Why some photographers hate stand or semi-stand film development?

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I've been processing film for decades and just started to semi-stand develop my films. I find there are many advantages including taming contrast and not having to mind the film for a half hour. I could also process many types of BW film with one run. So far it's worked well for me. Why there are some that poo-poo it?

 

[Cholentpot]

I've been processing film for decades and just started to semi-stand develop my films. I find there are many advantages including taming contrast and not having to mind the film for a half hour. I could also process many types of BW film with one run. So far it's worked well for me. Why there are some that poo-poo it?

Because technically it's no good. However some of us overcome that and make it work fine. This annoys the technical crowd and they tell us that no, your film is no good. And although it looks fine to the eye if you measure it with a denseorometeroline it will have shortcomings. Pixel peepers of the analog world.

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

There was a recent thread where real sensitometry was brought to bear on the subject. I leave it to the reader to track it down because I'm at work, but the whole thread is a very pleasant read!

No one ever says stand development "no good," just that it's an edge-case process that should be used on negatives that actually need the help and it requires good technique to avoid the common pitfalls of uneven/streaked results.
I must wonder whether all the effects applied en masse to a standard density range negatives is actually making them harder to work with even though they are still printable. The argument comes down to whether you could do better by using appropriate processes to each negative instead of proclaiming them all good enough. And that is a personal call, so do what works for you and pay no attention to the haters. Especially me, pay no attention to me at all

All the sensitometry pixel peepers are enjoying their hobby their way, keep enjoying yours any way you want!

 

[Eric Rose]

Why do we keep flogging this subject?

 

[removed account4]

because ...

some say stand development was invented for a specific purpose not for an every roll of film thing
and semi stand well that is just the ugly cousin of stand development ! im not sure how you got goodresults from
semi stand youshould begetting bromide drag and bad contrast and uneven development which leads to fists in the air cursing !
if you know what's good for you maincoonmaniac you should stop doing this stand develoment thing PRONTO
and get a rotary processor or some respectable development tanks and or trays ( if you use sheet film ) or a combiplan or something
but not what you are doing ... you might not have trouble now but you are looking for a heap of trouble , especially if you
aren't using the zone zystem or using density-sensi-metrics!

i hope you are at least using a leica with an expensive lens, an ebony or hassy so you can at least partially redeam yourself

 

[removedacct1]

We just had a lengthy, arduous discussion on the subject no more than a few weeks ago. Surely there's nothing more to say that hasn't been said in the precious thread?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Plain and simple - it distorts the H&D curve and thus the tones in the negatives.The foot is raised and the shoulder lowered. Because of this the method is useful IF one is faced with a contrasty lighting situation but ONLY then. Anyone who asks you tell them to read up on the Zone System.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have never used it and have never felt that I needed it. I am happy with tank development and also using a Jobo processor. I see no need for me to bother with it until there is a need. Why screw up things when they are working.

 

[juan]

Plain and simple - it distorts the H&D curve and thus the tones in the negatives.The foot is raised and the shoulder lowered. Because of this the method is useful IF one is faced with a contrasty lighting situation but ONLY then. Anyone who asks you tell them to read up on the Zone System.

Exactly. The sensitometry on the other thread was good, except for one thing. It wholly left out matching the negative to paper.

 

[msage]

Do folks "hate" stand development? I have never heard that, some have not tried it and some have and like something else. I am the latter. But I don't "hate" it.

 

[RattyMouse]

Why do we keep flogging this subject?

Because it's religion.

 

[jim10219]

We fear what we don't understand. And hate is a natural reaction to that fear. So at it's most basic, that's why.

In reality, it's just another tool. It's a useful tool if you need it. It's not very useful if you don't.

Also keep in mind that there are about a million different kind of photographers. We're not a very uniform group. Some are very technical. Some are very conceptual. Some are a mixture of both. And some don't have any idea what they're doing, but love doing it anyway. Most are heavily opinionated. None are correct in their opinions except me.

 

[markbarendt]

I've been processing film for decades and just started to semi-stand develop my films. I find there are many advantages including taming contrast and not having to mind the film for a half hour. I could also process many types of BW film with one run. So far it's worked well for me. Why there are some that poo-poo it?

If it works for you, cool. Being able to ignore the film can be a plus, no argument there.

For me, the big problem is the risk of uneven development, such as drag, a problem nonexistent with normal/by the book agitation. It is a real risk that can ruin otherwise fine negative. It is a fragile process with real risks. If your are comfortable with that risk, go for it but this risk is not typically disclosed or acknowledged as real, that is where I start getting sideways with the evangelists for stand.

The second place I get sideways is the extraordinary claims that are made about how it bends the film curve. Typically the claim is made or inferred that it maintains mid tone contrast, makes highlights printable and makes films shootable at higher EI’s. The math simply doesn’t show that combo, at least not that anyone has shown here. You may be able to get the tones on the toe to show a bit more contrast but the mid tones lose contrast, as do the highlights. Stand does not break the rules of physics.

Increasing exposure at the camera and pulling in development a bit, gets more shadow detail with more contrast and tames the overall contrast more reliably, in fact it is a truly robust process with truly rare failures.

 

[markbarendt]

We fear what we don't understand. And hate is a natural reaction to that fear. So at it's most basic, that's why.

In reality, it's just another tool. It's a useful tool if you need it. It's not very useful if you don't.

Also keep in mind that there are about a million different kind of photographers. We're not a very uniform group. Some are very technical. Some are very conceptual. Some are a mixture of both. And some don't have any idea what they're doing, but love doing it anyway. Most are heavily opinionated. None are correct in their opinions except me.

For me, and others, It’s that we actually do understand it.

It’s the promoters of stand that struggle when asked to show their math.

 

[faberryman]

Because it's religion.

I think that sums it up quite well. Something that is not rationally based and is proselytized.

The main advantage seems to be that you don't have to agitate at regular intervals, which is fine for those too lazy to make the effort to practice the requisite technique for consistent development, or those drawn to doing things differently for the sake of doing things differently.

I am all for creativity, but not for doing things haphazardly and calling it being creative.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Richard Avedon would have had to taken 25 years to just process out In The American West - 17,000 negative one at a time. Ok I lied they would still be processing this show.

I have seen good results with practitioners of Semi Stand the but its not my cup of tea as I photograph large format in bursts and solarize 1 /2 and regular process the others, my work is not that precious at the negative stage.

 

[Ian Grant]

Originally it was a form of extreme push processing used by newspaper labs,

Does it have a place today ? Personally not for me - it's an unnecessary risky way of working when there's easier ways to control contrast etc. However when mastered well and for the right reasons it can produce excellent images. I stress for the right reasons and suggest looking at the way Steve Sherman's works

The reality is that none of the leading and well known photographers past or present use it. I'm talking about from the early US topographers through to to AA, the Weston's, Minor White etc right up to today.

It's an internet hype

Ian

 

[Patrick Robert James]

People don't hate stand development, they have experience with it and don't want others to get false hopes. Religion is a good word for it. The people that say it is the bee's knees talk about how great their negatives are because they see what they want to see. I nearly always see problems with them. A lot of people who do stand development also don't print in the darkroom. You can fix an awful lot in Photoshop. The reason why I won't do stand developing is the same as others above- a lack of consistency. I've also never seen a neg that needed it. Like Ian I think it is an internet fad.

Of course after all that I just said, if you want to do stand developing then do it. They are your negatives. Who cares what others think?

 

[pentaxuser]

I think it was a tale told by Bert Hardy in his book. I think he was a "cub" photographer for a newspaper at the time and he had taken what for him and presumably his picture editor a very important shot but for reasons I can no longer recall normal development either produced almost nothing or he suspected that under normal development it would not produce a print. He had been told of a drastic rescue process by an old darkroom expert at his newspaper using a special developer but I don't think he mentioned its name. Into this special brew he placed the film at about midnight, went home and returned in the morning many hours later and lo and behold the "basket case" negative had almost miraculously developed into a usable negative. His bacon was saved.

It was a good story which may or may not have been the kind that gets better with every re-telling and passing year as it was many years before the book was published.

I often wonder if such stories are the basis of the sentiments about stand development even if the proponents are not necessarily aware of the folklore. None of us, me included, are immune from belief in that kind of "rescue and happy ending" story. I still cheer when the ageing and washed-up Stoker Thompson refuses to throw the fight and knocks out the arrogant "young punk" who is promoted by gangsters.

PS the film would be rubbish in colour

pentaxuser

 

[removed account4]

if you can't stand or semi stand how about sitting development or semi sitting ?
my problem is if i don't stand or sit i won't be able to see inside the sink ...
and how am i supposed to reach gamma infinity, if i can't see in the sink

 

[Cholentpot]

if you can't stand or semi stand how about sitting development or semi sitting ?
my problem is if i don't stand or sit i won't be able to see inside the sink ...
and how am i supposed to reach gamma infinity, if i can't see in the sink

I do a relaxed development. Sometimes I fall asleep during it, no worries magical rodinal makes everything perfect.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Try semi sitting for more than a minute or so. It's damn painful. And if you semi sit for less than 5 minutes you risk uneven development. Everybody knows that.

As with guys peeing, semi-stand will work. I don't know about sitting though.

 

[removed account4]

I do a relaxed development. Sometimes I fall asleep during it, no worries magical rodinal makes everything perfect.

cholentpot
do you know morten? he's the priest you have to talk to
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/the-church-of-rodinal.6323/

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Richard Avedon would have had to taken 25 years to just process out In The American West - 17,000 negative one at a time. Ok I lied they would still be processing this show.

I have seen good results with practitioners of Semi Stand the but its not my cup of tea as I photograph large format in bursts and solarize 1 /2 and regular process the others, my work is not that precious at the negative stage.

Did Avedon process his own negatives or did he have some assistants to do the work for him?

There is a psychological concept called 'validation' whereby a person seeks approval of others to validate their behavior. Fishing for complements after you've cooked a meal is a form of validation. It is a coping mechanism for those that are lacking in self confidence. I believe that this is the reason that the same people keep bring up stand development.

 

[Cholentpot]

cholentpot
do you know morten? he's the priest you have to talk to
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/the-church-of-rodinal.6323/

Church of Rodinal or what we know as COR? Peh! I'm part of the Freedom Users of the Reformed Adox Aonal or FURAA.

SPLITTERS!