Uh, you've got a lovely OM1, don't you?
Years ago, I tried stand with 8x10 film hangers. What a disaster that was! The BTZS tubes seem to work well. I don't push the film all the way to the bottom. Just enough so that it is just under the surface of the developer.
I know he has a K1000. I've not had much luck doing semi-stand with 35mm. Damn sprocket holes! For me, semi-stand with 120 film is film dependent. Some films seem to work, others don't. I haven't seen a reason for me to use semi-stand in a long time.
I've not had much luck doing semi-stand with 35mm
Me neither, although I have only tried it once. One try, one failure, the stuff you cannot unsee. It works for some and they like the results, more power to them.
That sounds about right. The framed hangers appear to hold developer along the edges of the film and produce most unpleasant results. The tubes have a good rep from any number of reports. I believe Steve Sherman makes his own.
I max out at 4x5 (at least for now). For that I use an open 1/2 gal Kodak rubber tank and suspend the film horizontally using Kodak #6 hangers.
For both 120 and 35 I use Nikor stainless reels because they have lower profile winds than the plastic reels and they are well spaced to allow developer to flow through them without trapping. As noted previously, this requires ensuring the reel is well off the bottom of the tank, whether open or daylight style.
When you use the 1/2 gal tank you have a very generous mount of developer (good that Pyrocat-HD is so cheap to
make!). When you do a roll in the fairly small diameter Nikor tank, what volume of developer do you use?
Thanks for the explanation Chuckroast. However while it covers very well why stand development as per Andy's video may not be worth the effort in relation to the "benefits" it can produce and why bromide drag occurs especially with 35 mm, shouldn't this happen each time or not happen each time if the process remains the same i.e everyone should get drag or no-one should get drag?
All I can think is that the "tipping point" into bromide drag is so close with stand development that the slightest and possibly unconscious change in the process that a range of people might introduce, results in some avoiding it and others not.
Not exactly a scientific explanation but it seems to be as close as we are going to get
pentaxuser
- 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.
This.
I process roll film on Hewes reels in SS tanks. I have processed thousands of (mostly Tri-X) rolls over many years using stand development in Rodinal, with one gentle agitation midway through. I have never experienced “bromide drag.”
I have to laugh at the persistence of the naysayers. Just because you can’t master a process, doesn’t make the process unreliable.
I'll complain
I decided to test a (semi) mount Pyrocat-HD (about 9 months old but looks like new) 1.5:1:200, 55min, 2min initial stir and for 15sec at the 30th min. Initially I was going to put only one OLD film , but then I thought about it and combined two films. One was ORWO NP 20, expired in 1984 (40 years) and stored at room temperature, and the other Ilford PanF, expired at the end of 2022, kept in a refrigerator (practically fresh). Both films were shot at around EI 50 - NP 20 is rated at ISO 80, but is still 40 years old. The camera is from the WWII period, maybe 1938-39, but I'm not really sure.
The films are processed in the JOBO 1520, attached to a single roll. The pre-wash for 3-4 min threw out completely black water. The result - as expected, the NP 20 is quite foggy, but maybe it will be somewhat usable. However, the two negatives became quite thick - more so than I expected. I made a mistake - I was too lazy to control the temperature and it was a little higher - about 22C.
I have two more negatives from the same camera test - Fortepan 100, expired in 1987. If I put some benzotriazole 0.2% (say 0.5 ml per liter) - will it have an effect on the long development times?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?