Stand development and pushing / pulling? I don't quite get it.

[m00dawg]

I've read that you can push/pull in stand development and the times still don't really matter, meaning you can develop say a roll or sheet of a 100 ISO film along with a 400 ISO film in the same canister.

But that seems very counter-intuitive because that means you could get similar results with a wide variety of exposures?

I tried stand development with HC-110 and HP5+ yesterday (4x5) and I did get some pretty nice results. The negatives looked kinda like a comic book given the highlights were pretty deep but the rest of the negative looked a bit thin. They scanned pretty well though and still showed some nice HP5-like contrast. Haven't tried a darkroom print yet (I can only do contact prints at the moment).

The approach I really like since I can be lazy and/or go do other things while it's developing :) But the lack of having to care about ISO or exposure has me a little confused there (and somewhat concerned).

[Jim Noel]

I do not use stand development for several reasons, but in the late 1930's and 40's I used it every day in the lab where I worked. We used it along with total development. Each afternoon just before closing we hung all roll films, regardless of make or rating, on a big rack. the rack was lowered into a huge vat of developer and left overnight. The following morning processing was completed and prints made. essentially all negatives were printable with the automatic printer. Advanced photographers who used our services preferred individual development because, they said, we were able to get a more even distribution of tones.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Stand development is essentially a 'completion' process. All that can become is complete because the developer becomes exhausted.
In my modest experience it does not require a time greater than 40 minutes using Rodinal 1:100. YMMV.

It is not magic. It will not miraculously moderate highlight density with elevated shadow contrast. It DOES permit you to mix films
in one batch - for better or worse.

Perhaps Mr. Noel can tell us what chemistry he used.

[xkaes]

I've read that you can push/pull in stand development and the times still don't really matter, meaning you can develop say a roll or sheet of a 100 ISO film along with a 400 ISO film in the same canister.

It's impossible to say because you have not defined what "stand development" is -- let alone "push/pull". If you think "time doesn't matter", I'd suggest you read Stephen Hawking. He explains that "time" and "matter" are really the same thing.

[m00dawg]

30's and 40's, no kidding Jim!? That's some amazing history there, thanks for your insight!

xkaes, in terms of what I meant by times don't matter was that I read if you put in say two rolls of HP5+, one shot at 400 and one at 800 that the times don't need to change. You will still stand develop for 45minutes or whatever your preferred recipe was. That's what I read on the Internet so chances of that being wrong are certainly non-zero :)

But if that was the case, that's why it had me confused. Conventional logic would indicate to me that the negative shot at 800 speed would be under-exposed.

[xkaes]

30's and 40's, no kidding Jim!? That's some amazing history there, thanks for your insight!

xkaes, in terms of what I meant by times don't matter was that I read if you put in say two rolls of HP5+, one shot at 400 and one at 800 that the times don't need to change. You will still stand develop for 45minutes or whatever your preferred recipe was. That's what I read on the Internet so chances of that being wrong are certainly non-zero :)

But if that was the case, that's why it had me confused. Conventional logic would indicate to me that the negative shot at 800 speed would be under-exposed.

You actually believe anything you read on the Internet? With that logic, you could expose a film at ISO 1 and ISO 10,000 and develop it for the same time and get the same result.

I've got a bridge I want to sell you in Brooklyn. Trust your instincts.

[m00dawg]

You actually believe anything you read on the Internet? With that logic, you could expose a film at ISO 1 and ISO 10,000 and develop it for the same time and get the same result.

Right, something doesn't add up for sure or there has to be limit or something. I got some pretty nice results with stand development (at box speed) so there surely is a use case for it. I used HC-110 but I've read the go-to is Rodinal. In my case I expected a bit more detail in the shadows but I still got a pretty nice looking result. Not a lot of stand development recipes on Massive Dev for instance but nonetheless I've seen some glorious photos claiming to have been done with stand dev along with some nice side by side comparisons on YouTube (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=859s66KAwPA).

I'm just not sure if or when to apply it ;)

[xkaes]

I'm just not sure if or when to apply it ;)

STOP reading anything on the Internet. Get a copy of Controls in Black & White Photography by Richard Henry -- or pay the price.

[sanking]

Stand development is generally understood as development of film in highly dilute developers with minimal or extreme minimal agitation for times of between 10X to 20X of what would be considered normal. Since dilute solutions are used development is usually to completion based on the dilution, not on agitation or time.

Dilute developers with minimal agitation are able to develop most films to a fairly wide range of Plus/Minus (or expansion/contraction) with time as a development control. Another characteristic of this type of development is that films develop to a slightly higher effective film speed than with normal agitation. And with the right kind of developer stand development can result in negatives of very high acutance, and increased local contrast in the shadows and or mid-tones of the negative.

One contemporary photographer who has made extraordinary use of stand/extreme minimal agitation is Steve Sherman. http://www.powerofprocesstips.com

Steve is one of the great contemporary masters of optical printing of silver gelatin with film negatives, and stand/extreme minimal agitation is one of the tools he uses in the exposure/development process.

Sandy

[m00dawg]

Thanks folks! Good sources to look at! Not sure if he talks about stand dev but I'm also working through the Ansel Adams Triforce (though I'm still about 3/4th of the way through the camera). Added Controls In B&W to my reading list. I see, at least on Amazon, it's out of print but seems to be easily found.

Sherman produces lovely results too! Interesting stand development is used here. Effective higher film speed makes sense with stand. Still seems a bit of a mystery you can push/pull without changing the development times. The developer seemingly would just exhaust itself in any case? But pushing requires more development time so I would think that would otherwise underexpose the negative?

Guess I need to pick up that book ;)

[sanking]

Effective higher film speed makes sense with stand. Still seems a bit of a mystery you can push/pull without changing the development times. The developer seemingly would just exhaust itself in any case? But pushing requires more development time so I would think that would otherwise underexpose the negative?



Just to be clear, I did not say one could push/pull without changing development times. What I said was,

"Dilute developers with minimal agitation are able to develop most films to a fairly wide range of Plus/Minus (or expansion/contraction) with time as a development control."

I own a copy of Richard Henry's Controls in Black and White Photography, 2nd edition from 1988. Good methodology in conventional testing, but not much there on either stand development or two-bath development.

To be fair, both stand development and two-bath development were very much out of favor in the period of the conventional Zone system, and in BTZS.

Sandy

[xkaes]

I own a copy of Richard Henry's Controls in Black and White Photography, 2nd edition from 1988. Good methodology in conventional testing, but not much there on either stand development or two-bath development.

While this is true, you can use his approach / testing method with any developing method or technique -- and you can augment them as you wish.

As to developer exhaustion, there are many approaches using this -- such as the 1 + 4 + 1 + 4 + 1 + 4 technique. It is putting the film in a developer for one minute -- without agitation -- simply to absorb the developer into the emulsion. Then the film is placed in a water bath, again without agitation, for four minutes -- where the film is developed until the absorbed developer is exhausted. Of course, it exhausts quicker in the highlights (dark) areas of the negative, while continuing to develop in the shadow (light) areas. This creates lower contrast, of course. (I have a copy of an article discussing this method in detail, if anyone is interested. I think it was from Darkroom Techiques in the 1980's)

But whatever method you use, a negative that is underexposed (i.e., pushed), the shadow areas will need a longer development time to reach the same density. How much longer? That's where Henry's methods / tests come into play.

[Willie]

Am showing my ignorance here but will this result in sharper negatives, cleaner shadows or better highlight control and/or mid tone separation one can actually see in a finished print?

I mainly do contact prints and am willing to try something if it results in prints that are actually better when viewed.

[xkaes]

This all gets into personal opinions, preferences, beliefs, and -- God forbid -- actual definitions.

The good news is that most approaches are easy to try. Just keep good notes and see which prints you prefer.