of the cat and the shadow formed by the box's side is to be expected

I wonder what we'd have said if you had put this picture in the gallery and it had not been part of a thread where we expect there to be "problems"

By the way I agree with Matt that extending the time is unlikely to improve matters especially as with so little developer I strongly suspect the developer is exhausted by 60 mins

Depending on what time, and money you have and your desire to experiment then by all means try developing the same or similar scenes as you did with stand to see how much of an improvement you can make.

For what it is worth my opinion is that there will be none other than the convenience of doing it that way in terms of keeping the temperature at 20C for a short period

You have done a great job here in my opinion

pentaxuser

Thank you for your encouragement. What you said are correct except the film ARISTA Premium 400 is not the same as Foma 400, but said to be the same as old Kodak Tri-X. (This roll had been expired since 2013 but stored in the fridge all along). The current ARISTA 400 is known to be Fomapan 400 tho.

It all started by a question I had about development temperature here but along the way, so many useful info./advices from all the experts here surfaced and that make my little experiment more intriguing. I would probably give it another shot and see if I get better result. Thanks all for the help. This is a great community!

yossi

 

[Helge]

Hi Matt,

Yes, I concur that the negatives are under-exposed (or under-developed whichever is technically correct). I believe this is due to too little R09 developer in there (only about 4ml) and the stand time (50 min) is a little short. I will adjust these and try again next time.

yossi

Considering the push of two stops and stand dev. which isn’t considered suited for that kind of pushing of fast film, I’d the say the results are quite OK.
Certainly useable if you have already said yes to the Rodinal look.
If you insist on stand dev. you might try be above suggestions of a much longer stand and a cold one. And perhaps some more initial agitation.
Edit:
Or you might try say, four hours, with the higher (25C?) temp.
That will also amplify more, buy without the compensation.

Underexposed and underdeveloped is two completely distinct looks.
One is flat, lacking contrast and the other is thin with empty shadows.

You can of course have both to any degree which complicates matters.

 

[Don_ih]

the same as old Kodak Tri-X.

That makes more sense at 1600.

 

[yossi]

My expectation is, if the 50 minute stand development was at a fairly high temperature, the developer would exhaust more quickly in the midtone and highlight areas, which would make the shadow areas lose detail, These pictures don't seem like Foma 400 at 1600 stand developed in 1:100 rodinal. I'd expect much thinner negatives. How did you meter? What camera did you use?

Hello Don,

You are right. The ARISTA Preium 400 film is NOT Foma 400 but said to be the same as Kodak Tri-X. (If this is to be believed: ARISTA Premium 400 is Tri-X )

Throughout that 50+ mins, the temperature was around 20+ or 22C max.

I shot this roll with a Leica M6 classic, using its built-in meter. I tested its accuracy before. It tallies with my Sekonic light meter.

 

[yossi]

Considering the push of two stops and stand dev. which isn’t considered suited for that kind of pushing of fast film, I’d the say the results are quite OK.
Certainly useable if you have already said yes to the Rodinal look.
If you insist on stand dev. you might try be above suggestions of a much longer stand and a cold one. And perhaps some more initial agitation.
Edit:
Or you might try say, four hours, with the higher (25C?) temp.
That will also amplify more, buy without the compensation.

Underexposed and underdeveloped is two completely distinct looks.
One is flat, lacking contrast and the other is thin with empty shadows.

You can of course have both to any degree which complicates matters.

Hi Helge,

Thanks for your suggestion. I will do more initial agitation and maybe another gentle one mid way.

 

[jtk]

1) If you don't seriously want the "Rodinal look" don't use Rodinal.

2) The "Rodinal look" includes edge effect. That enhances "sharpness" (not same as enhancing details). If you are not seeking that, don't work against it by agitating. "Semi-stand" generally works against Rodinal look.

3) Stand development with 1+100 Rodinal means letting development go to completion...and beyond. In other words there's no difference between an hour and several hours.

4) Pursuit of sharpest possible grain motivates many to use Rodinal 1+100 with true stand development. That means gentle agitation in first moments and no further agitation beyond gentle inversion a few times every half hour.

If you don't like grain, Rodinal is the wrong developer. If you want to complicate things, Rodinal is the wrong developer.

I have used Neofin Red AND Neofin Blue using more conventional agitation for same benefits as Rodinal/dilute/stand AND even sharper grain...which results in even greater perceived sharpness (doesn't mean higher resolution!). Unfortunately Red is no longer available.

If you like "Rodinal look" you want a condenser enlarger.

 

[Helge]

3) Stand development with 1+100 Rodinal means letting development go to completion...and beyond. In other words there's no difference between an hour and several hours.

Is that an empirical observation or something you heard?
It’s not my observation at all. But I know it’s something that is often repeated.
It depends hugely on temperature and the agitation scheme IMHE.
Going to four hours vs one hour can have a subtle but important effect.

Also, I tend to prefer the 1+99 designation for “normal” stand.
Far easier to measure out and that smidgen stronger to err ever so slightly on the side of too much.

 

[removedacct1]

Hi Matt,

Yes, I concur that the negatives are under-exposed (or under-developed whichever is technically correct). I believe this is due to too little R09 developer in there (only about 4ml) and the stand time (50 min) is a little short. I will adjust these and try again next time.

yossi

If you expose Tri-X at 1600 ASA and then stand develop in Rodinal, of course you are going to get underexposed negatives. The whole Rodinal/Stand thing doesn't push film at all, and in fact its typically the opposite: loss of speed, loss of shadow information.

 

[jtk]

If you expose Tri-X at 1600 ASA and then stand develop in Rodinal, of course you are going to get underexposed negatives. The whole Rodinal/Stand thing doesn't push film at all, and in fact its typically the opposite: loss of speed, loss of shadow information.

In general you're correct.

However .... if you meter Tri-X very casually (if at all) at 1600 you may get good results as often as if you assume it's a lower EI.

How can that be? It will be that way if you are into photos more than densitometry.

Shoot as if it's 1600 or 200, makes no important difference if you've got good reason for the shot.

HCB didn't bother to meter.

 

[gone]

I like the tones in the cat shot. You obviously had better light for it than on the shot above it. Not sure how I feel about the grain, but a scanned neg on a laptop screen is going to give only a vague idea of what a print might look like. So often, the grain just sorta disappears.

I've never tried stand development, but Tri-X at EI 250 in Adox Rodinal at anywhere from 1:20 to 1:100 is just beautiful using traditional tank inversions

 

[pentaxuser]

I like the tones in the cat shot. You obviously had better light for it than on the shot above it.

Yes I felt the same. OK it is Tri-X apparently and not Foma but at 2 stops under I thought that Rodinal stand did not do a bad job at all

pentaxuser

 

[Paul Howell]

One of the reason I did not care much for stand, really hard to adjust development to to keep high lights in check, same with divided developer. Yet you did pretty well with frozen Trix pushed 2 stops.