No-agitation developing?

[welly]

I've just tried developing two sheets of film at once in my trays as up until now I've been processing a sheet at a time. Unfortunately one sheet resulted in a couple of big scratches so my agitation technique needs some work. I'm curious as to whether no-agitation developing (stand developing?) is an option to avoid scratches or just as an option for developing in general. Does anyone do this? Are there any pros/cons of developing like this? I assume that the sheets would need to stay in the tray longer.

Cheers,

Welly

[welly]

Update. It wasn't a scratch, it was simply a dark cable I don't remember seeing when I took the shot.

[Jay DeFehr]

That's good news! Stand development creates more problems than it solves. The trick is to identify the optimum agitation frequency for your requirements. For most people, the range of acceptable frequencies is quite large.

[Steve Sherman]

Stand development creates more problems than it solves.

Much to broad a statement, especially to those not aware of Reduced Agitation Development schemes :)

2 cents

[Zaitz]

I do stand developing but initial agitation is critical I believe. Uneven development results if agitation isn't quick and quite vigorous. After 1 minute I let it set for 30min to an hour with no agitation. With absolutely no agitation I do not think you would get consistent even development especially in areas of smooth tonality. With less agitation development is extended. I use daylight tanks or tubes for stand as I got uneven development in trays, stand or normal. With stand, highlights are retained incredibly well for me.

[Michael Kadillak]

Much to broad a statement, especially to those not aware of Reduced Agitation Development schemes :)

2 cents

It is a tool that can be used with considerable effectiveness when properly understood and executed. Steve has been the primary innovators of this technique and has shared considerably of his experiences if you do some searching online.

[Gary Samson]

It is a tool that can be used with considerable effectiveness when properly understood and executed. Steve has been the primary innovators of this technique and has shared considerably of his experiences if you do some searching online.

+1

[sanking]

+1

+2

[Jay DeFehr]

Steve and Michael,

I am well aware of the role of agitation frequency and amplitude in film development, and would remind you both that stand development is defined as no agitation (as correctly stated by the OP), not infrequent agitation, and I stand by my comments. With all due respect to Steve, I wouldn't call him a "primary innovator" regarding the effects of agitation frequency. Advocate for low frequency agitation-- sure -- but his comment here suggests some confusion about the distinction between stand development and low frequency agitation.

[sanking]

Stand development has not generally been defined as "no agitation."

Definition of stand development in Anchell and Troop, The Film Developing Cookbook, p. 37. "Stand development is a technique which relies upon highly dilute developers and extremely long development times. This means film development times of thirty minutes to several hours with no agitation after the initial minute."

The definition in the FDC agrees with most of the historical literature on the subject.

Sandy

[Jay DeFehr]

Stand development has not generally been defined as "no agitation."

Definition of stand development in Anchell and Troop, The Film Developing Cookbook, p. 37. "Stand development is a technique which relies upon highly dilute developers and extremely long development times. This means film development times of thirty minutes to several hours with no agitation after the initial minute."

The definition in the FDC agrees with most of the historical literature on the subject.

Sandy


I disagree. Traditionally, stand development has been defined as development without agitation. Initial agitation is an occasional feature, and not a defining one. Even so, my comments stand, even with initial agitation of one minute.

[welly]

That's good news! Stand development creates more problems than it solves. The trick is to identify the optimum agitation frequency for your requirements. For most people, the range of acceptable frequencies is quite large.

It is good news! My slightly wine-influenced eyes saw the worst when I first held up the negative. And then on closer inspection, I saw the "scratch" had a coil at the end, a shadow and a reflection. And then I realised scratches tend not to have any of those things.

I'm still, relatively speaking, at the beginning of my large format journey and so am keen to try different methods of shooting photographs and different methods of developing before I settle on what works best for me. So far, I'm really happy with and really enjoy tray development and have had the best results doing and now I'm just trying to hone down that to what I enjoy and what works best in tray development for me so thought stand development might be something worth trying out. It's all great fun to me and as no one is paying me for my "work", I'm able to screw up from time to time! And I do.

[Jay DeFehr]

It is good news! My slightly wine-influenced eyes saw the worst when I first held up the negative. And then on closer inspection, I saw the "scratch" had a coil at the end, a shadow and a reflection. And then I realised scratches tend not to have any of those things.

I'm still, relatively speaking, at the beginning of my large format journey and so am keen to try different methods of shooting photographs and different methods of developing before I settle on what works best for me. So far, I'm really happy with and really enjoy tray development and have had the best results doing and now I'm just trying to hone down that to what I enjoy and what works best in tray development for me so thought stand development might be something worth trying out. It's all great fun to me and as no one is paying me for my "work", I'm able to screw up from time to time! And I do.

If you enjoy tray development, I'd say you're lucky! Trays are cheap and simple, and if your technique makes them reliable, too, you can concentrate on the million other variables in your process. We all screw up from time to time, but as experience accumulates, time between screw-ups increases. I don't use trays for 4x5, but I sometimes do for 8x10. Normally, I develop one sheet at a time, in one tray, with intermittent brush agitation. This allows me to use very small solution volumes with dilute developers, and produces perfectly even development, without scratches or other defects. The downside is that I have long-ish development times, which makes developing a lot of film very time consuming. I could use a tray for each sheet of film, and develop as many sheets as I have trays, but I've never tried that.

I wish you continued success! Have fun!

[Brian C. Miller]

Welly, one of the things that you can do is use a "slosher." It's a thing that holds film, or at least limits its movement, in a tray. I built one (check the DIY forum), the Photographer's Formulary sells a couple of different sizes, and at least one of the other forum members uses a four sheet hanger with the ends bent. Kirk Gittings had some problems with his, but I think that he got them resolved.

There's also the William Mortensen development method (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?83131-Photographers-in-the-Doghouse-William-Mortensen-et-al&p=813060) (scans of results (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?43423-safe-haven-for-tiny-formats&p=813593&viewfull=1#post813593)), where development takes place over days in side a refrigerator. I've tried it, and it works. I've only done it with roll film so far, using Ilfosol 3. Load up your film on a spool, and put it in a development canister, as usual. Prepare your developer using cold water, or keep a container in the fridge. Pour cold developer into the canister, give it a good shake, and put it in the fridge. Give it a shake every 12 hours or so, like once in the morning, and once or twice in the evening. Do this for three to five days. The film comes out good.

I did it with Fuji Acros 100, in 120, and it came out just fine.

[Relayer]

I'm not agree about dilution. Last time I was experimented with not diluted developer in stand mode - its work fine (by example different PC-developers). Other interesting thing that I have result of push+3 in stand developer with success.

[sanking]

I disagree. Traditionally, stand development has been defined as development without agitation. Initial agitation is an occasional feature, and not a defining one. Even so, my comments stand, even with initial agitation of one minute.

Your comment suggests that your study of this subject is incomplete, or selective. Nearly all of the historical sources I have consulted, and most of the contemporary ones, clearly indicate that stand development includes an initial period of agitation. In fact, stand development is defined more by the fact that, 1) it relies on highly dilution solutions, and 2) very long development times than type or frequency of agitation.

BTW, there is a new book out on the subject. http://www.standdevelopment.com/the-book/

Sandy

[Jay DeFehr]

Sandy,

Again, I disagree. By definition, stand development refers to agitation, and not to dilution, or development time, which are secondary attributes as commonly practiced. One can stand develop in a concentrated developer with short development times, as a previous poster has mentioned, but one cannot stand develop with intermittent agitation, which, by definition is not stand development. Your own terminology is inconsistent with your claims here. You define semi-stand development as development with initial agitation and another period of agitation at the halfway point of development, inferring that stand refers to agitation frequency, and not to dilution or time of development. Indeed, the difference, according to you, between stand, semi-stand, extreme minimal, and minimal agitation is the frequency of agitation. I prefer the simpler terminology of agitation frequency -- a much more direct and unambiguous terminology that covers the entire spectrum of agitation regimes, and is easy to visualize (for me) as a wave form, with frequency and amplitude, both of which affect results.

And I'm aware of the book -- it includes some discussion of my GSD-10 formula (Glycin Stand Developer 10X concentration). This is from the author's website:


To “stand” is literally to let film stand or sit in a developer

It's ludicrous to suggest the term "Stand development" doesn't refer to agitation, and the lack thereof, as the term was meant to distinguish between development with agitation, and development without, and so it's no surprise that's how the term is commonly used, and was used by the OP in his unambiguous thread title (No-agitation developing?), to which I replied. As usual, you don't contest the content of my post, which might actually be useful, but try to construct an objection out of thin air. And now I suppose you'll claim I've attacked you personally. This is how these things usually go, isn't it? Why don't you give it a rest?

[Michael Kadillak]

Sufficient information and the correct contact reference points exist within this thread to go offline and do some exploration in a productive and positive environment.

I saw Sandy's print made using this technique to tackle a challenging set of tonal ranges when he produced a print of an old West barber chair in Bannock, Montana. It was simply marvelous to see what he attained within the print that I saw in the natural light at the time the photograph was made. At the time I though he was wasting a perfectly good sheet of film along with a productive block of time to make images.

You can all the process anything you want and it is completely meaningless. It is the result that matters.

[jp]

Here's (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/18595-USA/Fujifilm_15435626_FP_100C_Professional_Instant_Color.html) a non-agitation system for developing film. :)

[Jay DeFehr]

Michael,

No one claimed low frequency agitation isn't useful. My comments were strictly confined to no-agitation development, as specified by the OP, but I extend my comments to include development with only a short initial agitation period. We can agree there are benefits to using a dilute developer with low frequency agitation, and sensible people can agree there are risks associated with long standing periods. My comment simply suggested there is a large range of frequencies within which results are acceptable for most people. For people with more exacting standards, the range is smaller, but the lower the agitation frequency, the greater the risk of development defects. No one, incidentally, has challenged my claim, though, ironically, some have made snide comments about my knowledge of the subject. If you think this environment is negative, you might read this thread and see for yourself who made it so.

[sanking]

Please try to avoid personal comments. The issue is not about whether you agree with me or not. It is about the definition of stand development. You can have any opinion you like, but the definition of stand development is determined by consulting historical and contemporary usage of the term.

In an earlier thread you wrote, “I would remind you both that stand development is defined as no agitation (as correctly stated by the OP), not infrequent agitation.”

That is simply not true. Stand development is generally defined exactly as Stephen G. Anchell and Bill Troop defined it in The Film Developing Cookbook.

“Stand development is a technique which relies upon highly dilute developers and extremely long development times. This means film development times of thirty minutes to several hours with no agitation after the initial minute.”

A similar definition is also used by Michael Axel in the new book on stand development I referenced in an earlier message.

“Stand definition is a variation of standard film processing, whereby the film is given the initial agitation, then left to stand with no farther agitation, for an extended period of time. “

With regards to the merits of stand development I have made the case many times that the most critical period of development is the initial agitation at the beginning of development. Many of the failures of stand development can be traced to inadequate agitation during this critical period.

Sandy

[sanking]

And just for the record, I definitely consider Steve Sherman one of the "primary innovators" in the use of stand and semi-stand development procedures over the past decade. Working in both 5X7 and ULF film sizes he has produced a large body of work on silver gelatin that would be the envy of most photographers on this forum. I know that some of that work has involved the use of stand type development. Steve has also shared his techniques with many photographers, through articles in View Camera and with photographers in the New England Large Format Collective

And his work has received extensive external validation, both in his home area and in one-person galleries in Toronto and at the prestigious Paul Paletti Gallery in Louisiville.

For those interested in minimal agitation techniques there is a long and informative thread on the subject in the archives of the AZO forum, hosted by Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee. Anyone interested in the technique could do themselves a favor by reading those threads, and by consulting the articles published by Steve Sherman in View Camera magazine.

Sandy

[Jay DeFehr]

Sandy,

You're claiming your issue is that I referred to "No-agitation development" as stand development? Really? And you're not embarrassed by this? You can define anything any way you like, but it doesn't make it so. Reasonable people understand the term stand development to refer to development without agitation, whatever the technical details, and if I had nothing better to do, I could cite innumerable examples of just such usage. Developer dilution and term of development are related, but not definitive, which is why it's not called dilute development, or extended development, and why Axel's definition centers on agitation, and not developer dilution (not mentioned) or development time.

I'm not sure who you're arguing with about the importance of initial agitation -- did you imagine I claimed otherwise? I know you're in a tough spot, because you really have nothing upon which to base your objections, since you can't disagree with anything I've actually written, except to claim stand development doesn't refer to standing in developer, which must be awkward, at best.

[Jay DeFehr]

And just for the record, I definitely consider Steve Sherman one of the "primary innovators" in the use of stand and semi-stand development procedures over the past decade. Working in both 5X7 and ULF film sizes he has produced a large body of work on silver gelatin that would be the envy of most photographers on this forum. I know that some of that work has involved the use of stand type development. Steve has also shared his techniques with many photographers, through articles in View Camera and with photographers in the New England Large Format Collective

And his work has received extensive external validation, both in his home area and in one-person galleries in Toronto and at the prestigious Paul Paletti Gallery in Louisiville.

For those interested in minimal agitation techniques there is a long and informative thread on the subject in the archives of the AZO forum, hosted by Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee. Anyone interested in the technique could do themselves a favor by reading those threads, and by consulting the articles published by Steve Sherman in View Camera magazine.

Sandy

No one said Steve didn't do good work -- I'm sure he's quite competent -- but what exactly was his innovation, and why does it place him above photographers like Atget or Mortensen, who might reasonably be considered "primary innovators", long before Sherman arrived on the scene? Let's be honest, there's nothing particularly complicated about low frequency agitation with dilute developers, if that's the definition you prefer, and there's nothing you or Sherman have said that hasn't been said before.

[sanking]

Sandy,

You're claiming your issue is that I referred to "No-agitation development" as stand development? Really? And you're not embarrassed by this? You can define anything any way you like, but it doesn't make it so. Reasonable people understand the term stand development to refer to development without agitation, whatever the technical details, and if I had nothing better to do, I could cite innumerable examples of just such usage.

No, Jay, reasonable people define stand development exactly as did Anchell/Troop and Axel.

What you wrote was this. “I would remind you both that stand development is defined as no agitation (as correctly stated by the OP), not infrequent agitation.”

Sorry, but the way you define stand development is not the way most other reasonable people define it. If you want to wade through the contemporary and historical literature and find someone who defines it the way you want you are free to do so.

Sandy

[sanking]

No one said Steve didn't do good work -- I'm sure he's quite competent -- but what exactly was his innovation, and why does it place him above photographers like Atget or Mortensen, who might reasonably be considered "primary innovators", long before Sherman arrived on the scene? Let's be honest, there's nothing particularly complicated about low frequency agitation with dilute developers, if that's the definition you prefer, and there's nothing you or Sherman have said that hasn't been said before.

I did not compare Sherman to Atget or Mortensen. I wrote that Sherman was a primary innovator "over the past decade." Why don't you bother to read what other people write before you reply?

The complication with minimal agitation procedures is in the details and the doing, not in the talking. I recognize the contribution of Steve Sherman because he is a doer, with a body of work to support what he does. Talk is cheap. Accomplishments that are widely recognized by others require hard work.

Sandy

[Steve Sherman]

Been quite sometime since I've visited the Forums prior to the one line post in this thread. Sadly, I'm clearly reminded why.

Thanks Sandy and others for your kind words, the rest, focus your energy being creative!

Cheers!

[Andrew O'Neill]

For me stand development is vigorous agitation in very dilute pyrocat-hd in a BTZS 8x10 tube (tube is filled to the top with developer) for the first minute, halfway through tube is opened and film is flipped upside down, and that's it. I do semi-stand in a tray, again dilute pyrocat-hd and vigorous agitation at the beginning for 1 minute, then 3sec every 10 minutes.

Pros: enhanced sharpness and edge effects. Cons: chance of mottling/streaking/bromide drag effects.
When stand or semi-stand is anticipated, I always shoot a backup just incase.

PS. I love this site, even with all the good, the bad, and the ugly!

[Bill Burk]

...I saw the "scratch" had a coil at the end, a shadow and a reflection. And then I realised scratches tend not to have any of those things.

Well, it's great that it's not a scratch.

I've gotten so accustomed to scratches that I have accepted them as part of my style. But I do try to minimize them. I process six 4x5 sheets at a time in a 5x7 porcelain tray emulsion up. I attend to each sheet so long as the film is wet. I carry my process motions all the way through 20 minutes of washing, never letting the film sit unattended until it is hanging to dry. I recently experimented with changing the agitation to a single sheet, and it's fine. I actually have more control over agitation (12 rocks per minute) but found that I am more comfortable with six sheets, and am willing to take that risk of physical damage. Yesterday I developed six sheets in D-76 1:1 for 13 minutes and they came out nicely.

Tonight, after spotting out two pinholes with spotone, I printed my favorite shot, possibly to be the favorite shot of the whole vacation (I made a point of developing the beach shots first because I thought I had something). First test strip with my new enlarger lamp head was way too dark. Second test strip looked perfect but the print (on Grade 2) is a bit flat. Guess I mixed my Grade 3 and Grade 2 test strips in the paper safe, I'll have to throw out all the test strips. The print will have to be reprinted when I get some Grade 3 paper. I rushed the processing and put it in selenium toner after only a quick rinse after fixing. Turned the paper brown. Never saw that before. There wasn't hypo-clear in the toner, maybe that's critically important if you jump from fix to toner?

So the coincidence that motivated me to write... There, between my daughter and my father, are several very fine wavy strands that made my stomach sink. But no mistaking it. My daughter was showing off her collection of seaweed! It looks exactly like the scratches I try so hard to avoid.

[Flauvius]

To ensure scratch free negatives, use a "can" and a rod for agitation.

Given that the rod does not come in contact with the film, it is impossible to scratch your film so long as you develop one sheet at a time. To assure that you can remove a sheet of wet film from your "can", use a paint brush handle to create a gap between the "can" wall and the back of the sheet of film.

From my experience, the critical thing about "stand", "semi-stand", "minimal", or "normal" development is your agitation technique and developer temperature. I would compare the requisite technique to playing a violin, your stroke must be delicate but firm, and consistent.

As Steve Sherman's work shows, once you know what you are doing - "stand" development, and however you want to define it, works like a charm every time!

[Bill Burk]

... Second test strip looked perfect but the print (on Grade 2) is a bit flat...

The print turns out to have been made on MGIV (unfiltered under a greenish Aristo lamp - must be giving me Grade 0), I found that box on top when I reached for another sheet of Galerie 2. Prints tonight are fine on Grade 2 and match the test strip...

[Michael Kadillak]

Gaseous burst agitation is another developing option with this technique. You can either find an interval timer that controls the power to the solenoid value or manually control the development agitation cycle. The film is in Kodak 4A hangers and is never contacted to eliminate the risk of scratching and you can pull single sheets out of the tank for IR inspection of desired highlight development.