WARNING: EXTREME STAND DEVELOPMENT!

Andrew O'Neill said:

It works for me...

Click to expand...

chuckroast said:

That server is configured to block significant parts of the world where there is known active hacker and intrusion activity. The question came from Bulgaria and that is certainly on the block list for the aforementioned reasons.

To that end, Here is a PDF of the paper.

Click to expand...

lamerko said:

Thanks for the attached document - I will look into it.

<Offtopic>
Apparently we still have a dubious name in the IT industry

Click to expand...

Chuck1 said:

How about adding anti freeze, and putting it in the freezer?

Click to expand...

Chuck1 said:

How about adding anti freeze, and putting it in the freezer?

Click to expand...

juan said:

I once followed some Mortenson formula for a developer that used only glycin as the developing agent. Shot a sheet of 8x10 Fake PL100 and stood it in a J&C developing tube overnight in the refrigerator overnight. The negative came out very dense, but made a good print with a long enough exposure.

Click to expand...

Rayt said:

I have done something like this using ice water instead of refrigeration. I must have read about it somewhere and decided to give it a shot.

Click to expand...

Andrew O'Neill said:

How did it go?

Click to expand...

Rayt said:

Stand development had been hit and miss for me. Sometimes I got great results and sometimes I got unevenness. So one or two inversions at 30 minutes ought to improve the odds by moving the soup around. But that becomes semi-stand and can increase contrast as I understood it. Decreasing temp should counter that, logically, or dilute further. I recall it went well but I didn’t write anything down so can’t say.

Click to expand...

Andrew O'Neill said:

My advice to you would be to not venture down stand development lane. It's a back alley, that is dimly lit, with danger waiting at every turn. Stay with semi-stand or EMA (which is semi-stand in my book). They are safer, and pretty much generate the same results.

Click to expand...

Andrew O'Neill said:

My advice to you would be to not venture down stand development lane. It's a back alley, that is dimly lit, with danger waiting at every turn. Stay with semi-stand or EMA (which is semi-stand in my book). They are safer, and pretty much generate the same results.

Click to expand...

Andrew O'Neill said:

@chuckroast it's an excellent article, by the way. Thank you for sharing it with us.

Click to expand...

Rayt said:

Stand development had been hit and miss for me. Sometimes I got great results and sometimes I got unevenness.

Click to expand...

Anon Ymous said:

@Andrew O'Neill How about trying the same with 135 film?

Click to expand...

pentaxuser said:

What I have never seen explained scientifically so that it remains consistent is what causes this apparent randomness in outcomes

It's a process involving a developer, some fixed form of agitation, dilution, temperature and time so why the randomness? If this kind of randomness in the quality of the outcome was to occur with say the process, time agitation etc laid down by Ilford for one of its films then I wonder how long Ilford would have existed

So what it is in terms of facts and not simply conjecture that causes this randomness?

Incidentally I use your quote, Rayt, simply as an illustration. It's a general question for all and any who have ever seen or know of a scientific explanation

Thanks

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

• For monochrome film, shadows develop slowly, highlights develop rapidly
  
  
• So, it takes a long development time to develop the shadows to completion
  
  
• But if you develop for a long time, agitating normally, you'll "blow out" (block) the highlights and they'll lose texture and go pure white in the print/scan. i.e., The highlights overdevelop.
  
  
• The solution to that problem is to agitate infrequently with a highly dilute developer over a long period of time. This allows the shadows to develop completely but also keeps the highlights from over-developing. It is helpful to use a compensating developer like D-23 or Pyrocat-HD which further helps to rein in highlights.
  
  
• This also expands the local contrast of the mid-tones as well as improving sharpness, though it can also cause more noticeable grain depending on format and dilution.
  
  
• HOWEVER, since we're not agitating regularly, the byproducts of development (bromides, et al) don't get washed away from the film, thereby leaving streaks and marks behind where they land.
  
  
• The trick to avoiding bromide artifacts seems to be three things: A) Use the absolute minimal amount of support to hold the film in place during development , B) Suspend the film above the bottom of the development tank so the artifacts can be pulled away by gravity and C) Agitate vigorously at the beginning and at least once during the standing time.
  
  
• These three things seem to entirely remove the risk of visible bromide drag. Eliminating any one of them and you're subject to streaking. This includes using framed hanger for sheet film or high-walled plastic reels for rollfilm, not leaving open space from the bottom of the film to the bottom of the tank, and either agitating only once or not agitating enough and vigorously at the beginning.
  
  
• So, my conclusion is that when developer somehow gets trapped along a film support or at the bottom of a tank where film is resting, the development exhibits streaking. In some cases, even multiple agitations can't help. For example, when I used framed sheet film hangers or the Yankee sheet film tank, even 2 or 3 agitations did not guarantee a streak free negative. These rather significant support geometries are likely trapping used developer along the edges of the film (which is where the streaks showed up).
  

Andrew O'Neill said:

Don't tempt me!!

Click to expand...

Anon Ymous said:

Uh, you've got a lovely OM1, don't you?

Click to expand...