Originally Posted by 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.
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!
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 (scans of results), 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.
"It's the way to educate your eyes. Stare. Pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long." - Walker Evans
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.
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
For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
[url]https://groups.io/g/carbon
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:
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?To “stand” is literally to let film stand or sit in a developer
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.
Here's a non-agitation system for developing film.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks