Semi Stand and EMA Development Question

[aaronnate]

I've been browsing Semi-Stand Development and EMA looking for ways to avoid the streaks, and any other issue that may appear. I read one statement about the developer sinking to the bottom of the tube. Mind you this was one statement but people did not say it was not true, and of course, I can't find the location to link it here.

My questions are these:


Does this really Happen?
If so doesn't this cause uneven development?

[Pere Casals]

Develop in a tray, say a paper safe so you may open lights, with film flat gravity won't make streaks.

What falls is not developer but bromide.

Anyway if you use Steve Sherman recipes I guess you won't have streaks, probably the high dilution helps to avoid it.

[Richard Wasserman]

I can't help with tube development. I do EMA in a homemade slosher type tray. I found that the initial agitation is vitally important to have streak and mottle free negatives. I agitate for 2 minutes continuously, randomly and quite vigorously and then do 30 seconds of normal gentle agitation later. It works well for me.

[Andrew O'Neill]

You can get bromide drag if film is allowed to stand vertically, for longer than 20 minutes... My experience is with very dilute Pyrocat-HD (5ml of A and B in 1200ml water). I develop using BTZS tubes, filled to the top with the developer. The film gets a full minute of constant, rolling agitation, then allowed to stand for 20 minutes. Rolling agitation for 10 sec every 20 minutes. I also pull the film out after each agitation cycle, invert, and re-insert. Doing this also makes sure that the film is always under the solution. I NEVER do full on stand as it is fraught with danger.

[aaronnate]

I guess that person meant bromide.

[aaronnate]

You can get bromide drag if film is allowed to stand vertically, for longer than 20 minutes... My experience is with very dilute Pyrocat-HD (5ml of A and B in 1200ml water). I develop using BTZS tubes, filled to the top with the developer. The film gets a full minute of constant, rolling agitation, then allowed to stand for 20 minutes. Rolling agitation for 10 sec every 20 minutes. I also pull the film out after each agitation cycle, invert, and re-insert. Doing this also makes sure that the film is always under the solution. I NEVER do full on stand as it is fraught with danger.

How do you fill the developer to the top in the dark?

[Alan9940]

I do EMA using homemade tanks very similar to Steve Sherman's and the only issue I had was not being careful with total volume of developer. The film will twist slightly as you roll it during agitation cycles which can cause a bit of the film edge to receive less development. Solution depth resolves this issue.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I have done semi stand in an sp-445 and in tubes with no problems. I use 2 inch diameter tubes for 4x5. Agitate first 2 min. Then for 10 seconds every 15 minutes. No problems yet. Used Pyrocat HD at really dilute mixture. I have also used Tmax developer at like 1:63 and HC110 also very dilute. All worked fine.

[j.e.simmons]

I’ve used the EMA method for at least a dozen years. I’ve found that vigorous agitation is the key to avoid streaking. When I used tubes, I premeasured the chemicals and kept them in measuring cups to be sure I had the correct amount.

[John Layton]

I will test this soon in a single open tray.

Steve Sherman has warned that film could float upwards during its "quiet time" - so I will sacrifice a sheet of fresh film with room lights on to see if this happens.

Hope it can work - because I could see great advantages for certain images...and Steve's negatives are pretty amazing!

[Jerry Bodine]

John, could you not carefully place the film in a hanger to prevent floating upwards? I've not tried EMA yet, so don't know if this would affect the solution quantity; I have done this when testing to find Stouffer characteristic curve for 4x5 HP5+ with highly dilute HC-110 (1+ 123ml) for 28min @ 20C, but the dev quantity was high enough to permit use of 4-up hanger with two sheets (one with Stouffer shot and one without to check for uniformity).


I will test this soon in a single open tray.

Steve Sherman has warned that film could float upwards during its "quiet time" - so I will sacrifice a sheet of fresh film with room lights on to see if this happens...

[Pere Casals]

I will test this soon in a single open tray.
Steve Sherman has warned that film could float upwards during its "quiet time" - so I will sacrifice a sheet of fresh film with room lights on to see if this happens.


John, I guess that stock developer should be more prone to make the film float than diluted developers.

It happens like with sea water, a swimmer floats better if the liquid has a higher density. Highly diluted developers won't increase as much the water density, less salts inside.

...so perhaps the test should include different dilutions, for each film.

Another possibility is air bubbles, this may come from tap water having air diluted, and making bubbles after the pressure loss, if we use tap water to dilute developer.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Stand development in any fashion is an attractive idea but in final results it fails. All films have a develop-to-completion time and with highly dilutions they all complete in about 30 minutes, but let the film stand for a six-pack if you like - it makes no difference. Stand development will never compensate for sloppy exposure. Burn that into your bible.

[Alan9940]

Steve Sherman has warned that film could float upwards during its "quiet time" - so I will sacrifice a sheet of fresh film with room lights on to see if this happens.


My solution to twisting/floating of the film is to make sure that the total volume of developer is literally right under the cap. The cap has "dimples" in it which provides just a bit of air to ensure good agitation.

[Pere Casals]

Stand development in any fashion is an attractive idea but in final results it fails.

Jac, Of course a wrong exposure will ruin the job, but stand has a noticeable effect.

Stand development is a kind of compensating development, it is clear what it makes. As diluted developer exhausts earlier in the highlights, and it is not well refreshed by agitation, then the highlights are less developed, in practice we obtain three effects:

> Film curve is more shouldered

> Film latitude is extended in the highlights side

> Well enhanced microcontrast from edge effects that have a larger radius than with usual processing.

If also using a yellow stain developer we add the stain effect on Variable Contrast paper. As the dense areas (highlights) are yellower than the mids/shadows then in practice we block more blue light there, so selectively we print the highlights with a lower contrast, potentially obtaining better textures.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Jac, Of course a wrong exposure will ruin the job, but stand has a noticeable effect.

Stand development is a kind of compensating development, [... please see the post ...]
[...]

You forgot one - mid-tones to shadows lack contrast. Stand development is not generally a good practice, a panacea unless one is developing for digital scanning and I think that is not within the scope of this subject.

[Pere Casals]

You forgot one - mid-tones to shadows lack contrast.

Jac, I don't agree...

Beyond what we can do in the printing, with stand development you may develop to the Contrast Index you want, by adjusting dilution vs time, like with any regular process. The part of the curve that is modified is in the highlights, contrast in the shadows/mids can be adjusted as always.

If placing an extended scene dynamic range (compressed) in the paper then of course we'll have a dull print, but stand does not presupose that. We can perfectly make a stand development that is Normal contrast, except that the curve will be more shouldered, or with a regular processing we can do anyway a N- compression. Stand does not imposes a compression in the shadows/mids, it only imposes a compression in the highlights, the stand compression in the shadows/mids is optional like in regular processing.

If scanning then stand development is less interesting, because we can bend the curve in Ps like we want, but the microcontrast enhacement from stand is more difficult to imitate in Ps.

[esearing]

No streaks for me using dilute Pyrocat, EMA, in sp445 tank for last 2 years.. Presoak 5 minutes for Ilford films and Initial agitation 2 minutes . Bergger doesn't seem to benefit fron the presoak but I do it anyway while I prepare my developer. Clean everything well between sessions.

[aaronnate]

If I read this right it is not the developer that sinks to the bottom it is the Bromide. using very dilute developer and a vigorous initial 2 minute agitation avoids the bromide streaks when developing vertically.

[Pere Casals]

Well, as developer makes metallic silver it gets enriched with bromide, so density increases, so that mix falls down.

[Michael Kadillak]

You can get bromide drag if film is allowed to stand vertically, for longer than 20 minutes... My experience is with very dilute Pyrocat-HD (5ml of A and B in 1200ml water). I develop using BTZS tubes, filled to the top with the developer. The film gets a full minute of constant, rolling agitation, then allowed to stand for 20 minutes. Rolling agitation for 10 sec every 20 minutes. I also pull the film out after each agitation cycle, invert, and re-insert. Doing this also makes sure that the film is always under the solution. I NEVER do full on stand as it is fraught with danger.

Save yourself some grief constantly flipping the film to ensure its immersion in the developer. The solution is waterproof tape affixing the back corners of the film to the inner walls of the tube. Won't go anywhere and the tape is $1.50 for 10 yards. The other essential tool is a night vision monocle and a room of IR light from a 24 LED IR illumination source bounced off of an adjacent wall.

[Steve Goldstein]

I use regular ~7" tall (holds 2 x 120 reels) Nikor tanks for EMA development of 4x5 sheet film per Steve Sherman's method. I machined some cylindrical tank liners (just hollow cylinders about 3-3/4" high) from Schedule 80 PVC pipe to reduce the volume of developer needed per sheet to 500ml while still covering the top by about half an inch. Film goes in with the long dimension curled, i.e. the height of the film when loaded is 4" so it extends just over the top of the liner. The film often shifts a little during agitation, so I pop off the top and use my fingers to push the film back down after each 20-second agitation period (remember to turn out the lights!). Having the film slightly proud of the liner makes it easy to feel when it's in the proper position.

5x7 film can also be developed in the same tanks using more developer. I haven't actually measured how much developer volume is needed, but the film will fit . I probably wouldn't use liners for this.

I realized while typing that slightly longer liners with a small lip at the top would solve the shifting problem. Another reason to spend a Friday afternoon at my machinist buddy's shop.

[Michael Kadillak]

I use regular ~7" tall (holds 2 x 120 reels) Nikor tanks for EMA development of 4x5 sheet film per Steve Sherman's method. I machined some cylindrical tank liners (just hollow cylinders about 3-3/4" high) from Schedule 80 PVC pipe to reduce the volume of developer needed per sheet to 500ml while still covering the top by about half an inch. Film goes in with the long dimension curled, i.e. the height of the film when loaded is 4" so it extends just over the top of the liner. The film often shifts a little during agitation, so I pop off the top and use my fingers to push the film back down after each 20-second agitation period (remember to turn out the lights!). Having the film slightly proud of the liner makes it easy to feel when it's in the proper position.

5x7 film can also be developed in the same tanks using more developer. I haven't actually measured how much developer volume is needed, but the film will fit . I probably wouldn't use liners for this.

I realized while typing that slightly longer liners with a small lip at the top would solve the shifting problem. Another reason to spend a Friday afternoon at my machinist buddy's shop.

If you are obviously connecting to Steve Sherman formula for EMA, why in the world would you complicate things? Steve spent a considerable amount of time and energy to perfect the follow through processing specifics for his system that he confirmed works as intended. We are taking less than $25 to replicate his recommended tube. A secondary reason that he uses the tube plug is to mitigate sheet film movement. Secondly, why be concerned about developer volume when we are talking about milliliters of developer in play. Lastly, the critical variable in play is being able to cause the developer to exhaust properly. It is the technical cornerstone of his process. Many times I see photographers go to elaborate iterations to put their "signature" on their process when in reality the process has already been perfected. It is (and should be) all about the print IMHO. Who cares how ones get to that conclusion?

[Pere Casals]

If you are obviously connecting to Steve Sherman formula for EMA, why in the world would you complicate things? Steve spent a considerable amount of time and energy to perfect the follow through processing specifics for his system that he confirmed works as intended. We are taking less than $25 to replicate his recommended tube. A secondary reason that he uses the tube plug is to mitigate sheet film movement. Secondly, why be concerned about developer volume when we are talking about milliliters of developer in play. Lastly, the critical variable in play is being able to cause the developer to exhaust properly. It is the technical cornerstone of his process. Many times I see photographers go to elaborate iterations to put their "signature" on their process when in reality the process has already been perfected. It is (and should be) all about the print IMHO. Who cares how ones get to that conclusion?
.


+1


I would add that a compensating processing can be customized to adjust the compensation intensity and the interaction with the VC paper. While hybrid processing allows to adjust the curve in Ps... a pure optical processing benefits from additional control in the film processing, stain level works as a yellow filter that's stronger in the highlights, this prints VC paper with lower contrast grade in the highlights than in the mids/shadows. ...so from controlling development we control the paper curve, which has an impact in the textures of highlights.


IMHO Steve Sherman formula for EMA has two great features, first it provides a robust recipe to get good/consistent results from the beginning, and second it later allows to adjust processing for advanced users.

I don't think that EMA is better or worse than a regular processing, but it is a very useful tool to get a kind of results with pure optical processing. If we are to scan then we can allow film to reach high densities and later editing the curve like we want, but a nice&pure optical process may require advanced darkroom technique to obtain what we want.

To me, reaching sound results from pure optical processing has a lot of sense. One thing is ascending Everest with oxygen, dragged up by a comercial service and queuing up in the normal ridge. Another thing is ascending night naked throught Hornbein couloir... Both ways are good, but not exactly the same :)

[Steve Goldstein]

If you are obviously connecting to Steve Sherman formula for EMA, why in the world would you complicate things? Steve spent a considerable amount of time and energy to perfect the follow through processing specifics for his system that he confirmed works as intended. <snip>

That's a valid question that deserves a full answer.

Firstly, I didn't do this to create my own signature variant of Steve's approach. Instead, I wanted to reduce the volume of chemistry to be disposed of while duplicating his technique. I'm on a septic system and am very sensitive to what goes down the drain and how much waste has to be transported off-site for disposal.

When I was at Steve's place for one of his early EMA workshops he was still developing in simple PVC tubes with a slip-on cap, and he had to reach in to check the film position after each agitation cycle. He didn't come up with the current tube setup until later. So what I'm doing is no different that what he showed us, and what had already been producing outstanding results for him for years. I recall him saying something to the effect that the newer tubes were a more convenient way of yielding identical results.

The recipe card Steve gave us was for 5x7 and 7x17 film, his usual formats. Since I'm using 4x5, the exhaustion curve could theoretically be different if I stuck with his original volume for 5x7. By reducing the volume, I'm actually closer to his technique than by simply following his recipe card. My scaling isn't perfect, but my volume-to-film-area ratio is within 10% and my dilution is identical.

As far as results go, I ran several tests, printing identically-exposed negatives of various subjects processed Steve's way (5A+3B+825) and using reduced volume (3A+1.8B+495, the same dilution) and I couldn't see any difference in any of the prints. So for my test cases, at least, which ranged from N-2 to N+1 processing, I'm satisfied there's no difference between using more or less chemistry in my particular setup.

As an aside, the fact that I got identical results using two different volumes at identical dilution suggests that the exhaustion effects are probably not caused by the development process itself, but by chemical oxidation processes. This may or may not be true for the weaker dilutions Steve lists for more extreme compression, and is something I would test before using if I found myself in a situation calling for N-3, N-4, or more compression. My photographic adventures so far haven't required this, so I haven't done those tests.

[Pere Casals]

My scaling isn't perfect, but my volume-to-film-area ratio is within 10% and my dilution is identical.

Steve, my view is that, in stand, developer "exhaustion" is of local nature, the lack of agitation is what provocates it, while developer "in the tank" is never exhausted. I fact a negative may have a lot of shadows or a lot of highlights. A negative may consume x10 more developer than another one simply becase it has a lot of highlights (say snowy landscape), so a consistent process should have a lot of active developer in excess.

More than from developer "exhaustion" the compensation is obtained from bromide production during development, so in fact what slowers development in the highlights is bromide presence that is not removed by agitation. We know very well the bromide effect from the bromide drags !!!

If developer is used in a too low quantity this may only be seen in negatives with a lot of highlights, with a lot of metallic silver in it that consumed a lot of developer.

The way to get a compensation from chem exhaustion (rather than from bromide development restrainer) is two bath development (Diafine) or intermitent water bath processing.

EMA is a compensation mainly governated by bromide staying in the emulsion, and not by the chem exhaustion, at least it's what I understand.

[esearing]

The real beauty of EMA or semi-stand methods is that you learn how to make small adjustments for single sheets to suit the scene. The long dev times allow me to use N, N-, N+ (vs N-1,N+1) which I can adjust with time (up/down 2mins) or by increasing part B (2 to 2.5 ml/500). FP4+ responds beautifully to these small changes.

I'm finding after a few sheets with Pyrocat M in the SP445 tank, a little more part B is needed than is required with Pyrocat HD for more highlight separation. From reading theory, the Metol should exhaust first and then the cachetol would stain and harden the gelatin as it exhausts. By increasing part B I may be adding a bit more action to the highlight development as the Metol and Cachetol exhausts.

Pyrocat M also makes a nice 2nd pass paper developer with a light stain and warm tone. I used it with a dicromate bleach for additional effect. The developer is slow working at 10/10/1000 - 10 minutes before highlights return.

Another part of theory that I found interesting but have yet to try, Metol is best when used cold (68) vs Cachetol works better in warm (75). This could lead to some interesting experiments for subtle adjustment.

[Steve Sherman]

You forgot one - mid-tones to shadows lack contrast. Stand development is not generally a good practice, a panacea unless one is developing for digital scanning and I think that is not within the scope of this subject.

Statements like this drive people like myself away from the slippery slope of internet forms. Speaking of "slopes", Reduced Agitation forms of development, unlike ANY other form of chemical reduction actually increases the slope of the film's characteristic curve. With proper exposure for this type film development, shadow and mid tone contrast are enhance, i.e. increased. Simply because one has not been successful with a particular technique should not allow them to disparage it's successes because of their own failures. Best to remain mum and quite possibly learn the secrets from those who have had success.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Save yourself some grief constantly flipping the film to ensure its immersion in the developer. The solution is waterproof tape affixing the back corners of the film to the inner walls of the tube. Won't go anywhere and the tape is $1.50 for 10 yards. The other essential tool is a night vision monocle and a room of IR light from a 24 LED IR illumination source bounced off of an adjacent wall.

Good idea with the tape, Michael... but I'm not really facing any grief. Grief would be the tape dislodging and reattaching to the emulsion side. :D I use a lot of IR film, so night vision is out.

[Andrew O'Neill]

How do you fill the developer to the top in the dark?

Lights are on when I fill the tank. Lights go out when I remove the film from its holder, and insert in the tube. Been doing it this way for almost 20 years.

[Michael Kadillak]

Good idea with the tape, Michael... but I'm not really facing any grief. Grief would be the tape dislodging and reattaching to the emulsion side. :D I use a lot of IR film, so night vision is out. One example where this technique comes in handy is with 11x14 sheet film in a 4" tube that wants to wander like crazy during processing. As long as it works for you that is all that matters.

[Michael Kadillak]

That's a valid question that deserves a full answer.

I wanted to reduce the volume of chemistry to be disposed of while duplicating his technique. I'm on a septic system and am very sensitive to what goes down the drain and how much waste has to be transported off-site for disposal.



Perspective is a common adjective we use in our photographic endeavors and in this instance I feel you need to consider putting your "concerns" about your septic system into realistic and objective perspective. If you choose to take your concerns about your septic to an extreme digital would be the only viable solution that takes effluent byproducts of the chemical photographic process at least at your home to zero. But since you have obviously decided to continue to participate in chemical based photography just take a few moments to look at the dilution ratios with the Pyrocat Reduced Agitation Development process and I would hope that this provides you with some comfort that the process you have chosen is without question the least damaging to your septic of a myriad of processing options you could have selected to use. 5 ml in 1200 ml of water is effectively meaningless in the bigger scheme of things. In this instance I am reminded of an age old axiom used in the water treatment industry - "the solution to pollution is dilution". Take a deep breath and relax. Your septic is just fine.