What do you like to do while stand developing?

[mts]

Stand developing is clearly intended to support the "Chat" tab at the top of the apug page.

 

[Athiril]

Well, here is proof that this stupid stand development fad, in addition to ruin negatives, actually wastes time instead of "saving" time, as people like to believe.

"Stupid fad" - says who? You? Work's perfectly fine.

"Wastes time" - How? You don't stand there for the hour like you do with agitation development.

"Ruins negatives" - Nope, user error ruins negatives.

 

[aRolleiBrujo]

leave the door open because my wife and children are around and i feel proud doing so!

never mind, i dont do this method1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_development

 

[Truzi]

Agitate 4 inversions per minute while I stand at the sink during normal development.

I do the same

 

[frank]

Stand development works great for me. Using developer at 1:100 is very economical as well.

I don't get upset or criticize/mock anyone who chooses to use a different method. Why should I care?

 

[JW PHOTO]

Stand development works great for me. Using developer at 1:100 is very economical as well.

I don't get upset or criticize/mock anyone who chooses to use a different method. Why should I care?

Exactly! Different strokes for different folks. I'm with you..................John W

 

[Nige]

Different strokes for different folks.

while I agree with this, I use to develop all sorts of films in rodinal 1:100 for 18mins @ 20C with bi-minute (once every 2 mins) agitation. I'm surprised the often quoted 1:100 for an hour or so produces printable negs, it does indicate agitation does something!

I tried stand once but I used 1:400 for 90mins (I think... memories a bit hazy) but I was trying (and succeeded!) to get distinctive edge effects I'd been reading about.

 

[Amfooty]

while I agree with this, I use to develop all sorts of films in rodinal 1:100 for 18mins @ 20C with bi-minute (once every 2 mins) agitation. I'm surprised the often quoted 1:100 for an hour or so produces printable negs, it does indicate agitation does something!

I tried stand once but I used 1:400 for 90mins (I think... memories a bit hazy) but I was trying (and succeeded!) to get distinctive edge effects I'd been reading about.

I agitate for 1 min initial, and then 7 seconds at 20 and 40 min, so I guess it isn't true true stand--had some issues with bromide drag in the past without agitation. Still gives great results though.

 

[frank]

HP5 and Tri-X,
HC-110, 1:100,
1 minute initial agitation, 25 minutes stand,
30 sec agitation, then 25 more minutes stand

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Pray the negatives come out...

Haha, but seriously, I do not like to stand develop them anymore after a short phase a few years ago when it was touted everywhere as the magic bullet, working with minimal developer costs, physical work, and being able to shoot a wide exposure range on one roll. In the end I couldn't get to like the grain, and the lower contrast when printing in the darkroom. Now the only time I really do stand is when I have a ton to films to develop from my younger students I teach, I drop a few rolls in rodinal stand and teach the hour long class then fix and wash it at the conclusion of the class/day.

 

[NB23]

"Stupid fad" - says who? You? Work's perfectly fine.

"Wastes time" - How? You don't stand there for the hour like you do with agitation development.

"Ruins negatives" - Nope, user error ruins negatives.

1: Says me. Also says my ugly negatives. Define "perfectly fine". You don't even know when exactly the developer has exhausted; was it in the 23rd minute? The 39th? This is such an unscientific method. And the negatives are definitely unworkable in the Darkroom.
Oh, you are scanning exclusively? My advice, then, is to ditch film. Why use film if it's for scanning?

2: sure it wastes time. Better use Rodinal at 1:10 and develop in 3 minutes. Quick enough. No need to "do something for 1 hour while its developing itself in an ugly way" if you know what I mean.
All my stand developed negatives show imperfections. I'm sorry but to me, film is perfection. There is no place for imperfections/less then perfect techniques/sloppy methods for a perfect medium.

I do not mess with stand development. And I make it a personal point to let people know whenever I Can: Stand development is as sloppy as one can get. Wanna stand develop? Make yourself a favor and don't develop at all.

3: Stand development IS user error. It is a bad error. It is a handicap from the start. It's an unacceptable method. I get the occasional streakings on my 120 films even when I'm agitating correctly. With Stand development, I used to get all kinds of super fUgLy streaks and spots 100% of the time.
The difference between me and you is probably that I care and you do not care. Or if you care, can I see your work? Are you serious about it? Do you print all your prints as if it was going in a museum? I do that with mine. What about you?

 

[frank]

But, how do you REALLY feel?

 

[Nuff]

I tried stand development when I first started shooting BW film as the one trick pony to negatives. I didn't like the results I was getting. Too low contrast and I scan too. They were all grey and no whites or blacks. I prefer the doing the rotations for few minutes while listening to music.

 

[Mr_Flibble]

I watch TV, play games, read, surf the web while the using stand development.
I hop from foot to foot like a schoolboy that has to pee between agitations when I'm using stronger solutions.

My stand dev formula generally is 1:100 (with a minimum of 6ml of R09 one-shot per roll to be developed)
Agitate for 30 seconds at the start, then 3 inversions at 30 minutes.

 

[frank]

I use 3ml per roll with no ill effects.