PDA

View Full Version : Semi-stand development over rotary?



Max Hao
1-Feb-2012, 00:12
Hi everyone. I newly joined the forum, but not new to large format. I've been doing rotary processing in a JOBO drum, but wonder whether semi-stand development brings any benefits (not considering the trouble to get even development) over rotary, and is it worthwhile for the change? Cheers.

Steve Sherman
1-Feb-2012, 04:18
I along with others have explained this process many times over on the forums. The process for me is much more about the creative possibilities afforded than for the much touted increase in sharpness.

Please see this link where many notable photogs discuss and explain the technique.

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/24023-semi-stand-description-illustratvie-photo.html

Cheers!

Max Hao
1-Feb-2012, 05:56
Hi Steve,
I read with interest your post on SS and EMA. Great photo and really amazing results. I was struggling whether to shift to SS and your post assured me the benefit of doing that.
Many thanks.

Jay DeFehr
1-Feb-2012, 13:01
Max,

I think it's useful to think of Agitation Frequency as a spectrum, with stand development at one end, continuous agitation at the other, and semi-stand as an arbitrary point in between. Somewhere along the AF spectrum, there is a safe minimum for any given image/film/developer/processing method that provides even development without artifacts. Semi-stand development represents very low frequency agitation, and probably doesn't meet the safe minimum in many cases. If your scene is very textured throughout, you can probably use lower frequency agitation than would be safe for a scene with large areas of even tone, for example. If you're determined to use the lowest possible safe agitation frequency, you should make multiple negatives, begin with stand development, and increase AF incrementally until you get perfectly even development. With experience you'll develop an intuition about the AF required for various conditions and results.

Jim Byers details his process here:

http://gsd-10.blogspot.com/2010/07/gsd-10-semi-stand-and-finding-preferred.html

Good luck!

Lynn Jones
1-Feb-2012, 13:08
Having several decades testing developing systems I will state categorically that still or stand development SUCKS! There and many bad things about it and the only good thing is laziness.

Lynn

Jay DeFehr
1-Feb-2012, 14:12
Lynn,

With all due respect to your experience, I don't share your categorical opinion. If we agree that there are benefits to lower frequency agitation compared to higher frequency agitation (which I don't assume we do), then stand development as the lowest possible agitation frequency must maximize those benefits. I've acknowledged there are risks associated with Low Frequency Agitation, and I implied, if not stated, that those risks should be weighed against the benefits, and suggested a method for finding the best compromise. For me, the risks of stand development almost always outweigh the potential benefits compared to some slightly higher agitation frequency. In other words, when deciding whether to risk stand development, we should not be deciding between stand and continuous, or stand and normal, but between stand and some slightly higher AF that would guarantee even development. In this case, the differences in the benefits of LFA are imperceptibly small, while the differences in the risks are enormous, making for an easy decision. In case that wasn't very clear:

The differences in the benefits provided by stand development compared to the Minimum Safe Agitation Frequency + some Safety Factor, are too small to decide in favor of stand development, in almost all cases, in my experience.

While I'm confident in my statement above, I allow that others' experiences might be different, and I might learn from them, and that might alter my views on the subject. It wouldn't be the first time I've been mistaken.

Max Hao
1-Feb-2012, 19:51
Hi Jay and Lynn,
Thank you for sharing your experiences. I will do tests with film/developer compo and AF to find out a safe agitation frequency. And, I have developed a 4X5 sheet last night with JOBO, and I'll scan it after work and compare with the ones developed using EMA. Great discussion!

sanking
1-Feb-2012, 20:48
I would strongly recommend the long thread on APUG on semi-stand development referenced by Steve Sherman in an earlier message. My own experience is that if one is printing directly from the negatives in the darkroom there are some definite advantages to semi-stand development, most notably enhanced acutance, greater mid-tone contrast, maximum emulsion speed, and superior rendering of tones with scenes of very high contrast. Those who have seen Steve Sherman's silver gelatin work from large format and ultra large format will clearly appreciate in some of his prints the unique qualities that are possible with semi-stand development.

With a hybrid work flow where film is scanned, manipulated and corrected in Photoshop, and then printed with an inkjet printer (or with silver or alternative processes via a digital negative), the disadvantages of semi-stand probably outweigh the advantages.

Sandy

Steve Sherman
1-Feb-2012, 21:20
Having several decades testing developing systems I will state categorically that still or stand development SUCKS! There and many bad things about it and the only good thing is laziness.

Lynn

With all due respect, I would suggest that your results may have been less than you'd hope for rather than an indictment on the technique itself.

I have difficulty stating this, nevertheless, I have seen hundreds of Large Format photographers and their respective work in the silver gelatin process.

I had two solo shows in 2011, one in Toronto during the month long Contact festival of photography and the second at the Paul Paletti Gallery in Louisville, KY. Paul Paletti is a renown collector of vintage and contemporary photography, master works on every wall in his gallery!

Any of the men associated with these galleries would agree, nowhere will you find photographs of superior print quality than mine, but then we all know that it is not print quality that makes the photograph, rather its' content.

BTW, since 2004 I have used exclusively a Reduced Agitation technique of film development, employing a regime of 2 agitation cycles and 3 periods of standing time in chemistry. This technique was used years ago with thick emulsion films but had fallen out of favor with the newer thin emulsion films introduced in the 1970's. It was my testing and trial and error which gave birth to it's resurgence since 2004.

If you're really interested in learning whether the process is for your level or commitment to photography then seek out results by those who can speak from experience and produce results rather than those who cannot due their own failures leading to erroneous statements which are simply untrue.

Cheers

lbenac
1-Feb-2012, 21:30
With a hybrid work flow where film is scanned, manipulated and corrected in Photoshop, and then printed with an inkjet printer (or with silver or alternative processes via a digital negative), the disadvantages of semi-stand probably outweigh the advantages.

Sandy

Hello Sandy,

What are the disadvantages that become more prominent with scanning - is that related to potential uneven development in large area i.e. sky as referred to by Jay?
I have only used SS or EMA with Pyrocat, 510-Pyro and Rodinal so I do not have a lot of experience (except maybe for full stand in 135mm with Rodinal but that is in the past).

Cheers,

Luc

sanking
1-Feb-2012, 21:53
Hello Sandy,

What are the disadvantages that become more prominent with scanning - is that related to potential uneven development in large area i.e. sky as referred to by Jay?
I have only used SS or EMA with Pyrocat, 510-Pyro and Rodinal so I do not have a lot of experience (except maybe for full stand in 135mm with Rodinal but that is in the past).

Cheers,

Luc

Luc,

The major disadvantage of semi-stand development is the potential for uneven development, and yes you would usually notice it in areas of the scene that have a lot of even tonalities, as the sky. This is actually less of a problem with scanning and a digital workflow than in printing in the wet darkroom since defects are easier to correct in PS than in darkroom printing.

Sandy

lbenac
1-Feb-2012, 22:25
Luc,

The major disadvantage of semi-stand development is the potential for uneven development, and yes you would usually notice it in areas of the scene that have a lot of even tonalities, as the sky. This is actually less of a problem with scanning and a digital workflow than in printing in the wet darkroom since defects are easier to correct in PS than in darkroom printing.

Sandy

In MF or LF, I have noticed this mostly with "new" film like Acros, Delta or TMY and less with "old" film like FP4+ - it might just be a coincidence of course. Likewise, I have found the new emulsion more prone to issues like metal deposits (black point on the negative/white point on the scan).
That said I do not find uneven development that easy to correct in PS and still get a great result - I have many shots gone to the trash bin to prove it ;)

Cheers,

Luc

lbenac
1-Feb-2012, 22:39
BTW is there a way to get the article (1&2) of Steve in View Camera? I am a current subscriber but View Camera does not sell past issues neither on paper or pdf.

Cheers,

Luc

John Berry
2-Feb-2012, 00:05
Having several decades testing developing systems I will state categorically that still or stand development SUCKS! There and many bad things about it and the only good thing is laziness.

Lynn
I guess yer not done testin'. Helen Keller could see the difference with a loupe.

Steve Sherman
2-Feb-2012, 03:18
Allow me to make another bold statement.

Thirty plus years of negative making for the wet darkroom process tells me that the Semi-Stand / Reduced Agitation development is the closest thing to a magic bullet there is. When executed properly, ( yes there is an increased chance of development artifacts) less than 10% in my experience, the technique Maximizes FILM SPEED, Maximizes HIGHLIGHT COMPRESSION and Maximizes MID TONE MICRO CONTRAST. The three most sought after components of negative making and film development.

This technique will allow the skilled technician to photograph in ANY lighting conditions during ANY time of day and obtain a satisfactory and easily printable negative.

HOWEVER, the single most important component to the success of a negative, ( I would suggest no matter what means you produce the final positive outcome ) is the quality of the light in which the negative was exposed!

Above are the easy parts of negative making, merely mechanical if you will. The hard part, and the most enjoyable is the creative aspect of negative making.

And I might add that Reduced Agitation forms of film development will afford the skilled technician creative opportunities that simply were not possible prior to 2004 with thin emulsion films.

climbabout
2-Feb-2012, 05:19
I will chime in here as another advocate of pyrocat and reduced or minimal agitation development. I began practicing it about 6 or 7 years ago and shoot 8x10 almost exclusively. I developed a set of home made pvc tubes so 8x10 can be developed in a vertical orientation whic seems to minimize development artifacts. I have tweaked my agitation regimen over the years and have found great success with this technique, Paul P., Sandy K., Steve Sherman and Jim Shanesy have all seen my prints and will concur with this - keep trying - it's a very good method of film development.
Tim

Steve Sherman
2-Feb-2012, 19:56
Those responses didn't work out to well!

The simply truth is every time there is a post regarding Semi Stand or RDA forms of development there are those who emphatically state that the process either does not work or worst yet there is no apparent difference in the resulting negatives.

The power of the internet allows anyone with a voice to state questionable beliefs or simple untruths and the unknowing photographer is left to decide who makes the better argument.

Most times I respond with what I know to be truth in a humble manner, this time I tried pounding my chest a bit, most that know me know that is out of character nevertheless the facts are in place to prove the process works and with dramatic results.

If interested in the View Camera articles send me a PM and I'll send them along in a Word doc.

Cheers!

sanking
3-Feb-2012, 22:16
The power of the internet allows anyone with a voice to state questionable beliefs or simple untruths and the unknowing photographer is left to decide who makes the better argument.

Cheers!

Steve,

That is true. There is a huge amount of hogwash on the internet. And damn, I have contributed a fair amount of it myself!

But sometimes people are lucky enough to see the work of real masters of the printing process. And no question, you are a real master of the art of making silver gelatin prints from analog negatives.

Don't fret about what others may say about process. Your work has been out there for others to see, and it speaks for itself. Just keep doing what you do. In the end the cream rises to the top.

Sandy

cjbroadbent
4-Feb-2012, 04:32
Steve, (" .....the technique Maximizes FILM SPEED, Maximizes HIGHLIGHT COMPRESSION and Maximizes MID TONE MICRO CONTRAST. The three most sought after components of negative making and film development...." ) Thanks.
I'm new to stand and this is great comfort.

Max Hao
6-Feb-2012, 01:36
I developed a 4X5 in JOBO2521(I think) with the sheet loaded onto the reel. Five minutes presoaking, and 30mins in 510-PYRO 1:500, agitation during the first minute, and 10s every 10 minutes after. The film is ADOX CHS25 exposed at 16. It came out overdeveloped. What bothers me is the marks left where the film touching the reel. Anybody has any suggestions get rid of the marks. Although the marks are on the edge and won't be scanned in, I do like to have my negatives neatly done. Thanks.

Jay DeFehr
6-Feb-2012, 07:42
Max,

Is Adox CHS 25 the same film as Efke KB25? I think I developed that film around 20 minutes, if I recall correctly. I don't have any advice for the edge marks, except to agitate more frequently. Keep good notes, and work methodically. Good luck!

Lynn Jones
6-Feb-2012, 11:48
Jay, I still disagree, the best processing ever achieved has been spray processing but it can really only be done with motion picture.

Lynn

Jay DeFehr
6-Feb-2012, 12:10
Lynn,

Why is spray best? It's certainly fast, but I don't see how that makes it best, unless one has miles of film to process. Several years ago, I formulated a developer that worked very fast-- not fractions of a second fast, but 30 seconds fast. It worked pretty well, but I didn't like the formula-- too busy.

Max Hao
6-Feb-2012, 19:28
Max,

Is Adox CHS 25 the same film as Efke KB25? I think I developed that film around 20 minutes, if I recall correctly. I don't have any advice for the edge marks, except to agitate more frequently. Keep good notes, and work methodically. Good luck!

Jay,

Thanks. I not sure if it is the same as Efke KB25. It is a PL film. I know it is used to be called Efke, but just not sure if it is the PL or other type of iso25 film made by Efke (now ADOX). Even though the sheet looks very dense, I managed to scan it ok with some adjustment. Judging by the software's automatic correction function to the curve, a 'proper' development would be at least two steps less. BTW, the presoak water might be a bit warmer than 70F, but the working solution was at 70F. I like the look of ADOX25 in 510-pyro.

Lynn Jones
7-Feb-2012, 15:01
Hi Jay,

Spray has nothing to do with speed although it is faster. While the film is traveling the processing chemicals spray at a 45 deg angle in opposition to film travel, never permitting the emulsion to go more than 15 seconds without solution, usually far less. I built one with impingement drying for my motion picture company and the accuracy was so good that I could tell when Kodak changed the emulsions. With a 1.00 density flash, the density would be +/- .01. Our company had had the original NASA contract in Houston starting in late '60 as well as being a well know commercial film producer.

In still photography, I used to build sensitometric processors for the Calumet nitrogen burst system (which I updated regularly based on film/plate changes), temperature controls of +/- 1/10th degF, sheet film PPI hangers, roll with special wrap around hangers and guaranteed +/- .01 with a 1.00 flash. Our standard process at +/- .5F and gas burst was density +/-.02 with a 1.00 flash for sheet film, for roll films in reels it was +/- .03(that is 1/10th of the standards for pro labs). The best you can get with tray processing of sheet films is around +/- .03 to .04 (and you really have to be good). About the best you can get with the Fuji/ANSI agitation in hangers is +/- .08 to +/- 1.0 and you will be darned lucky to be that good with SS reels and rolls using the standard agitation (although I know if a difficult to describe reel agitation which will be +/- .05 to .08.

Still development frequently causes bromide drag, mackie lines, loss of resolution, loss of contrast and other wonderful things. The higher the film speed and density, the worse the problems.

Since (in my career) I have had to guarantee my processing work, and publicly guarantee it, I had to be able to know exactly what Was happening, and train my troops so that they wouldn't foul up.

Best Regards to all,

Lynn

Jay DeFehr
7-Feb-2012, 15:31
Hi Lynn,

I think I understand. You're using accurate, repeatable density as your criteria for "best", but as you're no doubt aware, accurate, repeatable density tells us little about the things that are more likely to matter to us-- things like grain, sharpness, and gradation; how these vital characteristics are affected by tanning and staining, and how all of the above are influenced by agitation frequency. The fact that we're under no obligation to guarantee the consistent density of our negatives opens up many creative opportunities that might otherwise prove too risky. In short, the criteria of a high volume motion picture processing lab simply don't apply to us any more than the criteria of many scientific imaging processes do. Your example is a bit like warning Van Gogh his painting technique is no way to get an even coat of paint on a canvas.;)

Steve Sherman
8-Feb-2012, 21:43
Steve,

That is true. There is a huge amount of hogwash on the internet. And damn, I have contributed a fair amount of it myself!

But sometimes people are lucky enough to see the work of real masters of the printing process. And no question, you are a real master of the art of making silver gelatin prints from analog negatives.

Don't fret about what others may say about process. Your work has been out there for others to see, and it speaks for itself. Just keep doing what you do. In the end the cream rises to the top.

Sandy

Kind words Sandy, from a Master's Master!! You were the original and sole inspiration for me sticking with Reduced Agitation forms of development in the beginning stages.

I'm reminded of a phrase, you can lead 'em to water, but you can't make 'em drink!

Lynn Jones
9-Feb-2012, 14:59
Thanks, Jay

And I'm interested in the same things as you.

Lynn

John Kasaian
12-Feb-2012, 00:20
Whilst drum processing, you can enjoy a beer in a well lit room. You can't do that with semi stand processing, can you?
Ergo drum processing rules, semi-stand processing drools ;)

Jay DeFehr
12-Feb-2012, 01:26
Whilst drum processing, you can enjoy a beer in a well lit room. You can't do that with semi stand processing, can you?
Ergo drum processing rules, semi-stand processing drools ;)

Of course you can! Why not? You just have more time to do it.;)

bob carnie
12-Feb-2012, 06:32
Ahhh but not watch the threads on the internet at the same time..

Lynns description above is pretty cool, I use a rotary system , but I am going to force Mr Sherman to show me how to do semi stand in my deep tank system.


Of course you can! Why not? You just have more time to do it.;)

Jay DeFehr
12-Feb-2012, 08:20
Bob,

I'm not Sherman, but I would tell you your deep tanks are less than ideal for LFA techniques, including semi-stand, because deep tanks and dilute developers are not very compatible. Decreasing agitation frequency without also decreasing developer concentration will only produce a fraction of the effect LFA with a dilute developer will.

bob carnie
12-Feb-2012, 10:20
even if I am going to mix one shot?
When I talk about deep tank I am referring to the 3 1/12 gallon tanks that hold about 10 8x10 holders, when you insert the holders you just barely cover the chems.

How is this method done then for 8x10 sheet?


Bob,

I'm not Sherman, but I would tell you your deep tanks are less than ideal for LFA techniques, including semi-stand, because deep tanks and dilute developers are not very compatible. Decreasing agitation frequency without also decreasing developer concentration will only produce a fraction of the effect LFA with a dilute developer will.

Andrew O'Neill
12-Feb-2012, 10:44
Having several decades testing developing systems I will state categorically that still or stand development SUCKS! There and many bad things about it and the only good thing is laziness.


Stand development can be problemsome and should be avoided where large even toned areas are in the negative. I prefer semi-stand as there is some agitation given to the negative... but you can still run the risk of uneven development in even toned areas. For these negatives I'll give either conventional tray processing or rotary (BTZS) and print with an unsharp mask if edge enhancement is needed. For semi-stand I've always used HP5 and highly diluted pyrocat-hd.

Jay DeFehr
12-Feb-2012, 11:06
even if I am going to mix one shot?
When I talk about deep tank I am referring to the 3 1/12 gallon tanks that hold about 10 8x10 holders, when you insert the holders you just barely cover the chems.

How is this method done then for 8x10 sheet?

Hi Bob,

If you're willing to mix 3-1/2 gallons one-shot, you shouldn't have any problems. Otherwise, it can be done in multi-reel tanks, or tubes.

If you process 10 sheets at a time in a 3-1/2 gallon tank, you're devoting appx 1.3L/ sheet, and that's better than you could do with a multi-reel tank or tube.

bob carnie
12-Feb-2012, 12:37
I was kind of thinking this way , I always mix one shot... Pyro is very Cheap, at least when I use PMK, I will have to give Sandy and Steve's formula a go.. I will have to see Mr Shermans setup before I commit .... steve you hearing me, I think I am in your area in two months , I want a demo.


The subject matter I am thinking about is very textured with no large areas of neutral.
I want to make 40 x50 silver murals of these, or at least as large as I can with my current setup.. who knows in a couple of years I may set up the horizontal Durst for these type of negatives.


Hi Bob,

If you're willing to mix 3-1/2 gallons one-shot, you shouldn't have any problems. Otherwise, it can be done in multi-reel tanks, or tubes.

If you process 10 sheets at a time in a 3-1/2 gallon tank, you're devoting appx 1.3L/ sheet, and that's better than you could do with a multi-reel tank or tube.

sanking
13-Feb-2012, 18:33
I was kind of thinking this way , I always mix one shot... Pyro is very Cheap, at least when I use PMK, I will have to give Sandy and Steve's formula a go.. I will have to see Mr Shermans setup before I commit .... steve you hearing me, I think I am in your area in two months , I want a demo.



Bob,

It is more an issue of Steve's specific methodology than a formula. A number of developer "formulas" could probably be used successfully with semi-stand development, but each would require some personal effort to optimize results.

Sandy

Andrew O'Neill
13-Feb-2012, 19:20
My stand/semi-stand is done in BTZS tubes, filled to the top standing upright. 1200ml water with 5ml each of pyrocat-hd part A and B.

Lynn Jones
14-Feb-2012, 13:01
For you drum processor guys, if used wisely you can probably get the highest quality processing of your lives. Stabilize the developer temperature by filling the drum and contents with water of the correct temp for 2 or 3 minutes before pouring in developer. It is important to have a developing time of at least 4 or more minutes so that you can get the developer in and out adequately.

For certain uses, however, drums are not good, for example Diafine or water bath processing. These depend on still process part of the time (see Jay, I don't always disagree).

Lynn

Jay DeFehr
14-Feb-2012, 17:53
For you drum processor guys, if used wisely you can probably get the highest quality processing of your lives. Stabilize the developer temperature by filling the drum and contents with water of the correct temp for 2 or 3 minutes before pouring in developer. It is important to have a developing time of at least 4 or more minutes so that you can get the developer in and out adequately.

For certain uses, however, drums are not good, for example Diafine or water bath processing. These depend on still process part of the time (see Jay, I don't always disagree).

Lynn

I would never call you disagreeable, Lynn!:)

bluejeh
14-Feb-2012, 19:10
I'll be using semi-stand with FP4+ MF120 roll film and 4x5 sheets in separate patterson tanks.
I've got PyroPMK but from reading the forums, I think I would prefer to use Pyrocat HD.
Will the semi-stand process itself (rotation etc) be different for each of these film types?
What would I use (dilutions, times etc) for each of these developers? Recommendations?
Thanks.