Stand Development Issue 4x5" HP5Plus 400

[alanmcd]

OK - I think my light leak issues are not light leaks but rather something during development.
Anyone else using stand development of B&W?
I use a Paterson tank with MOD54
I know I have enough developer to cover the film completely but the film is overdeveloped along the notch end which is always at the top of the MOD54. I could turn it over and test that it repeats itself. I'll do that but in the meantime, has anyone else found this issue and worked out what causes it?
I mostly get away with it post process with a graduated filter along the notch side of the film but I've love to get better quality negs.
Alan

[Steve Sherman]

I believe I can help solve your problem. I have been doing this type development for about 13 years so I can speak with some experience on the subject. I have found at least with Ilford films that the HP 5 has more problems with Reduced Agitation forms of film development than does FP 4 and Delta.
I have found even with Semi-Stand development where there is an initial agitation and then one at the half way point that I get a build up of density, about .15 increase near the top of my development tube, when I turn the film opposite the density build up on an identical negative yields the same result, an increase of density at the top end of the tube even with the notch code facing down. The difference I believe on my end is that my film is 17" long and when the tube is inverted there is considerable downward force and then re inverted there is a turbulence build up at the end. I would not expect that to be a big problem with only a 5" piece of film.

Way back in the beginning of perfecting this process I was having agitation inconsistencies with a stirring action as well as an inversion action. I solved that problem by using a Kodak hard rubber tank and using about 1600 ml of solution with the 5x7 film (different size film) I used a Jobo drum cleaning sponge if you've ever seen one of those. I used a plunger action, much like a washing machine where the 2" circumference sponge would push straight down in the tank and cause a north / south type agitation just like a washing machine. All agitation problems were solved with that change.

Lastly, with a stand type development where there is only one initial agitation I find that agitation is critical to the success of the process, the agitation needs to be uniform at least 3-5 minutes somewhere between vigorous and gentle with a total time in solution not to exceed 45 minutes, possibly 60 minutes. Adjust the dilution of the chemistry so that you fall into those parameters and I believe your problems will be solved.

Cheers,

[alanmcd]

I believe I can help solve your problem. I have been doing this type development for about 13 years so I can speak with some experience on the subject. I have found at least with Ilford films that the HP 5 has more problems with Reduced Agitation forms of film development than does FP 4 and Delta.
I have found even with Semi-Stand development where there is an initial agitation and then one at the half way point that I get a build up of density, about .15 increase near the top of my development tube, when I turn the film opposite the density build up on an identical negative yields the same result, an increase of density at the top end of the tube even with the notch code facing down. The difference I believe on my end is that my film is 17" long and when the tube is inverted there is considerable downward force and then re inverted there is a turbulence build up at the end. I would not expect that to be a big problem with only a 5" piece of film.

Way back in the beginning of perfecting this process I was having agitation inconsistencies with a stirring action as well as an inversion action. I solved that problem by using a Kodak hard rubber tank and using about 1600 ml of solution with the 5x7 film (different size film) I used a Jobo drum cleaning sponge if you've ever seen one of those. I used a plunger action, much like a washing machine where the 2" circumference sponge would push straight down in the tank and cause a north / south type agitation just like a washing machine. All agitation problems were solved with that change.

Lastly, with a stand type development where there is only one initial agitation I find that agitation is critical to the success of the process, the agitation needs to be uniform at least 3-5 minutes somewhere between vigorous and gentle with a total time in solution not to exceed 45 minutes, possibly 60 minutes. Adjust the dilution of the chemistry so that you fall into those parameters and I believe your problems will be solved.

Cheers,

OK - sorry when you say adjust your chemistry - do you mean make the mix less concentrated? I was going to try 9ml to a litre next time around. But I only agitate / invert and roll gently but not too slowly for 1 minute - not 3-5.
This lighter area down the side is a result of lack of chemical or too much?

Alan

[koraks]

Oh, you're using stand development...I overlooked that in the other thread. I've had nothing but problems with stand development both in 135 and 4x5 format. I gave up on it after a few tries, so I can't comment. My results did look a bit different than yours though.

[iml]

Oh, you're using stand development...I overlooked that in the other thread. I've had nothing but problems with stand development both in 135 and 4x5 format. I gave up on it after a few tries, so I can't comment.

Same here. Seemed like a recipe for unnecessary problems to me, and any advantages other than convenience highly debatable. Never managed to reliably get even development regardless of what I tried, stand or semi-stand, so I gave up and reverted to more traditional agitation schemes, which have been almost 100% reliable over the years I've been using them.

[David Lobato]

I understood that stand development is a technique to rescue very large extremes of contrast, such as a very dark room with bright sunlight outside of a window. The stand development holds down the highlights while allowing the dark tones to develop more. For me, I see no reason to risk the uncertainties of it, considering the cost of film and the effort to get the exposure. There are other methods available in the traditional darkroom and in a digital darkroom to tame extreme contrast.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I understood that stand development is a technique to rescue very large extremes of contrast, such as a very dark room with bright sunlight outside of a window. The stand development holds down the highlights while allowing the dark tones to develop more. For me, I see no reason to risk the uncertainties of it, considering the cost of film and the effort to get the exposure. There are other methods available in the traditional darkroom and in a digital darkroom to tame extreme contrast.

And with the added bonus of increased sharpness... I do not do stand development. I prefer semi-stand in very dilute pyrocat-hd, with agitation at the beginning for one minute, followed by 10s every 15 or 20 minutes. I use BTZS tubes, and always pull the film out, invert and reinsert with each agitation cycle. As Steve said, HP5 is tricky to work with but with semi-stand the success rate is higher. 8x10 or 4x5. You should always shoot a backup just in case.

[Steve Sherman]

OK - sorry when you say adjust your chemistry - do you mean make the mix less concentrated? I was going to try 9ml to a litre next time around. But I only agitate / invert and roll gently but not too slowly for 1 minute - not 3-5.
This lighter area down the side is a result of lack of chemical or too much?

Alan

Hello Alan, As another poster suggested, tell me what you are trying to accomplish ??

As far as this type of development, I can't imagine anyone is more experienced with the process than I, it is the only way I have processed sheet film since I perfected the process back in 2003. In the early stages there were numerous problems that I had to over come and most had to do with how the film is agitated and for the lengths of time the film is agitated so I have very definite opinions on what works and does not work. My process has been virtually problem free for the last 10 years. I don't care for the way this will sound but in an effort to help you have success with the process, I've had success with compressing contrast up to N - 6 and what many don't understand is possible up to N + 4, almost any lighting condition that exists. As an FYI, the films I find least receptive to this process are the faster 400 speed films, Ilford or Kodak T Max.

Again, tell me what you are trying to accomplish, specifically the contrast range of the original scene and what your final hope is for the print.

Cheers

[alanmcd]

Hello Alan, As another poster suggested, tell me what you are trying to accomplish ??

As far as this type of development, I can't imagine anyone is more experienced with the process than I, it is the only way I have processed sheet film since I perfected the process back in 2003. In the early stages there were numerous problems that I had to over come and most had to do with how the film is agitated and for the lengths of time the film is agitated so I have very definite opinions on what works and does not work. My process has been virtually problem free for the last 10 years. I don't care for the way this will sound but in an effort to help you have success with the process, I've had success with compressing contrast up to N - 6 and what many don't understand is possible up to N + 4, almost any lighting condition that exists. As an FYI, the films I find least receptive to this process are the faster 400 speed films, Ilford or Kodak T Max.

Again, tell me what you are trying to accomplish, specifically the contrast range of the original scene and what your final hope is for the print.

Cheers

I'm not actually trying to accomplish anything in the way of managing contrast.
I like it because it's simple and fast. I am trying to accomplish a very high throughput with the least amount of pain.
I like the results straight off the bat with my HP5+400.
All, I'm focused on at this time is eliminating the underdeveloped edge. Or determining if it's an overexposure due to light leakage.
I'm thinking along the lines of the holder being the culprit at the moment.
It's not when the film is being exposed. It's just a very slow leak along the hinge joint of the holder from the time it's taken out of the change room until it's placed in the tank.
If I look at the worst examples, they are associated with the holder which have the most number of little pin holes in the tape hinge. So I'm going to transport everything in a dark bag, load the holder under the darkcloth and keep the holder out of the light as much as possible and see.
I could process a colour transparency as well and if the lab returns the same edge, then I know it's hardware.
Alan
Alan

[Steve Sherman]

I'm not actually trying to accomplish anything in the way of managing contrast.
I like it because it's simple and fast. I am trying to accomplish a very high throughput with the least amount of pain.
I like the results straight off the bat with my HP5+400.
All, I'm focused on at this time is eliminating the underdeveloped edge. Or determining if it's an overexposure due to light leakage.
I'm thinking along the lines of the holder being the culprit at the moment.
It's not when the film is being exposed. It's just a very slow leak along the hinge joint of the holder from the time it's taken out of the change room until it's placed in the tank.
If I look at the worst examples, they are associated with the holder which have the most number of little pin holes in the tape hinge. So I'm going to transport everything in a dark bag, load the holder under the darkcloth and keep the holder out of the light as much as possible and see.
I could process a colour transparency as well and if the lab returns the same edge, then I know it's hardware.
Alan
Alan

Alan, I've been developing sheet film for over 35 years, all types, tank, tray, rotary and now in tubes. If you're thinking Stand Dev. because your hands will be free to do other tasks I would counter by saying the fastest most productive means to high quality sheet film processing would be either 6 sheets in a tray for 10 - 12 minutes or in a rotary drum for a similar time.

Bearing in mind, I have streamlined the Extreme Minimal Agitation technique to almost science and the most I can process in a 3 hour evening is 3 sheets of 7x17 film and about 6 sheets of 5x7 sheet film. Stand, Semi-Stand or EMA forms of development are for very specific results with quantity and speed not very high on the list.

Cheers,

[TrentM]

I remember Steve's article in View Camera magazine back in 1989 on extreme contraction. Back then it was Tri-x and very dilute HC-110. It opened doors for me regarding extreme zone techniques.

[Donald Qualls]

All, I'm focused on at this time is eliminating the underdeveloped edge. Or determining if it's an overexposure due to light leakage.

First, we need to clarify whether this is increased or decreased density at the top (as placed in the tank). Underdevelopment would be reduced density and contrast, while overexposure due to a light leak would be increased density, mostly noticeable in the thin shadow areas and remaining fixed relative to the notch code regardless of tank loading orientation. If you're getting increased density and contrast that stay at the top of the tank whichever way you load the film, it's *overdevelopment*, likely due to oxidation of the developer at the standing surface (pyro and pyrocat are well known for increasing stain with increased oxidation, for instance, but I've seen other developers develop more toward the surface of the developer under low agitation).

[Crowbar56au]

I am using a MOD54 in the Paterson tank too. I also found increased density issues however mainly at the corners where turbulence in the solution would be greatest for the MOD54. I agitate using the twirl stick provided by the Paterson, rather than inversion. I would agitate every minute for 5 seconds. I appear to have solved my problem by agitating less vigorously (slow twirl) and only for 2 seconds every 60. I do not have a densitometer so am unable to provide empirical data. I am using Delta 100 film and 1 litre of D-76 at 1:1. My prints are now acceptable.

My only thoughts on stand development in the Paterson would be that the developer would be marginally warmer at the top of the tank over time, which would provide increased developer activity and increased density.

[alanmcd]

I am using a MOD54 in the Paterson tank too. I also found increased density issues however mainly at the corners where turbulence in the solution would be greatest for the MOD54. I agitate using the twirl stick provided by the Paterson, rather than inversion. I would agitate every minute for 5 seconds. I appear to have solved my problem by agitating less vigorously (slow twirl) and only for 2 seconds every 60. I do not have a densitometer so am unable to provide empirical data. I am using Delta 100 film and 1 litre of D-76 at 1:1. My prints are now acceptable.

My only thoughts on stand development in the Paterson would be that the developer would be marginally warmer at the top of the tank over time, which would provide increased developer activity and increased density.

Thanks. I have ruled out all my hardware now. It's definitely a development issue. I may try one stop less on my exposure and I will try the swirl next time not inversion.
Alan

[koraks]

When using the mod54, I usually agitate for 10 seconds every minute or 3 to 5 times per 30 seconds. I always use the swirl stick. I haven't noticed irregular development with this approach.