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

[removed account4]

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!

LOL!

===
why can't a thread like this be about wanting to know if and why ( or why not ) people use semi stand
without there being a need for validation. contrary to the ideals that a lot of people have ...
ive been using semi stand for years with no problems. ive gotten rid of stop bath for the most part
i re-use my developer for 4-5 months without replenishing, i use tap water to mix all my chemistry
and i don't refrigerate any of my materials, and my world hasn't come to an end. no problems have
arisen, i couldn't care about validation .. but i do care that people just starting out know
that there are lots of ways to develop film and paper, and once one learns the basics
one can go off road and not go off a cliff like a lot of people suggest...

YMMV

 

[tomfrh]

ive been using semi stand for years with no problems

Me too. I really like it. It's foolproof once you understand it, and the results are plenty good enough for me.

I hear a lot of people getting upset about it. Not sure why. It's just a lazy man's way to satisfactorily process film.,,,

 

[Bob Carnie]

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.

Mr Avedon did have assistants who did the work for him, I believe it took 5 years to make the show.... in fact the printer just this year has brought out a complete set of the show that he says Mr Avedon gave him as partial payment for doing all the extra work on this historic show... The Avedon foundation is saying bullshit , I believe the printer.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Semi Stand POO try Solarization now that is where its at.

 

[Cholentpot]

LOL!

===
why can't a thread like this be about wanting to know if and why ( or why not ) people use semi stand
without there being a need for validation. contrary to the ideals that a lot of people have ...
ive been using semi stand for years with no problems. ive gotten rid of stop bath for the most part
i re-use my developer for 4-5 months without replenishing, i use tap water to mix all my chemistry
and i don't refrigerate any of my materials, and my world hasn't come to an end. no problems have
arisen, i couldn't care about validation .. but i do care that people just starting out know
that there are lots of ways to develop film and paper, and once one learns the basics
one can go off road and not go off a cliff like a lot of people suggest...

YMMV

Me too. I really like it. It's foolproof once you understand it, and the results are plenty good enough for me.

I hear a lot of people getting upset about it. Not sure why. It's just a lazy man's way to satisfactorily process film.,,,

Nail, hammer, head.

Do what you please, if you like the results. Issues becomes when someone has problems with the results and would like to tweak them. Instead of help the technical come out of the woodwork to tell the experimenter how he is blaspheming the sacred cult of 68 degrees.

For me stand or semi works fine for scanning, It works great when I screw up a roll and don't remember what ISO I was shooting at. Works great when I'm low on money and I can get by with a drop of developer, or when I don't feel like standing over a tank for 20 min.

I use stop-bath because I got a bottle for free, I use tap water for all my chems, my film gets frozen, and I have about 4-5 different developers on the shelf. I swap cameras and films, leave rolls in the camera for months at a time and cross process cine films in C-41. I like the results, and if things go sideways I can blame myself. Although I would like to get answers sometimes instead of 'You can't do that so don't.' Yes I know stand developing in D-76 with some expired HP5+ pushed 2 stops shot through a red filter with a malfunctioning meter is not by the book but lets face the truth, in the coming years with equipment ageing and stocks becoming less and less available the film people are going to have to look a bit beyond the book and do some strange things sometimes.

My original experiment. Unknown C-41 found in a camera, developed stand in used D-76 1+1 and then DSLR scanned. What did I gain? Not a nice photo but I enjoyed making it and seeing if something weird would work.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Semi Stand POO try Solarization now that is where its at.

Semi-stand and Solarisation are completely different from each other, though... ho w about semi-stand AND solarisation?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Bob better make sure he shows the math first....

 

[removed account4]

ive seen the video of bob doing his solarizatoins and he's standing most of the time
it does look like where it's at, and i hope if the conference happens i can travel west and
witness the whole technique !

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

So John... so I could have been sitting when I'm standing and get acceptable results? I'm getting a chair.

 

[cliveh]

Just try perfecting normal development. That in itself will take you many years of practice.

 

[removed account4]

So John... so I could have been sitting when I'm standing and get acceptable results? I'm getting a chair.

andrew
i think sitting on a chair is OK it has a few more legs than us bipeds, so you should be 4x as good
its not like ice fishing though, you need to be able to stand in the end

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

 

[Bob Carnie]

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.

I am sure R Avedon saw the negatives and contact sheets the moment they were finished but I highly doubt he processed them.. Given the time line I would expect they deep tank processed them or may have sent the negs out to any one of the great NY labs to dip and dunk them..

 

[Pat Erson]

I am sure R Avedon saw the negatives and contact sheets the moment they were finished but I highly doubt he processed them.. Given the time line I would expect they deep tank processed them or may have sent the negs out to any one of the great NY labs to dip and dunk them..

"Mr. Lewin said he had the full cooperation of the Avedon Foundation until he submitted his essay. In it, he had written: “Avedon never went into the darkroom. He hasn’t printed since 1950, probably.” Laura Avedon was “enraged,” he said, laughing"
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/nyregion/richard-avedon-unsigned-prints.html

 

[removedacct1]

I’m guessing that even in this community of image makers, few people realize that most “famous/successful” photographers - you know, the ones we all revere - stopped printing their own work the minute they could afford to hire a technician to do it for them. All of the best and busiest photographers do this (with the exception of outliers like Sally Mann, who insists on making all her own prints). And yet few of the highly skilled and talented darkroom technicians ever get recognition for their contribution to the body of work. The article linked to above speaks to that matter:

“Artists’ estates have a vested interest in playing down the role of printers and assistants and in keeping unsigned copies off the market. One reason has to do with commercial self-interest: It can be confusing or difficult to sell something if multiple people deserve an unknown measure of the praise for its excellence.” (emphasis mine)

Even when an artist is still very much in the midst of a career, the role of the hired darkroom technician is very much downplayed, because it introduces a tricky question for those viewing (or buying) the work: “where does the talent of the photographer end and the person making the print begin, and how important is the latter to the former?”

I have personal experience in this matter: in the late 1980s through the early 1990s I worked as a darkroom technician, producing exhibition work for several very talented and famous photographers. Basically there were two kinds of photographer I encountered; those who sought to downplay the role of their hired technicians because they preferred to be seen as supremely talented in all aspects of their craft; they worried that the public wouldn’t understand how the efforts of hired technicians contributed to their output, fearing the vagueness of the relationship would somehow dilute the power of their work. The other people I worked with were more gracious and generous and had no difficulty recognizing the role of their hired technicians, and often went out of their way to publicly acknowledge the skill these people brought to the making of their work. (Case in point: Arno Maggs was one of the most gracious, kind and generous photographers I ever had the great fortune to work with.)

I have great sympathy for Mr. Hoffman, and very little respect for the Avedon Foundation, whose actions I regard as self-serving and petty.

 

[Bob Carnie]

well said Paul - when I read the article about the unsigned prints I felt the printers pain, and I have since that article been gathering all my Printer Proofs and where I can go back to the photographer and make them sign, I just had the pleasure of printing four images for Frank Okenfels 3 and he signed each print with pleasure and was happy for me, I also had Geffrey Goldstein sign my Vivian Maier Pt Pd that I printed for him before all the lawsuits started.

So a word of advice for printers for others, any prints that you make for yourself with the photographers permission of course, get them to sign them, it can come back and bite you in the arse.

 

[Pat Erson]

I have personal experience in this matter: in the late 1980s through the early 1990s I worked as a darkroom technician, producing exhibition work for several very talented and famous photographers. Basically there were two kinds of photographer I encountered

I'm sure the most generous ones were also the most talented ones...

 

[Bob Carnie]

I'm sure the most generous ones were also the most talented ones...

Ohhh I would not agree with that, I actually have found the exact opposite in many cases.

 

[removedacct1]

I'm sure the most generous ones were also the most talented ones...

I have to wonder if your comment is actually meant to be interpreted as sarcasm....
As Bob said, it’s often quite the opposite, sadly. One particular experience comes to mind, but I’m not naming names.

 

[Pat Erson]

Damn Bob... and I know you speak from experience.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I am with Paul.. not naming names but it would make a very sad but funny book the relationship between photographer and printer.... I do both(photograph and print) as does Paul, but we have both seen our share of client relationships go very south.

These days I try to spend time with each person wanting to print to gage how I can fit into their needs, and of course how they can fit into mine.