WARNING: EXTREME STAND DEVELOPMENT!

[chuckroast]

It works for me...

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.

 

[lamerko]

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.

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

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

 

[Chuck1]

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

 

[chuckroast]

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

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

Well, I don't think YOU do It's just that Bulgaria is rather well known for being a den of hacking ...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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

Hmmmmm....

 

[chuckroast]

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

I would suggest that there's no reason to put it in the fridge at all. So long as the environment isn't some tropical hot house, letting the film stand overnight at room temps is just fine.

 

[juan]

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

I wonder if it was Mortensen's Glycin Variant...

 

[Rayt]

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

How did it go?

 

[Rayt]

How did it go?

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

I too do not believe it is worth doing stand development, however when the ambient temperature is above 75°F I chill the chemicals so that the development time is longer than 5 minutes rather than shorter with the ambient temperature.

 

[juan]

I think it probably was Mortensen's Glycin Variant. The shot was a deeply wooded area so rather low contrast. I think I never did more because Mortensen's methods are reputedly for low contrast subjects. My landscapes are generally SBR 9-10. And autoscrewupspelling changed the film to Fake from Efke.

 

[chuckroast]

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.

Agree 100%. After extensive testing I found (and documented) a reliable path for semi-stand and EMA. I never found one for stand which mostly could be made to work but it was not 100% guaranteed to avoid bromide drag.

As you say, as a practical matter, there is no real difference between stand and semistand.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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

 

[chuckroast]

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

Happy to share.

I do update it periodically, as I discover new things. Updates are at the end of the document and dated so you don't have to reread the whole thing to find the new stuff.

 

[Anon Ymous]

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

 

[juan]

I'll also point out that Minor White wrote briefly in his mid-70s New Zone System Manual about exposing for Zone V, developing for the shadows, and agitating for the highlights.

 

[pentaxuser]

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

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

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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

Don't tempt me!!

 

[chuckroast]

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

I'll take a shot at this:

• 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).
  

BTW, I took the time last night to look at several years worth of prints made from negatives made this way, and added some long term findings to my monograph on stand processing:

tundra/Stand-Development

gitbucket.tundraware.com

 

[Anon Ymous]

Don't tempt me!!

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

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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

I do indeed!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.