Underdevelopment through Stand development possible?

[RodinalDuchamp]

I am trying to figure out how to under develop with rodinal. This has a very specific application and it will not be for all, most, or some circumstances. I use semi stand development with reasonable success. I have been using increasingly dilute solutions but still have not crossed the threshold at which the film becomes underdeveloped. Currently I am experimenting with 3ml Rodinal to 1000ml H2O for 1 4x5 sheet. This yields a normal development. I have tried developing 2 sheets in the same dilution and yet again the result was normal development. Does anyone know the absolute minimum amount of Rodinal per 4x5 sheet?

I am trying to restrain glaring highlights, an extremely dilute solution may achieve the results I am looking for. My next step is to try 2ml Rodinal to 1000ml H2O.

[RSalles]

Rodinal,

If my memory doesn't threats me, 6.5cc per L of water. I recommend to not diminish the amount of Rodinal but increase water and use the base 6.5cc in a larger container.
Underdevelopment is when you intend to develop for certain grade of contrast and the result is less then intended, you're doing N-* (normal less 1,2,3...) development, which is another story. I arrived to use 1:200 with Rodinal in stand for 2 hrs and got a nice negative. Bear in mind that the ISO speed increases maybe more then 1/3 ISO but YMMV,

Cheers,

Renato

[stiganas]

I use Rodinal 1:500 with good result but I don't know the capacity. I am also curious to find out. I plan to develop 12 test X-ray sheets 9x12 in an Yankee Agitank (this means 3ml of Rodinal for 1.5l working solution).

I tested 1:1000 Rodinal with Arista Ortho Litho Film 2.0 and the result was a bit strange (brown negatives) but still acceptable. I work at 25C or higher.

[Jody_S]

Developing to exhaustion (developer exhaustion) is pretty easy. Keep reducing the amount of developer per sheet until you get the result you want. I think you'll find acceptable results with 0.5-1.5ml / 4x5 sheet. I use something like 2-2.3ml/ 8x10 sheet of double-sided X-ray film (Ilfotec HC, HC-110). Dilution, time and temperature won't matter that much (I've tried 15-30 degrees C, 3-10m, dilution is limited by the capacity of my drum). I make a stock solution, and measure an amount of that to use in drum processing. I can vary the amount of stock I put in the drum to give me compensating development for individual sheets.

Using distilled or de-ionized water will help a lot. I do a pre-wash with warm distilled water as well.

[Michael R]

I am trying to figure out how to under develop with rodinal. This has a very specific application and it will not be for all, most, or some circumstances. I use semi stand development with reasonable success. I have been using increasingly dilute solutions but still have not crossed the threshold at which the film becomes underdeveloped. Currently I am experimenting with 3ml Rodinal to 1000ml H2O for 1 4x5 sheet. This yields a normal development. I have tried developing 2 sheets in the same dilution and yet again the result was normal development. Does anyone know the absolute minimum amount of Rodinal per 4x5 sheet?

I am trying to restrain glaring highlights, an extremely dilute solution may achieve the results I am looking for. My next step is to try 2ml Rodinal to 1000ml H2O.

From a sensitometric perspective, restraining highlights with this method will not really do anything you can't do by simply reducing development time. Less contrast, less emulsion speed, no magic.

[RodinalDuchamp]

Yes I am open to time adjustments too but the idea here is to maximize compensation less time may not achieve the same result.

[Michael R]

You should really test it for yourself. Dilute Rodinal/stand/semi-stand is one of those things - claims are made, tempers flare, war breaks out. Ultimately, however, it is largely myth and hyperbole.

[RodinalDuchamp]

I am currently testing. I'm at 3:1000 and still normal results. I will take Jody's advice and give 1ml-1000 a shor

[Steve Sherman]

From a sensitometric perspective, restraining highlights with this method will not really do anything you can't do by simply reducing development time. Less contrast, less emulsion speed, no magic.

With all due respect Michael R you are 100% incorrect in the above comment.

I am not familiar with Rodinal so I cannot speak to that question, I can however, speak to PyroCat and Ilford Films and can assure those interested, Semi-Stand, Extreme Minimal Agitation or Reduced Agitation forms of Development will yield FULL film Speed, MAXIMUM mid tone contrast while restraining highlight DENSITY to a greater degree than any other form of film development, naturally, each contrast scenario dictates it's own set of times, dilutions and agitation cycles.

Once you have arrived at a set of times / dilutions as scores of photographers I have shared the technique with you'll be able to photograph in virtually any lighting condition that presents itself !

See this link if you would like to read more about the evolution of Semi-Stand film development. http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/24023-semi-stand-description-illustratvie-photo.html

Cheers !

[Michael R]

Hi Mr. Sherman,

I believe we've disagreed on certain aspects of this process before so it isn't worth arguing about. My comment above concerned Rodinal since that is what OP is using. Different developers will behave differently (Pyrocat is entirely different than Rodinal in formulation). The film itself is an important variable. In any case, testing is required, not only to evaluate whether or not the process "works", but to establish a process which yields as many of the benefits of minimal/semi-stand procedures as possible while avoiding things like uneven development. Lots of variables involved.

Best,
Michael

[frotog]

From a sensitometric perspective, restraining highlights with this method will not really do anything you can't do by simply reducing development time. Less contrast, less emulsion speed, no magic.

The advantage of restraining highlights with Rodinal stand development has everything to do with developing the shadows to completion. This in fact is very different than pulling development with a standard agitation scheme. For starters, unlike pulling the development, with stand dev. you gain emulsion speed due to the increased density in shadow areas.

For the OP, if your desire is to restrain highlights as much as possible, use a single gentle inversion at the beginning of the process. The difference between a gentle inversion and the usual 5" or 10" agitation scheme at the start of an hour long stand session is very noticeable in regards to highlight density.

[Michael R]

The advantage of restraining highlights with Rodinal stand development has everything to do with developing the shadows to completion. This in fact is very different than pulling development with a standard agitation scheme. For starters, unlike pulling the development, with stand dev. you gain emulsion speed due to the increased density in shadow areas.



Ok you win. It isn't what the data show, but I'm not here to argue.

[Peter De Smidt]

If you want highlight compensation and full film speed, you really should try divided Pyrocat.

[Kirk Gittings]

If you want highlight compensation and full film speed, you really should try divided Pyrocat.

ditto

[Steve Sherman]

You should really test it for yourself. Dilute Rodinal/stand/semi-stand is one of those things - claims are made, tempers flare, war breaks out. Ultimately, however, it is largely myth and hyperbole.

Certainly the internet is a wealth of information, all of us have benefited in so many ways through shared experiences. However, the internet is also a wealth of miss information as reflected in the above quote. I simply can not understand why the above statement was posted. Clearly Michael you have either been completely unsuccessful with reduced agitation forms of film development or you have no knowledge of the process whatsoever and chose to make an unfounded statement for reasons that escape me.

The scores of photographers who don't know for sure if the process is what I claim it to be are left to believe the loudest voice and in most cases it is not me, I have little time to argue with folks who simply make erroneous statements about something they clearly have no knowledge of or who have been unsuccessful with so therefore it can't possibly work.

That is until now, I have begun teaching workshops on the Power of Process which covers Pyro chemistry and Reduced Agitation forms of film development. Admittedly, I have a narrow window of expertise when it comes to the Black and White Large Format genre, but within that window statements such as the two you've made in this thread along with others where you and I have shared differing views leads me to believe there are some who say things to hear themselves while others say things in the hopes of passing on knowledge that has been researched and proven to be of significant value to the wet process film photographer.

So, let me explain to all who care to listen why the process works and is so incredibly powerful on so many levels.

As was loosely alluded to by another informed poster, when developer is diluted to such a degree that the areas of the film that are most heavily sensitized (highlights) quickly exhaust the developer, hence these densities are restrained due to developer exhaustion. While the shadows ( areas of density dictated more by exposure than development ) continue to build density even with dilute developers. So, it becomes a relationship of dilution and extended amounts of time and frequency of agitation, or in this case lack of agitation, thereby allowing the shadows to fully develop, hence the claim of Max Film Speed while the highlights are never allowed to fully develop to a density that Normal development would have allowed for. Hence the claim of extreme compression of highlights is possible. These two extremes of the film's response are fairly easy to test for and ultimately control. In workshops I liken these two components as nothing more than the Levels function in PS.

The real advantage of Reduced Agitation forms of film development are seen in the mid tone area, micro contrast, the relationship of adjacent tonalities is greatly exaggerated and for those who have years of B&W printing experience understand that is the most difficult part of the print to effect the desired result. In workshop settings I liken this effect as the Curves function in PS to put it in perspective for the hybrid photographer.

While I cannot speak with specificity to the results of Rodinal, I can offer what I believe to be true, the process of Reduced Agitation is much more about the process and effect than it is about one developer to another or use with different films. Certain Film Developer combinations may yield greater results but I am quite confident the effect with be dramatic no matter the developer or film used when the correct dilutions / agitation relationships are used.

Lastly, I've attached two scenes that should dramatically illustrate the Creative potential and ability to make a statement such as, when one masters this process the ability to photograph in any lighting condition and produce a printable negative is entirely possible.

Utah Back Country Erosion, one degree spot meter told me of no more than 3 zones of contrast in the original scene. This is the negative that actually was the first successful attempt with a one hour Semi-Stand with one 30 second agitation cycle at the mid way mark, this development roughly equates to N + 4 development. To see this negative side by side with an identically exposed negative processed with Weston's ABC Pyro prompted Michael A Smith to make a rather bold observation when he saw the two side by side. See my testimonials page here if you would like to learn his thoughts on the differences between the two processes.

http://www.steve-sherman.com/workshops.cfm

The other scene was shot in the interior of a Philadelphia prison. The walls ( with Zone 2 detail ) closest to the camera while the extreme highlights in the center of the scene read Zone 15, this negative received a Normal minus 5 development and is not a difficult print to make.

I have mentioned nothing about "increased sharpness" because it is a perception of greater sharpness but in reality sharpness is a function of lens resolution and the film's acutance. For me the process will always be about the Creative possibilities I now have which did not exist prior to the discovery of this technique.

Cheers,

[Michael R]

As I said before, you guys win. There is no need to fly apart at the seams. I don't use semi-stand techniques in my own work (most often under extremely high contrast circumstances), but I have done a lot of work on it and other related procedures out of interest in sensitometry and tone reproduction. I won't present any data or prints here as I have already done so elsewhere and I don't think it would help much, but in the interest of defending my reputation, I must at least point out that I don't make unfounded statements. In fact I am one of the few who present experimental data/evidence and cite reputable sources regarding theory/practice rather than offering what I believe to be true. I wish everyone the best in their image and print making.

[Peter De Smidt]

<snip> I won't present any data or prints here as I have already done so elsewhere...<snip>

Where?

[Michael R]

There is lots of it on APUG. I've only recently signed up on LFF (although I have followed periodically). Anyhow, there is no need to discuss this further. People go bonkers over nothing. In the end there are usually a variety of ways to get from subject to print.

[Kirk Gittings]

Just for the record you were the first one to throw stones in this thread:


You should really test it for yourself. Dilute Rodinal/stand/semi-stand is one of those things - claims are made, tempers flare, war breaks out. Ultimately, however, it is largely myth and hyperbole.

[Michael R]

Well, many claims, sometimes wild claims have been made over the years about dilute Rodinal with stand/semi-stand techniques with respect to both reducing contrast and maximizing emulsion speed. Almost no evidence of any kind has been presented.

Don't worry I won't be sullying these threads anymore. Carry on and happy printing

[Peter De Smidt]

I've not used Rodinal. I have no opinion on the matter as to whether using dilute Rodinal with stand/semi-stand techniques leads to increased emulsion speed and holding back of higher negative densities. I too like evidence, and I'd like to see, or be pointed to more directly, some of yours. If it was important enough for you to mention here, and if you agree that posting bold opinions without evidence should be avoided, then it's unclear to me why you won't present your evidence.

[Doremus Scudder]

Just for the record you were the first one to throw stones in this thread:


You should really test it for yourself. Dilute Rodinal/stand/semi-stand is one of those things - claims are made, tempers flare, war breaks out. Ultimately, however, it is largely myth and hyperbole.



Kirk,

I hardly think Michael's observations that people react vehemently to claims about semi-stand development, that these threads often turn into a heated exchange, and that much of the "information" exchanged is hyperbole amounts to "throwing stones." This thread seems to bear his prediction out. Michael has a well-researched and considered position that we should not be dismissing out-of-hand.

I'm completely neutral on this particular topic and would really like to see a comparison of Steven Benskin's data and Michael's.

I understand (and use) the principles of compensation-developing, but would really like to see sensitometric data showing that reduced agitation somehow trumps regular agitation. FWIW, I don't stand-develop or semi-stand develop. I do reduce agitation cycles for the last half of my developing time to promote edge effects, but that "reduction" is just once through the stack every 60 seconds as opposed to every 30 seconds. And, I manage to do fine with contractions up to N-4. The pyro developers I prefer don't do so well with expansions, and I have other ways of increasing contrast with those negatives, but have managed a nice N+3 with dilute HC-110 with longer times, but regular agitation. The point being that rather strong contractions and expansions can be achieved without semi-stand development.

Since I've not tried semi-stand, I won't discount it at all. In fact, if someone shows me a comparison between regular agitation schemes and reduced agitation schemes that indicates semi-stand to be better, I'll switch. I just need to see the comparison; not just data about what's possible with one or the other of these techniques, but a real side-by-side shoot out.

Any takers?

Doremus

[Michael R]

I'm completely neutral on this particular topic and would really like to see a comparison of Steven Benskin's data and Michael's.


Doremus - NEVER confuse Sherman with Benskin!!!!:)

[Toyon]

You could lower the temperature of the solution. Development speed at 62f is a lot slower than 68f. However, keeping it at that temp might be a bit of a challenge.

[Kirk Gittings]

I hardly think Michael's observations that people react vehemently to claims about semi-stand development, that these threads often turn into a heated exchange, and that much of the "information" exchanged is hyperbole amounts to "throwing stones."
Doremus
The technical term is "trolling". We became very conscious of it in the days of the flame wars.

[Kirk Gittings]

IMHO Artists operate oftentimes from the gut when it comes to tools, chemistry etc. I.E. if one believes a method or a material is better then one performs with greater confidence etc. While it may be bullshit scientifically such beliefs may very well positively affect the final product. See this study on the legendary Stradivarius: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10750846/Stradivarius-Youd-be-better-off-with-a-modern-violin.html. I have a friend who is both a violin performer and a repairer of violins including many Stadivarius's (what is the plural of this?). Listening to him play instruments he is working on, it is an amazing transformation when he picks up an plays a Strad. I think it may be the same with me in terms of digital vs. film or regular developers vs. pyro. So be it. In the arts not everything is (nor should be) quantifiable.

[sanking]

.......
I hardly think Michael's observations that people react vehemently to claims about semi-stand development, that these threads often turn into a heated exchange, and that much of the "information" exchanged is hyperbole amounts to "throwing stones." This thread seems to bear his prediction out. Michael has a well-researched and considered position that we should not be dismissing out-of-hand.

I'm completely neutral on this particular topic and would really like to see a comparison of Steven Benskin's data and Michael's.
......
Doremus

Why are we discussing comparing Steven Benskiin's data with that of Michael R? I have seen Steven Benkin's writings and don't want to dismiss Michael R out-of-hand, but I am not familiar with his data or writings.

Putting aside for the moment aesthetic issues, my own tests with several developers indicates that with continuous or intermittent agitation you lose emulsion speed by shortening development time to achieve compensation, whereas full emulsion speed is possible with stand, semi-stand and/or two-bath development, with extreme compensation. In my tests this has been true with both pyro and non-pyro developers, though to be clear, my tests have not included Rodinal.

Sandy

[Mark Sawyer]

I use semi stand development with reasonable success...

I am trying to restrain glaring highlights, an extremely dilute solution may achieve the results I am looking for...

I'd recommend going to full stand (zero agitation) development. The theory behind the method is that without agitation, the denser parts of the image exhaust the developer, limiting development as it progresses, while in less-dense areas, the developer is less exhausted and continues to build density where it's needed. Each agitation cycle reduces this effect by bringing fresh developer to the areas it was exhausted in.

[Michael R]

The technical term is "trolling". We became very conscious of it in the days of the flame wars.

Really? And what do you call it when someone spouts a page of targeted nonsense unrelated to the original topic, including an advertisement for his workshops?

Based on your post count I guess you are part of the core elite membership here, so you get a free pass on anything you write. I suppose that's only fair, but it doesn't mean that you have any idea what you're talking about.

[Taija71A]

Kirk, I hardly think Michael's observations that people react vehemently to claims about semi-stand development, that these threads often turn into a heated exchange, and that much of the "information" exchanged is hyperbole amounts to "throwing stones." This thread seems to bear his prediction out.

Michael has a well-researched and considered position that we should not be dismissing out-of-hand...

+1.

[Michael R]

Sandy, I believe the reference to Stephen Benskin was a typo and was supposed to be Sherman. As you probably know Stephen Benskin is a true scholar of exposure and tone reproduction theory. I've learnt a lot from him, as have many others, so please leave his good name out of this thread.

For the record I am in agreement with most of what you've said here, in particular two-bath and divided development (which gives excellent emulsion speed and a relatively straightened characteristic curve - as opposed to severely flattened highlight densities). I am familiar with your writings, tests and articles and thank you for doing the work you've done over the years.

I assure you all my intention here was not to start any flame wars. It was simply making a statement about many of the wild claims out there regarding dilute Rodinal with stand/semi-stand agitation (I differentiate semi-stand from minimal agitation so apologies if the semantics are in the way).


Why are we discussing comparing Steven Benskiin's data with that of Michael R? I have seen Steven Benkin's writings and don't want to dismiss Michael R out-of-hand, but I am not familiar with his data or writings.

Putting aside for the moment aesthetic issues, my own tests with several developers indicates that with continuous or intermittent agitation you lose emulsion speed by shortening development time to achieve compensation, whereas full emulsion speed is possible with stand, semi-stand and/or two-bath development, with extreme compensation. In my tests this has been true with both pyro and non-pyro developers, though to be clear, my tests have not included Rodinal.

Sandy

[Taija71A]

The technical term is "trolling"...

I guess then, that Hurter and Driffield (H&D) Curves and the 'More Advanced' Darkroom Sensitometric Characteristics... Definitely need not apply! :)
--
Best regards,

-Tim.
_________

[sanking]

I assure you all my intention here was not to start any flame wars. It was simply making a statement about many of the wild claims out there regarding dilute Rodinal with stand/semi-stand agitation (I differentiate semi-stand from minimal agitation so apologies if the semantics are in the way).



Michael,

OK, I have very little experience with Rodinal so would welcome your reasoning and/or data regarding how it works with dilute solutions. My apologies if this has been discussed on APUG but I have not actively participated there for many years and don't recall seeing any discussion on this issue.

Sandy

[Steve Sherman]

In fact I am one of the few who present experimental data/evidence and cite reputable sources regarding theory/practice rather than offering what I believe to be true.
Please direct us to any visual comparisons / photographs on the APUG site so that we may draw our own conclusions relative to your subjective observations.
Cheers.

[Doremus Scudder]

Why are we discussing comparing Steven Benskiin's data with that of Michael R? I have seen Steven Benkin's writings and don't want to dismiss Michael R out-of-hand, but I am not familiar with his data or writings.

Putting aside for the moment aesthetic issues, my own tests with several developers indicates that with continuous or intermittent agitation you lose emulsion speed by shortening development time to achieve compensation, whereas full emulsion speed is possible with stand, semi-stand and/or two-bath development, with extreme compensation. In my tests this has been true with both pyro and non-pyro developers, though to be clear, my tests have not included Rodinal.

Sandy

First, apologies to all for confusing Steve Sherman with Steven Benskin (especially to the two Stevens). This thread didn't need the extra confusion. Sorry, I was simply asleep at the switch.

Second, Sandy, your comment above about losing full film speed with is just the type of thing I am interested in hearing. I'd be interested in learning the details: dilutions, agitation schemes, etc. Can you point us to your test results?

Michael, if you wouldn't mind directing us to your work relative to this, I'm sure it would be appreciated.

And gentlemen, I'm not being all that lazy. Yes, we could all search here and at APUG and dig through all your posts to find the relevant information, but having you direct us or post the info here is so much more efficient and less time consuming for us all...

Thanks and apologies one more time for the confusion,

Doremus

[bob carnie]

I have never practiced semi stand development, but I have had the opportunity to see large prints silver of Steve Sherman and of course I have seen hundreds of Carbon Prints of Sandy Kings.

If they are both using Semi Stand development then I would have to say they are on to something... For me its all about what one can put on a wall , and then stand beside it and accept both praise and criticism.
I have seen both Sandy and Steve stand beside their work, with great critical success. That is extremely hard to do these days.

Lately I have been stretching into pd pd from digital files and putting those prints on walls, along side the same series of images in silver and ink on paper.. We all have our bias when it comes to what is good, bad , or downright ugly. I have stopped listening to any criticism by others, but only listen to the voice in my head.. ***Bob you could do better, Bob that looks like a really nice image** and sometimes *** Bob you should be ashamed of yourself***

I stopped charting curves so long ago that I have zero to say about this thread, in regards to the technical good or bad points of this type of process, other than I have seen thousands of prints on walls over the years and really I never considered what the curves look like of any particular image and I doubt this topic will sway that opinion.

[sanking]

......
And gentlemen, I'm not being all that lazy. Yes, we could all search here and at APUG and dig through all your posts to find the relevant information, but having you direct us or post the info here is so much more efficient and less time consuming for us all...
......

Doremus

I am personally no longer working with stand and semi-stand methods of development for compensation, and in any event Steve Sherman has refined the procedure well beyond my level of expertise. So I will leave it to him to comment on this work flow.

I do virtually all of film development these days with divided Pyrocat. Around 2008 I began experimenting with two-bath development, first with Diafine and D23, and later with two-bath Pyrocat. Eventually I completed what I consider to be a good introduction to two-bath Pyrocat, and with the help of one of the moderators of this forum, Ken Lee, placed it on the Pyrocat-HD web site. http://www.pyrocat-hd.com/html/TwoBathPyrocat.html.


Sandy

[Michael R]

I agree with what Bob is saying. Sensitometry is not required in the making of great prints, but prints (and in particular low resolution/quality reproductions) are not really the best evidence of what is or is not happening with film exposure and development either, so I rarely use images in discussions about things like film speed, 'compensation' etc. As an example I'm posting a print here of scene which extremely high in contrast (excuse the poor scan quality) since Mr. Sherman asked for one. Yes, film curves are boring, they don't tell the whole story (particularly concerning things like image structure), they necessarily exclude some important "field" variables, and they do not account for additional transitions in the end-to-end tone reproduction from subject to print. However they can be of use at least as starting points for discussion, and for comparing materials/processes.

Requests were made for some data. While it is scattered all over many threads, I'm attaching a relatively recent example of some experiments I ran with Rodinal (full stand following initial agitation) on FP4+. The experiments were initially done using roll film because it seemed to be a process many roll film users have relied upon for a variety of purposes. Given the results, I decided to continue the experiments with sheet film in trays (4x5). The averaged results were plotted. I'm not going to go into detail at this point, but the idea was to try to generate an objective description of what happens in this particular process, and determine whether or not it does what people think it does. After all, we can easily be making negatives which are substantially different than the negatives we think we are making.

Generalizations are often problematic, so I want to be clear again on a few things:

1) The attachment is one example for Rodinal 1+100 full stand with FP4
2) Given the very different chemistries of Rodinal and Pyrocat, I have not said anything about Pyrocat, nor am I saying anything about the minimal agitation (which I differentiate from semi-stand) techniques Mr. Sherman uses, edge effects, mid-tone enhancement etc. While we have disagreed in the past regarding certain aspects, I have no doubt his techniques are adding value to his process. I cannot comment on what is actually happening without proper testing, and have not done so here.

Two-bath and divided development is a whole other topic, and a very interesting one. Again, I have not investigated Pyrocat in this regard, so I can only comment on some other formulas/procedures.

Regards

[Doremus Scudder]

Thanks to Sandy and Michael for the links and the info. It will give me some reading and thinking to do.

Michael,

If you don't mind - I'm interested in how you distinguish between stand, semi-stand and minimal agitation. Would you mind elaborating.

Too bad there aren't sticky threads here on the LF Forum. This topic would be a good candidate for one.

What seems to be needed here is a direct comparison with at least one developer commonly used for all these techniques and one film of all four (if there are indeed four) agitation schemes as well as divided development in order to compare film speed at contractions (which seems to be the big issue here) and curve shapes. A daunting task and way beyond my capabilities since I have no densitometer.

Maybe when I have time and my darkroom finally remodeled this summer, I'll do a few down-and-dirty comparisons myself. Until then, I'll have to rely on the kindness and knowledge of others.

Thanks again,

Doremus

[Michael R]

Re agitation terminology, there isn't really any "standard" definition as far as I know, so I usually make the distinction as follows:

Stand: Either no agitation at all, or initial agitation with none thereafter

Semi-stand: Some amount of agitation once or twice following initial agitation (for example, some people who stand-develop in Rodinal like to use some agitation say half way through the total time)

Reduced and/or minimal agitation: Agitation at regular/timed intervals, but with longer intervals than typical intermittent agitation methods. Intervals could be anything from 2 minutes to 5 or 10 minutes depending on the process.

Regarding two-bath/divided development, distinctions need to be made between a two-bath process such as Pyrocat, Diafine and others (no development in the first bath), and divided processes with an active first bath and alkali (or water) second bath. I would tend to differentiate these processes from 'compensating' development per se, since compensating developers typically lower total contrast by flattening highlight contrast, whereas two-bath/divided development seems to yield a somewhat straightened curve. Sandy King has written about this, also in the context of negatives destined for scanning. From a sensitometric perspective it appears to be a very effective technique for obtaining a long scale negative with good emulsion speed. There are some potential risks that need to be managed with respect to development uniformity.

The work I have done on divided development was to investigate the controls available when using Metol-sulfite + alkali bath development. There is a thread on APUG with some of the data and discussion.

I suggest we take further discussion off-line.

[Steve Sherman]

I've taken a day or so to reflect and to reread the entire thread, process my comments as well as others.

I'll start by apologizing to Michael R for over reacting, as Kirk pointed out I spoke before I collected my thoughts. That said, I do believe the phrase "largely myth and hyperbole" to be unfortunate and misleading with regard to Minimal Agitation forms of film development.

Further, it was noted that I do not have charts and graphs to support my theories, rather I indicated what "I believed to be true". In fact I am not a plot and graph guy, possibly if I were I might have gotten to where I am today much sooner. That said, much like Bob Carnie, at some point many of us employ a "trust your eyes" means of testing. That was always my methodology, my photographs were my tests, I paid very close attention to the results of making only one change at a time to formulate my beliefs and adjustments.

Further, by in large it is a hassle for me to digitize any comparisons I make, I imagine that is something I will have to address if I am to participate in these discussions with any credibility going forward.

I'll include a scan that I do have of the very first negatives that were developed using a one hour Semi-Stand technique. Without trying to throw fuel to the fire, I would imagine if most any darkroom technician of average experience were to see these two scans I would offer that their "belief" would be that something extraordinary is going on. The difference in negative densities suggests to me that these results are a product of reduced agitation vs continuous agitation in a tray rather than that of a chemistry difference.

The portion of these identically exposed 7x17 negatives can be described this way.

Extremely low contrast scene, 1 degree spot meter shows no more than 3 zones of differing tonality in a very overcast Utah sky. One negative developed in ABC Pyro, an extremely aggressive Pyro formulation. This negative yielded a highlight density of 1.54 (densitometer was given to me as a gift, it has turned out to be useful) The Semi-Stand processed negative in PyroCat HD has a highlight density of 1.36 yet still yields a negative of considerably higher micro contrast...and so Semi-Stand came to be in 2003.

Lastly, my recollection and understanding of the terminology as it evolved 10 years ago as I was exchanging thoughts with Sandy about the process is; Stand Dev. was one initial agitation and then no agitation at all until the film was removed from developer. Semi-Stand was the same initial agitation of any length and then only one other agitation cycle at the half way point of time in solution. Extreme Minimal Agitation was any regime where there were two or more agitation cycles such as my method. The phrase "Reduced Agitation" to me was a reference to any development regime where significantly less than normal agitation methods were used for reducing the film.

Cheers,

[Kirk Gittings]

FWIW Steve, formal testing has never been my strong point. I don't have the head or the patience for it beyond the bare necessities. On the other hand I just processed some 400 negatives with quite a few +'s and ++'s and -'s and out of those two were double exposed and two were under exposed rather dramatically and a couple of negs were scratched by my fumbling in the darkroom. The rest were well exposed and developed. 6 bad negs out of 400-not bad. But I must have been aware of my folly because there were good duplicates made at the time of the mis-exposures and always duplicates of every image that saved me with the scratches. I was covered as we say. So I must have figured out something that works. I have watched you print and seen your finished prints and it is inspiring even to an old dog like me. Whatever you have been doing sure works.

[Peter De Smidt]

Michael is making a very specific claim. Namely, that Rodinal diluted 1+100 does not lead to compensation with stand development and FP4+. He's not making any claims about edge effects, apparent sharpness, or other film/developer combos. Thus, what he and Steve are saying is compatible. Steve interpreted Michael's comments to mean that minimal or stand agitation schemes are worthless. Further discussion showed that that's not what Michael meant.

[Michael R]

No arguments from me. I can also relate to the hassle of digitizing. Regarding darkroom work and printing, I do everything by eye. It is what works for me, and what I enjoy. The graphs and charts are reserved for investigations into the science, which also interests me.

Regards


I've taken a day or so to reflect and to reread the entire thread, process my comments as well as others.

I'll start by apologizing to Michael R for over reacting, as Kirk pointed out I spoke before I collected my thoughts. That said, I do believe the phrase "largely myth and hyperbole" to be unfortunate and misleading with regard to Minimal Agitation forms of film development.

Further, it was noted that I do not have charts and graphs to support my theories, rather I indicated what "I believed to be true". In fact I am not a plot and graph guy, possibly if I were I might have gotten to where I am today much sooner. That said, much like Bob Carnie, at some point many of us employ a "trust your eyes" means of testing. That was always my methodology, my photographs were my tests, I paid very close attention to the results of making only one change at a time to formulate my beliefs and adjustments.

Further, by in large it is a hassle for me to digitize any comparisons I make, I imagine that is something I will have to address if I am to participate in these discussions with any credibility going forward.

I'll include a scan that I do have of the very first negatives that were developed using a one hour Semi-Stand technique. Without trying to throw fuel to the fire, I would imagine if most any darkroom technician of average experience were to see these two scans I would offer that their "belief" would be that something extraordinary is going on. The difference in negative densities suggests to me that these results are a product of reduced agitation vs continuous agitation in a tray rather than that of a chemistry difference.

The portion of these identically exposed 7x17 negatives can be described this way.

Extremely low contrast scene, 1 degree spot meter shows no more than 3 zones of differing tonality in a very overcast Utah sky. One negative developed in ABC Pyro, an extremely aggressive Pyro formulation. This negative yielded a highlight density of 1.54 (densitometer was given to me as a gift, it has turned out to be useful) The Semi-Stand processed negative in PyroCat HD has a highlight density of 1.36 yet still yields a negative of considerably higher micro contrast...and so Semi-Stand came to be in 2003.

Lastly, my recollection and understanding of the terminology as it evolved 10 years ago as I was exchanging thoughts with Sandy about the process is; Stand Dev. was one initial agitation and then no agitation at all until the film was removed from developer. Semi-Stand was the same initial agitation of any length and then only one other agitation cycle at the half way point of time in solution. Extreme Minimal Agitation was any regime where there were two or more agitation cycles such as my method. The phrase "Reduced Agitation" to me was a reference to any development regime where significantly less than normal agitation methods were used for reducing the film.

Cheers,

[Doremus Scudder]

Steve,

Thanks for sharing your scans of the two negatives. I find them enlightening.

If I may be so bold as to make some observations about them. Certainly, the semi-stand negative has much higher micro-contrast. The ABC-pyro neg, which appears to be developed N+something, has much more density in the shadows that may be attributable to N+ development raising the fog level and the toe. I've had similar results with N+ development with PMK and with TMax negatives in stronger dilutions of HC-110 (never used ABC-pyro though). At any rate, I found that higher dilution and less agitation helped with N+ developing. That said, my reduction in agitation was nothing like semi-stand; it was simply agitation at 60-second instead of 30-second intervals. For some reason that I have not been able to explain, longer development times with more dilute developer and less agitation seems to yield contrastier N+ negatives with clearer shadows and less fog; at least with the films and developers I've tried this with.

I might also attribute the dramatic increase in local contrast in your semi-stand negative to edge effects. Certainly, the shadow areas in the semi-stand negative are much less fogged, as are the lower mid-tones. This would point to a straighter toe, which may be one of the effects of semi-stand.

I'd be interested in your analysis, especially where it differs from my cursory observations.

Thanks again for the post; I've got some new things to test when I get the chance.

Best,

Doremus

[Steve Sherman]

Steve,

Thanks for sharing your scans of the two negatives. I find them enlightening.

If I may be so bold as to make some observations about them. Certainly, the semi-stand negative has much higher micro-contrast. The ABC-pyro neg, which appears to be developed N+something, has much more density in the shadows that may be attributable to N+ development raising the fog level and the toe. I've had similar results with N+ development with PMK and with TMax negatives in stronger dilutions of HC-110 (never used ABC-pyro though). At any rate, I found that higher dilution and less agitation helped with N+ developing. That said, my reduction in agitation was nothing like semi-stand; it was simply agitation at 60-second instead of 30-second intervals. For some reason that I have not been able to explain, longer development times with more dilute developer and less agitation seems to yield contrastier N+ negatives with clearer shadows and less fog; at least with the films and developers I've tried this with.

I might also attribute the dramatic increase in local contrast in your semi-stand negative to edge effects. Certainly, the shadow areas in the semi-stand negative are much less fogged, as are the lower mid-tones. This would point to a straighter toe, which may be one of the effects of semi-stand.

I'd be interested in your analysis, especially where it differs from my cursory observations.

Thanks again for the post; I've got some new things to test when I get the chance.

Best,

Doremus

Hello Doremus,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

My recollections of the ABC formula I used (going back 10 years) was a 1-1-1-7 ratio, this in fact maybe Michael Smith's version of EW's ABC formula, that I am not positive of, back then I was corresponding with MAS quite a bit. Further, again my recollection ( I have only used the ABC formulation that one time ) Pyrogallol is much more prone to chemical fog than that of the Pyrocatechin formulated developers. Pyrogallol is considerably more costly, more unstable and creates a larger grain pattern than Pyrocatechin based developers such as Sandy King's PyroCat HD that I use since abandoning PMK.

The ABC neg was developed for 24 minutes in a tray with continuous agitation, I do believe that is where the increased shadow density results from. Like I said, the original scene was quite low in contrast, only 3 Zones, so I am sure I would have exposed the negative with darkest rocks on Zone 3 and indicated a N + 3 development for a Zone 6 high value, when contact printing I do shoot for a bit more density than with negatives designed for enlargement. So with regard to my negative I am not surprised by the added density in the shadows given they began at Zone 3 and were likely expanded a bit with such aggressive development coupled with increased fog. One of the best pieces of advice I got long ago, when expanding development make sure and "anchor" the low values. That word made all the sense of why my pre Pyro negs were always on the heavy side.

As far as your findings with higher dilutions and longer D times, examples such as this is exactly why I embrace careful "practical" experience much more than I do "theory". Theory is great until it doesn't make sense and such is the case with your example. I would draw from your findings that there exists a careful balance between strength of dilution and time in solution relative to chemical fog.

Clearly my Semi-Stand neg is a dramatic example of edge effects, the two prints side by side are quite telling in that the shape of the negative's characteristic curve has been altered significantly, very little toe and goes right into a steeper straight line with Semi-Stand Dev. With mid tone contrast being so difficult to affect when it is intrinsically tied to exposure and development, the Reduced Agitation technique is invaluable to my way of thinking. Inherent to the Reduced Agitation technique is the natural suppression of high light densities, again a difficult component to control when trying to maximize micro contrast.

Lastly, I've long admired your work, not to disparage others but I put a premium on those making photographic art rather than testing. Testing to me is work, making photographs is inspiring !

Cheers !

[Cor]

Steve,

On which paper do you print ? Must be FB I assume, but is it fixed or VC ?

( I do minimal agitation of Fomapan100 in diluted (1/250) Pyrocat HDC myself, and sometimes I obtain too high a stain in the highlights, when printing on VC I do not get the contrast or snap that I want. I blame it to the soft masking effect of the Pyro stain. When switching to a fixed to a Grade 2 paper I get the snap and tonality I want )

Thanks & best,

Cor

[Doremus Scudder]

Hello Doremus,

...

Lastly, I've long admired your work, not to disparage others but I put a premium on those making photographic art rather than testing. Testing to me is work, making photographs is inspiring !

Cheers !

Thank you very much Steve.

And thanks to you, Sandy and Michael for the detailed explanations. I think I'll be trying out a few new things when I get my darkroom up and running this summer. I'll report back then.

Best,

Doremus

[Kirk Gittings]

I'll chime in too-I've long been a fan of your work, refined and elegant.

[Steve Sherman]

Steve,

On which paper do you print ? Must be FB I assume, but is it fixed or VC ?

( I do minimal agitation of Fomapan100 in diluted (1/250) Pyrocat HDC myself, and sometimes I obtain too high a stain in the highlights, when printing on VC I do not get the contrast or snap that I want. I blame it to the soft masking effect of the Pyro stain. When switching to a fixed to a Grade 2 paper I get the snap and tonality I want )

Thanks & best,

Cor

Hello Cor,

With Multi Contrast papers I use exclusively Ilford Warmtone, I have tried others and find the Ilford papers to be significantly more to my liking, any papers with a Chloride component to their emulsion will inherently produce higher micro contrast in the low values. While it's not published anywhere that I know of I believe Ilford WT has a blend of Chloride and Bromide in the hard contrast emulsion. Naturally all the papers I use are Fiber based.

With the larger film (7x17) I do occasionally use Azo. That said the Multi Contrast papers offer such flexibility when using a Split Contrast printing technique it is hard not to always take advantage of that method. The beauty of the Split Contrast technique would play directly into the concerns you are having with regard to highlight micro contrast. I am imagining that you might have some high value non descript clouds that do not separate as well as you would like. With the Split Contrast method you would "Set" the highlight tone with either the # 0 or # 1 filter and then add in the appropriate contrast for the rest of the pirint with the max # 5 filter. Once your print map is complete you can go back into the cloud / sky area in question and burn the area with the max # 5 filter. While it will not add the high contrast dramatic skies that we sometimes see it will definitely add some contrast by darkening the areas within the cloud / sky area that are less dense than the highest values with in the area. It will be subtle but very obvious when compared to a single filter print or fixed grade paper print.

If your minimal agitation is increasing your fog level due to longer times in solution try adding more A than B, such as my Normal Dev. dilution of 1.5 - 1 - 175. If the problem persists increase the initial agitation so that the overall time in solution is kept below 20 minutes but still maintaining at least 5 minutes between agitation cycles to maximize edge effects. Some films are more prone to an increase in fog due to time in solution, such as HP 5 and some of the Efke films as I recall.

Post some pix if you have them, possibly others could offer their thoughts.

Cheers !

[Cor]

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

[Cor]

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

129517

129518

[Steve Sherman]

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

129517



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

[Cor]

Steve,

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

Best,

Cor

[Doremus Scudder]

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

[alanmcd]

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

[alanmcd]

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

[alanmcd]

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

[alanmcd]

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

[Tin Can]

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.

[alanmcd]

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.

In other words you agitate more and more often? Is that 1:100 for one sheet? What amount of total development solution for this system?
Alan

[Tin Can]

In other words you agitate more and more often? Is that 1:100 for one sheet? What amount of total development solution for this system?
Alan

I use 40 ml Rodoinol in 1 gallon tanks. 4 sheets 8x10 or 16 sheets 4x5 max at once. More or less 1/100. Not critical to me. There is an 1/4" pipe with holes on bottom of tank for agitation bubbles from compressed gas.

Look here in DIY and Web for N2 Gas Burst, Kodak Gaseous Burst system etc.

[barnacle]

I think your suggestion of a chemistry change with time causing a density change and thus settling has merit; surely even with stand development, most of the development of highlights happens in the first few minutes. The absence of a heating control should reduce the chance of thermal convection.

Am I correct in my assumption that the main purpose of stand development is to increase edge accutance by local exhaustion of developer? It's been a long time...

Neil

p.s. the diametric opposite of this technique which I have recently adopted with some success (for my work; I'm not suggestion you should use it) is continuous agitation in a flat tank: for 4 off 5x4 sheets I'm using only 3cc of R09 made up to 150cc - which is a tiny amount of developer - and getting good full-range negatives. Previously I was using the same time and dilution, but with a litre of final solution in a tank, with five seconds agitation every minute - and getting thin negatives which wouldn't scan well.

[Donald Qualls]

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.

Bingo!

I've seen many reports from stand development users in all formats that are consistent with concentration-driven flow across the film -- what you're seeing in the middle/late part of development in the light is very much that sort of thing. During the early part of development, the developer is gaining density, either due to dissolution of something from the film or due to oxidation of the developing agent, and the denser (partly exhausted or bromide restrained by bromide from the emulsion) solution is dropping to the bottom of the tank. This concentrates unaffected developer at the top edge of the film, and could, in extreme cases, lead to flow marks, smearing at edges that are nearly vertical and similar effects. By the time the solution color has evened out, this effect should be finished.

A confirmatory experiment would be to find something you could suspend in your working solution (plastic beads, gelatin bits or similar, preferably small and close to neutral buoyancy in the solution) and watch for movement of the particles, most likely downward along the film surface, while developing in the light.

[blindpig]

Along the same line but a little off.Has anyone tried stand or semi-stand development on their prints? Just curious as I'm enjoying shooting paper negatives in-camera and wondering if the print paper and developers would behave in a similar fashion.Guess there's always someone out there with another idea,LOL!

[Jac@stafford.net]

Sometimes you can control the contrast of a print by diluting the developer further.
Try it.

[plaubel]

I am trying to figure out how to under develop with rodinal. This has a very specific application ...
I am trying to restrain glaring highlights

From reading old books, this may give an idea of how some people gave control to the negative 80 years ago:

I have read about using three baths ( 4 baths, but we haven't Pinacryptol these days for calming the negative);

- Rodinal 1:20, but well used, will slow down the development of the highlights

- Rodinal fresh 1:20 for quick shadows and middletones

- Rodinal fresh 1:30 and of 25 degrees C, for finest shadow details.

- Switching between the trays, if needed...

For me, it is worth a try, of course with orthochromatic film,

Ritchie

[alanmcd]

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

Well, that's amazing.
I left the film in the jug for 24 hours.
The solution was still homogenous to my eye in terms of colour gradation down the jug.
But the film has that tell tale dark edge at the top!

So there are some options to consider now with regard to seeing if this effect can be eliminated.
1. Gentle regular inversion throughout the first x minutes of development
2. The question as to whether step 1 will cause over development throughout and thus demand a compensatory further dilution of R09 coupled with a longer overall stand time
3. Some other step(s) to consider?

As an aside, this Ted Forbes video: http://theartofphotography.tv/episodes/stand-development-darkroom-guide/
shows exactly what I'm talking about with medium format film. He offers no solution other than temperature control. But I know now that's not going to make any difference to this specific effect. Temperature control may make a differnce to the overall development of the bottom half of the film but will not eliminate the differential development top to bottom.

This may also go to explain why slower film or other film brand may not suffer this effect as much or at all. A slower film may be able to continue the same pace of development regardless of the local concentration of developer.

It's interesting that this confirms why a deeper volume of developer makes no difference. It's related to the size (height) of the film standing in the bath. The effect is directly proportional to the face of the film being developed, not any additional volume of developer above the top of the film.
The 6x7 film in the video above shows this even-ish band of over development at the top, whereas 35mm film tends to show drags from the film notches.

Alan

[alanmcd]

Bingo!

I've seen many reports from stand development users in all formats that are consistent with concentration-driven flow across the film -- what you're seeing in the middle/late part of development in the light is very much that sort of thing. During the early part of development, the developer is gaining density, either due to dissolution of something from the film or due to oxidation of the developing agent, and the denser (partly exhausted or bromide restrained by bromide from the emulsion) solution is dropping to the bottom of the tank. This concentrates unaffected developer at the top edge of the film, and could, in extreme cases, lead to flow marks, smearing at edges that are nearly vertical and similar effects. By the time the solution color has evened out, this effect should be finished.

A confirmatory experiment would be to find something you could suspend in your working solution (plastic beads, gelatin bits or similar, preferably small and close to neutral buoyancy in the solution) and watch for movement of the particles, most likely downward along the film surface, while developing in the light.

Well I'll be damned!
147362
It works!
There is absolutely no sign (to my eye) of uneven development in the above raw scan.
The finished product is here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/metadigital/25401631116/in/album-72157664271821431/

So this was stand developed in R09
8ml in 1000ml
Temperature controlled in a bath at 20C
Gentle inversions every 2 mins for first 8 inversions. Then again at 1hr. Total stand time 2hr.
Fix and Wash method did not change.

I'm a happy photog again.
Alan

[Willie]

ALANMCD writes: 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.

-------------------------------

Submariners know you get motion near the surface while going deeper means smooth seas even in monsoon conditions.
Maybe developing flat in a tray with more chemistry will make a difference?
What you describe sounds a lot like 'edge density' from sheet film in too small a tray - where the edges get more wave action than the interior area of the negative.