WARNING: EXTREME STAND DEVELOPMENT!

[John Wiegerink]

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

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.

 

[chuckroast]

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.

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.

 

[chuckroast]

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.

It may be that you're running into this:

tundra/Stand-Development

gitbucket.tundraware.com

 

[John Wiegerink]

Chuckroast,
I really shoot very little 35mm with medium format and large format as my mainstay. I've done semi-stand with Pyrocat-HDC and while it worked great, I actually preferred my negatives from my normal development method. They are sharp, but not too sharp. As for 35mm and bromide drag? I tried suspending on stainless reels, but wasn't perfect. Your funnel idea sounds like the answer. The one film and developer combo that worked the best for me was Fuji Acros and Rodinal 1:100 @ 60 min., one agitation at 30 min. with medium format. It's probably the only one I might use if I were to stand develop.

 

[Anon Ymous]

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.

 

[John Wiegerink]

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.

+1 If it floats your boat, and you're happy, that's find. Some things work for me, and some are more trouble than they are worth. When I was younger, I would waste a lot of time trying to make something work, but now that I'm older and a little wiser, I realize I just don't have that much time to waste anymore.

 

[john_s]

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?

 

[chuckroast]

When you use the 1/2 gal tank you have a very generous mount of developer (good that Pyrocat-HD is so cheap to

Especially since I am diluting it at 1.5:1:200 or 250 I mix my own which makes it really cheap and use propylene glycol so it lasts forever in a brown glass bottle. So much so that I only make up 500ml at a time which lasts me the better part of a year.

make!). When you do a roll in the fairly small diameter Nikor tank, what volume of developer do you use?

The open rubber tank (just) holds 2 liters. As you say, that's plenty for sheet film any any size rollfilm I choose to process this way.

I use a 500ml Nikor tank for 35mm. This gives me room to invert a funnel to freely lift the reel above the bottom of the tank.

I have not done this yet for 120, but the same idea would apply and I'd use a 1 liter tank.

For 220, again, I'd use an inverted funnel in a double height 220 tank, which probably holds the better part of 2 liters.

 

[pentaxuser]

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

 

[chuckroast]

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

I don't think it's actually as touchy as you might think. Doing the 3 things I mentioned makes the process entirely repeatable for me.

I suspect (but obviously cannot prove) that people who are experiencing drag are not doing the three things I mentioned in a consistent way.

The only other explanations are that they are not using enough developer OR they are using some other developer I've not tested which is inclined to bromide drag. I have verified my methods successfully with:

• Pyrocat-HD at 1:5:1:200,250, & 300. I tried it at 350 and that was too dilute to work well.
• D-23 at 1+1, 1+2, 1+3, and 1+9 (though I did add lye to it at that dilution to maintain the alkalinity)
• DK-50 at stock, and 1+2, and probably 1+2.5
• HC-110 at 1:128

I've also tried one or more of those developers (mostly Pyrocat-HD and D-23) with a variety of films and formats, including:

• Tri-X: 35mm, 120, 2x3, 4x5
• Plus-X: 35mm, 2x3
• Double X: 35mm, 120
• Agfapan APX 100: 120, 4x5
• Fomapan 100: 9x12
• Fomapan 200: 35mm, 120, 4x5
• Adox CHS 100 II: 2x3
• Efke KR100: 35mm
• Efke PL100M: 2x3
• Acros & Acros II

So, I cannot comment on Xtol, Rodinol, DDX, D-76, or pretty much anything else people may be using (though D-76 is on my "to try" list).

It is remotely possible that water variations might play a role (very remotely) so I use distilled for consistency. Wild ranges in temperature might matter as well. I don't know because my darkroom solutions consistently sit at somewhere between 67-72F.

 

[lamerko]

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?

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Again, stand development was used commonly in the old days (ca 1880s-1930s) with glass plates. The plates were placed horizontally in a tray of developer, and the by-products stayed in the places where they formed. This gave some contrast control in the days before graded papers.

Film on reels, held in a vertical position, is more likely than not to suffer streaking. I advise against stand development with roll film on reels.

Techniques developed for one set of circumstances do not always transfer to others.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

I only have two plate tanks, but they both hold your plates vertically.

 

[dynachrome]

At least with stand development, if you're off by a minute or two it will make no difference.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

• 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.

 

[mshchem]

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.

 

[chuckroast]

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?

Try doing the Fortepan at 1.5:1:250 and only agitating 10seconds at the midpoint.

I dunno if BTZ will help, I've never used it with film in any development scheme. You likely will get less film fog if you semistand develop in D-23 1+3 but it will probably show a bit more grain than Pyrocat-HD.

As best as I can see from your pictures, all those negatives look entirely printable. I've used semistand on film from 1961 and gotten perfectly usable negatives. Bear in mind that - within reason - all fog does is lower overall contrast somewhat. You can fix that with a good does of split VC silver printing, or adjusting curves in a scan.