Trying Out EMA

[Andrew O'Neill]

Steve Sherman's, Extreme Minimal Agitation... aka....semi-stand, with CatLABS 80 8x10 sheet film.

 

[chuckroast]

Point of order: EMA and semistand are related but not the same.

EMA has multiple agitations after initial, is usually shorter, and often uses less dilute developer than semistand.

Semistand only has a single midpoint agitation after initial and uses highly dilute developer for a longer period of time.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Point of order: EMA and semistand are related but not the same.

EMA has multiple agitations after initial, is usually shorter, and often uses less dilute developer than semistand.

Semistand only has a single midpoint agitation after initial and uses highly dilute developer for a longer period of time.

People who use semi-stand, have their own version, in fact, I have several of my own versions, depending on effect as well as the film. My semi-stand is quite dilute, 1+1+200 (more than EMA's). Agitation cycles are about the same, although EMA initial is twice as long as mine. Often I have two or three agitation cycles during development time, (total dev time is usually about an hour). So, there isn't one way to semi-stand. Anyways the comparison here was between EMA and my regular continuous rotary... I need to do a comparison between EMA and my semi-stand. Confident that the negatives will look the same.

 

[chuckroast]

People who use semi-stand, have their own version, in fact, I have several of my own versions, depending on effect as well as the film. My semi-stand is quite dilute, 1+1+200 (more than EMA's). Agitation cycles are about the same, although EMA initial is twice as long as mine. Often I have two or three agitation cycles during development time, (total dev time is usually about an hour). So, there isn't one way to semi-stand. Anyways the comparison here was between EMA and my regular continuous rotary... I need to do a comparison between EMA and my semi-stand. Confident that the negatives will look the same.

I think it's more of a matter of agreeing on terminology. The terms that I read both Steve Sherman and Sandy King proposed (and hence what I use) are:

• Stand: No agitation after initial
• Semistand: One midpoint agitation after initial
• EMA: Multiple agitations after initial but fewer than the usual twice a minute or continuous

There isn't some law of the universe at play here, it's just for consistency of terminology.

I have done a ton of semistand and a fair bit of EMA. I find that semistand does pretty much the same thing as EMA, once you get it dialed in, but with several subtle, important, differences:

• Because the film sits in developer a lot longer with semistand (I use 60min), the mid tones get a bigger local contrast bump than with EMA.
  
  
• Semistand is a lot fussier about how the film is suspended and getting it wrong will lead to drag byproducts.
  
  
• The multiple agitate-depletion cycles of EMA tend to promote more obvious edge effects.
  
  
• Semistand takes longer.

For example, here is Foma 200 35mm semistand processed for an hour - Note the mid tone contrast of a scene shot in very flat light. Scan of silver print:

(Leica M2, 50mm f/2 Collapsible Summicron handheld. Pyrocat-HD 1.5:1:250, 2 min initial agitation, 10sec agitation at 31 min. 60 min. total time. Developed in a Nikor stainless reel and tank with the reel suspended off the bottom of the tank with an inverted funnel.)

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I see. Thank you!

 

[chuckroast]

I see. Thank you!

BTW, I very much enjoy these videos so don't take my comments as being particularly negative or anything. I like seeing how other people work and how it might modify my own approach.

If someone has a Teams or Google Meet license, it might fun to get a few of us "unagitated" types together for an hour and record a video conversation of our backgrounds and how we came to stop the agitation process.

 

[Alan9940]

I think it's very important to mention that Steve's EMA technique is directly related to the design of his negatives. He uses multi-grade paper (as most of us probably do nowadays) and prints with more blue light than green. As such, the high value density of his negatives runs about 0.95 - 1.00; quite a bit lower value than the standard Zone VIII values of 1.25 - 1.35 for normal silver gelatin printing.

Therefore, I have no doubt that some semi-stand technique might produce a similar style negative, but it ain't the same.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I think it's very important to mention that Steve's EMA technique is directly related to the design of his negatives. He uses multi-grade paper (as most of us probably do nowadays) and prints with more blue light than green. As such, the high value density of his negatives runs about 0.95 - 1.00; quite a bit lower value than the standard Zone VIII values of 1.25 - 1.35 for normal silver gelatin printing.

Therefore, I have no doubt that some semi-stand technique might produce a similar style negative, but it ain't the same.

Thanks Alan!

 

[Craig]

I saw the thread title and thought "Why would anyone want to travel through the East Midlands Airport?"

 

[chuckroast]

I think it's very important to mention that Steve's EMA technique is directly related to the design of his negatives. He uses multi-grade paper (as most of us probably do nowadays) and prints with more blue light than green. As such, the high value density of his negatives runs about 0.95 - 1.00; quite a bit lower value than the standard Zone VIII values of 1.25 - 1.35 for normal silver gelatin printing.

Therefore, I have no doubt that some semi-stand technique might produce a similar style negative, but it ain't the same.

I saw the thread title and thought "Why would anyone want to travel through the East Midlands Airport?"

 

[MattKing]

I saw the thread title and thought "Why would anyone want to travel through the East Midlands Airport?"

I saw it and wondered why Andrew was posting about the Toronto School Board District Excursion Management Application.
Must have just finished a Pro-D day with a guest speaker.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I saw the thread title and thought "Why would anyone want to travel through the East Midlands Airport?"

Never been there, might just be interesting.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

 

[chuckroast]

I saw the thread title and thought "Why would anyone want to travel through the East Midlands Airport?"

I rather enjoyed working in the Midlands. Nice people. Good bitter.

 

[pentaxuser]

I saw the thread title and thought "Why would anyone want to travel through the East Midlands Airport?"

I saw the thread title and had it not been Andy, might have wondered whether one "M" was missing. Perhaps "trying out" in a social context has a particular meaning in U.K. circles

Back to the subject, isn't the problem with the phrase "semi-stand" that it is used frequently in film processing circles to mean what is used for EMA?

If possible, I'd like to see examples of the same scene, film, developer etc developed in chuckroast's definition of semi-stand and EMA just to see if I can tell the difference in the midtones and then decide if the difference is enough in say "semi-stand's " favour to make the risk of drag by-products worth the risk or the trouble to avoid them

pentaxuser

 

[chuckroast]

If possible, I'd like to see examples of the same scene, film, developer etc developed in chuckroast's definition of semi-

Well, actually the definitions are courtesy of Steve Sherman and Sandy King - at least, that's where I first encountered them.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am happy with replenished XTOL done in a Jobo processor. I like the sharpness, the grain and the tonality. I will consider EMA if I see something really wonderful, but so far I am not sold on EMA and I love the forgiveness of XTOL.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I am happy with replenished XTOL done in a Jobo processor. I like the sharpness, the grain and the tonality. I will consider EMA if I see something really wonderful, but so far I am not sold on EMA and I love the forgiveness of XTOL.

I work with both developers. Doing EMA with XTol does not give you the results that Pyrocat-HD can, in regards to sharpness. But... XTol is the first developer that I fell in love with back in the 90's, and I still use it a lot, and will continue until my small stash lasts. Then I'll mix up from scratch something similar.

 

[pentaxuser]

Well, actually the definitions are courtesy of Steve Sherman and Sandy King - at least, that's where I first encountered them.

Thanks. I used your name as it was you who stated the difference between the two in this thread but it doesn't really matter as far as I can see whose definitions they are as long they are what they are

So are there any examples between two sets of negatives taken in the same conditions I mentioned where I can compare the differences?

I have to say that EMA in Andy's example produced what appeared to be very minimal difference from continuous agitation - at least in 8x10. As a 35mm and MF(645 and 6x6) shooter only might the differences be more obvious when enlarged to 8x10 and crucially between EMA and semi-stand?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[chuckroast]

Thanks. I used your name as it was you who stated the difference between the two in this thread but it doesn't really matter as far as I can see whose definitions they are as long they are what they are

So are there any examples between two sets of negatives taken in the same conditions I mentioned where I can compare the differences?

I have to say that EMA in Andy's example produced what appeared to be very minimal difference from continuous agitation - at least in 8x10. As a 35mm and MF(645 and 6x6) shooter only might the differences be more obvious when enlarged to 8x10 and crucially between EMA and semi-stand?

Thanks

pentaxuser

I don't think I have anything handy, but I'll take a look later this week when time permits. Let me share some anecdotal observations beyond what I wrote above (please note these are my observations, not holy writ)...

If your Subject Brightness Range is well within the ability of the film-dev combo to handle with normal processing AND the local contrast of the "dominant geometry" in the scene (usually in the middle tones) is good, there is no reason whatsoever to resort to semistand or EMA. Normal development will do just fine.

If you have a very long SBR that would require N- processing - thereby compressing the local contrast of the aforementioned dominant geometry OR you have a scene that already has a really short/low local contrast range in the dominant geometry, semistand or EMA can do good things. The long development will hold the full shadow speed, the rapid exhaustion of the highly dilute developer will keep the highlights from blocking (effectively, a compensation effect), and the middle tones will get popped out (much as you see in my machinery picture above).

The one other case for EMA, especially, is when you want to enhanced edge effects. A little of this goes a long way. It's the chemical analog to an unsharp mask and can get to be excessive, but still, it can be a nice tool in your repertoire.

Also - in the spirit of Steve Sherman - if you are consciously designing your negatives for a lower CI (something I am increasingly finding useful in a world of split VC printing), you are necessarily going to compress middle tones somewhat. Using semistand or EMA to compensate for this is very handy. That's more-or-less the case - again - in the machinery picture I posted above. Low CI, low contrast scene, made to pop with semistand.

Here's a scene I did a few years ago taken in absolutely flat light late in the afternoon that shows some of these effects. I do not recall whether it was done with semistand or EMA, but I am very sure I would have not gotten this look with normal development. Whether you like the look or not is another matter:

 

[juan]

Minor White wrote about a variation of this in The New Zone System Manual. Expose for the mid tones (Zone V) development time for the shadows and agitate for the highlights.

Years ago @df cardwell wrote on APUG about his experiments with standing deve!opments. He concluded that any stand longer than five minutes wasted time and led to bromide drag.

 

[Lachlan Young]

'Not even wrong' describes so much of this waste of time. Once you know that the effect is essentially targeting negatives of normal contrast scenes to higher grades/ shorter neg DR's, you can get there without special developers (that ain't nothing but fuddled D-76 derivatives) or quasi-mystical terms of art. D-76 and continuous agitation will get you to the same place if you know what baseline controls you need to instigate.

 

[pentaxuser]

chuckroast, thanks for the explanation in #20. It would seem from #20 that either semi-stand or EMA works in the circumstances you mention so can I conclude that either is OK It was precisely whether semi-stand was any better or worse than EMA that I was interested in and it seems they are equally good in those circumstances you quote with the possible advantage lying with EMA in that while the outcome is likely to be the same, EMA virtually ensures elimination of drag products whereas semi-stand as per the one inversion at 30 mins of semi-stand might incur drag products

pentaxuser

 

[Craig]

if you are consciously designing your negatives for a lower CI (something I am increasingly finding useful in a world of split VC printing), you are necessarily going to compress middle tones somewhat.

Shouldn't it be the reverse? Lower contrast is achieved by pulling the film, an N minus in zone system terminology, and that has always been used to expand the mid tones.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Shouldn't it be the reverse? Lower contrast is achieved by pulling the film, an N minus in zone system terminology, and that has always been used to expand the mid tones.

Going too far is going to flatten the gradient through the mids, thus there is a reasonable range that delivers a suitable gradient while still reining-in highlight density enough. All achievable by very conventional means with no special developers or agitation. A softer neg printed on a harder grade will emphasise midtones and sharpness - this isn't new knowledge.