Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 70

Thread: Underdevelopment through Stand development possible?

  1. #51
    Cor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Leiden, The Netherlands
    Posts
    764

    Re: Underdevelopment through Stand development possible?

    Steve,

    Thanks for your detailed answer ! I'll try to upload an scan, but I fear that the subtleties are lost, but at least it will give an idea.

    Let me elaborate a bit on my empirical approach : I was never happy with the shadow rendering of Fomapan100 (I blame it on the horrible reciproke nature of Fomapan) so I ventured into semi-stand development: idea being that the shadow regions would develop more and the high lights would be restrained at the same time.

    This approach worked more or less but yielded prints with quite extreme accutance, an unnatural sharpness for landscape for my taste, but very suited for modern architecture.

    So now I reserve the combo Fomapan/semi stand for modern architecture: usually I obtain relative thin negatives, but sometimes the negative is quite thick and I see some bromide drag.

    Details:

    Fomapan 100 at 50 asa

    Pre rinse the 4*5 film in water for 3 minutes


    Fill a tube with a lid (something similar to a BTZS tube) with 350ml Pyrocat HDC (1+1+250), 20degC

    Insert the film in the tube close lid, invert tube for 1 minute

    Let stand for 60 min, invert 4 times at 15, 30 & 45 min

    etc.

    Best,
    Cor

  2. #52
    Cor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Leiden, The Netherlands
    Posts
    764

    Re: Underdevelopment through Stand development possible?

    As promised here a scan of my latest Fomapan 100/ Semi-stand ( or minimal agitation) 4*5 negative, printed on Forte Fortenzo fixed grade (normal). And a close up of the bromide drag (the negative was inserted in "landscape" orientation), I used PS to exaggerate the bromide drag.

    Granted it isn't modern architecture it was a test shot.

    Best

    Cor

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BetonSilo.jpg 
Views:	82 
Size:	84.2 KB 
ID:	129517

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BetonSiloBromideDrag.jpg 
Views:	89 
Size:	78.0 KB 
ID:	129518

  3. #53
    Steve Sherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Central Connecticut
    Posts
    795

    Re: Underdevelopment through Stand development possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cor View Post
    As promised here a scan of my latest Fomapan 100/ Semi-stand ( or minimal agitation) 4*5 negative, printed on Forte Fortenzo fixed grade (normal). And a close up of the bromide drag (the negative was inserted in "landscape" orientation), I used PS to exaggerate the bromide drag.

    Granted it isn't modern architecture it was a test shot.

    Best

    Cor

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BetonSilo.jpg 
Views:	82 
Size:	84.2 KB 
ID:	129517



    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BetonSiloBromideDrag.jpg 
Views:	89 
Size:	78.0 KB 
ID:	129518
    Hello Cor,

    I've read your description and had a look at the scans. I believe what may be your problem is the dilution of the Pyrocat is too weak. My initial tests went so far as a 1-1-225, there was a significant drop off of density after 1-1-200, therefore I never dilute more than 1-1-200 with the A portion even with extreme compensation of N-5 or N-6. I will however drop the B to 66% of the A solution to combat chemical fog. I do believe there exists a delicate balance between dilution, time in solution and agitation. Further, with extreme lengths of time in solution with significant time between agitation cycles there is a definite edge effect that increases to the point of negatives reminding me of a "fractured" grain pattern. In the early stages of my refinement of the process I did Semi-Stand as my standard development technique, that is one initial agitation and then only one in the middle for times ranging from 20 minutes to 75 minutes. I would see the occasional signs of Bromide drag or unexplained artifacts in even toned areas such as blank skies.

    I switched my method to two agitation cycles and shorten my times and that by in large has alleviated the Bromide problems. As an example of my method, my Normal Dev. for FP4 reads like this: 70 degrees. 5(A) - 3(B) -800(water)ml with a 2 minute initial agitation by inversion and rotation in a 3 " diameter tube. Let stand for 8 minutes, 20 sec. agitation by I / Rotation let stand for 8 minutes, 20 sec. agitation let stand for 8 minutes and out to stop bath. Film is rated at full film speed and developed to a highlight density of 1.00. (That's a whole other discussion.) As an FYI, my N - 5 is 70 degrees with a dilution @ 4 - 2.5 - 800 with a 1.25 minute initial agitation let stand for 5.5 minutes, 10 sec. agitation let stand 5.5 minutes, 10 sec. agitation let stand 5.5 minutes and out to stop bath. As an FYI, this works fine with FP 4, for some reason if I drop the B portion under 3 with HP 5 the density falls off considerably this is why I say your thin negs at 1/2 film speed are likely due to the developer is just too weak.

    The above regime is the only way I have developed film since 2003 so I have become very intuitive as to minor changes needed to develop the second identically exposed piece of film that I shoot of each scene. I have developed Normal contrast negs using continuous agitation in a tray and find the accutance of the negs to be extremely close to that of Minimal Agitation negs. Leading me to believe that Minimal Agitation forms of negative development are most beneficial when the extremes of scene contrast need manipulation, whether it be extreme expansion or extreme compression. I do have example prints that bare these findings which need to be scanned...someday.

    Cheers


    Real photographs are born wet !

    www.PowerOfProcessTips.com

  4. #54
    Cor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Leiden, The Netherlands
    Posts
    764

    Re: Underdevelopment through Stand development possible?

    Steve,

    Thanks for your elaborate answer, I appreciate it !
    And more work to do.

    Best,

    Cor

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Oregon now (formerly Austria)
    Posts
    3,397

    Re: Underdevelopment through Stand development possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings View Post
    I'll chime in too-I've long been a fan of your work, refined and elegant.
    Thank you Kirk, your work has long had my admiration as well! I get stuck on your website whenever I visit.

    Doremus

  6. #56
    Alan McDonald alanmcd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    100

    Re: Underdevelopment through Stand development possible?

    I seem to be doing a lot of reading on this subject. Not specifically on whether you can under-develop with stand development but on everything to do with stand development and hopefully its use with 4x5" film. I've tried to eliminate several issues which cause an over-developed edge to my film.
    I've posted elsewhere here and some of you have offered your advice. Thank you.
    I want to ignore the question as to why I want to use stand development. I'm exercising my artistic prerogative and that's all I should need to say on the subject. So let's not go there.

    But it occurs to me that many people who do not experience a problem with stand development are developing 35mm or 120 film. It's only when people move up to 4x5" that a constant issue arises with no clear answer why.
    I've already posted images elsewhere showing a lightened edge to the film positive. I have ruled out camera, holders, loading/unloading technique, temperature control. I have also ruled out under/over exposure issues. The recurrent theme is that the negative is darker along the top edge corresponding to the film position in the MOD54 and paterson tank.
    There may be no issue with stand development in other tank arrangements. So if you do not use this method and have no problem, your claim to that is moot at this point.

    The light edge is not associate with the presence or not of a highlight on the edge of the photo in question. It is undeniably related to whatever edge is UP in the tank. The top edge is over-developed.
    Some accuse chemical reaction heat and convection, some accuse 400 film as the culprit, some accuse lack of agitation, some accuse too vigorous agitation, some too long, some not long enough, some too concentrated, some not concentrated enough.
    I can say without hesitation, here that if there were indeed a clear answer to this problem, there would be just one sticky note and that's all we'd need to have finally solved this. The problem is discussed in flickr, APUG, photo.net and here. We have bromide as an issue and we have claims that there's no bromide in Rodinal and yet other claims that it's a bromide "effect" even though no bromide is not present.

    I pre-wash in filtered water and everything from pre-wash through development is temperature controlled in a temp bath. I even pre-wash in 18C to account for the minor lift when first filling the tank.

    None of my photos are throwaway. They are easy to fix on post process. But I'm like a dog with a bone sometimes. I'd love to get that feeling I get when I finally solve a nagging problem.
    And I shall try yet another method now. Halve the concentrate (1:200), double the time (2hrs), invert at 15, 30 and 1hr, leave for the last hour.

    If it's 400 speed or film brand issue, there will never be a solution unless I change film. But if it's just chemistry, then surely there's an answer.

    Alan

  7. #57
    Alan McDonald alanmcd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    100

    Re: Underdevelopment through Stand development possible?

    Another little test I'm doing, I've placed a piece of film straight out of the packet into my measuring jug already containing 1:100 Rodinal solution.
    After 45 minutes, the film is darkened, obviously, but what I see in the clear plastic jug is the solution turning brownish and becoming darker brown/denser? towards the bottom of the jug. There's actually a dark layer on the bottom of the jug. It's almost clear at the top.
    It may not be an upward convection causing this (as some people claim it to be temperature), but a downward convection of material with higher specific gravity. This would displace the developer on the bottom no?
    Seems to me that the top is gathering fresher solution by virtue of this displacement.

    Would this not argue for more agitation, as gentle as it needs to be, more frequently to overcome this?
    Alan

  8. #58
    Alan McDonald alanmcd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    100

    Re: Underdevelopment through Stand development possible?

    Huh!
    After an hour, the solution has now returned to a consistent light brown colour throughout.
    No more darker brown on the lower half of the jug.

    Does this suggest that the over development is taking place in the first half of the process due to this downward specific gravity current?
    Does it explain why one roll of 35mm or 120 film developed in this manner suffers less from this effect since the current needs to travel less in a shallower solution and a return to a homogenous mix occurs sooner?
    Might someone who likes doing 2 rolls of 35mm at a time experience this effect as more pronounced on the top roll?
    I am not keeping control of temperature here, it wouldn't matter for this test. Other than the chem reaction occurring slightly faster at room temp versus 20C.
    Alan

  9. #59
    Alan McDonald alanmcd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    100

    Re: Underdevelopment through Stand development possible?

    My null hypothesis is as follows:
    That it will make no difference to the presence of an over-developed top edge of each film in a development process, if I alter the processing to 1:200 dilution of Rodinal, and invert very gently for 30s, and then again every 5 minutes for the first 20 minutes, then let the tank stand for the balance of the 1 hr 40m.
    All temperatures controlled at 20C, 6 pieces of Ilford HP5+ 400, Paterson Super System 4 Tank c/w MOD54 in 1,100ml developer solution (to ensure total coverage).
    Alan

  10. #60
    Tin Can's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22,389

    Re: Underdevelopment through Stand development possible?

    I tried 1 hour stand with 8x10 Ektascan SS X-Ray in hangers with 1/100 Rodinol and got nice dragging/sagging smears from human heads shot against grey backdrop. Real noticeable. No good. I agitated dip/lift/tilt/dunk for 2 minutes at start. 1 minute same at 30 minutes and gave up after 24 sheets.

    I now use 1/100 Rodinol on hangers. Drop in, put on a light tight cover and gas burst for 1 second every 10 seconds for 10 minutes. Looks good to me. DIY system.

Similar Threads

  1. Stand and semi-stand development...is there a primer?
    By Kimberly Anderson in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 24-Oct-2014, 15:59
  2. Pyrocat-HD for Stand and Semi-Stand Development
    By C. D. Keth in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 14-Jan-2013, 18:04
  3. Minus Development versus Stand Development
    By Michael Graves in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 7-Jun-2011, 17:35
  4. What is stand development, semi-stand development, Agfa development?
    By ericzhu in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 21-Dec-2008, 10:35
  5. Stand development and D-76?
    By Greg Nelson in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 17-Aug-2005, 13:19

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •