Summary Of Recent Work On Stand Development

[tundra]

Long time lurker here. I spent the last couple of months exploring various stand techniques and took a moment to summarize my findings. I doubt there is anything new here, but some may find this helpful ...

https://gitbucket.tundraware.com/tundra/Stand-Development

[Ben Calwell]

Long time lurker here. I spent the last couple of months exploring various stand techniques and took a moment to summarize my findings. I doubt there is anything new here, but some may find this helpful ...

https://gitbucket.tundraware.com/tundra/Stand-Development

Excellent! Thank you

[ic-racer]

I can't tell what you tested. What were the results?

[tundra]

I can tell what you tested. What were the results?

Look at the section called "What I Have Discovered"

[John Layton]

Excellent writeup...thank you!

Two questions: One - did you end up with a "preferred" film?

And two - did you ever try any one or all of these (EMA, Semi-Stand, Stand) with a single negative in a flat open tray? You did imply that this might be desirable...but I've heard some others indicate that a vertical film orientation is best.

[esearing]

Were your tests single sheet of 4x5 or multiple sheets? Dilution matters once you add more sheets.

EMA works great as long as your Pyrocat HD is relatively fresh. After six months you will need to rerun tests. You can also reduce the part B to get less stain but need to add a bit more A. so ratio is like 1.5A : 1.25B : 200W . I basically abandoned EMA with Pyrocat HD due to sudden chemical failures as it aged. Pyrocat M works much better since the metol lasts longer than phenidone (in my opinion, not a science fact but something observed). HD and FP4+ @70* for 22-24mins was my EMA standard. For contrast control I found I could go as low as 18mins and up to 35mins fairly predictably.

For Pyrocat M I found little difference when using EMA vs a more normal dilution and time, but I reduced my agitations to 2.5 or 3 minute intervals. 3.5 :3.0 : 500 for 12:30 total time @70*.

[Tin Can]

So your developer lost all activity between 18 and 35 minutes

I have read of our ancestors extending 'stand' to several hours

I confirm Rodinol is dead at 20 minutes or less at high dilution

[ic-racer]

Look at the section called "What I Have Discovered"

More generally, these techniques are great when you need to get maximum shadow detail, but reign in highlight placement.
I don't see any data to back up that statement. How did you test this? Where are the results?

[Michael R]

I don't see any data to back up that statement. How did you test this? Where are the results?

ic-racer, as you know well, stand/semi-stand is a somewhat religious topic. I suggest leaving it be.

OP has done his experiments, is satisfied with the results, and has written up a summary of the work/findings.

[tundra]

Excellent writeup...thank you!

Two questions: One - did you end up with a "preferred" film?

And two - did you ever try any one or all of these (EMA, Semi-Stand, Stand) with a single negative in a flat open tray? You did imply that this might be desirable...but I've heard some others indicate that a vertical film orientation is best.


When it worked, it worked fine with Agfapan APX 100, TXT, and FP4+. FP4+ is probably the best of the three.

I did not tray process all three. I did a 3 negative comparison with FP4+ using all three techniques but hanging vertically using frameless hangers.

[tundra]

So your developer lost all activity between 18 and 35 minutes

I have read of our ancestors extending 'stand' to several hours

I confirm Rodinol is dead at 20 minutes or less at high dilution

No, I didn't say that, nor was there any evidence of this. The developer in various dilutions easily lasted an hour. There are reports (not confirmed by me) of stand sessions going much longer than this.

Our ancestors used films or plates that had thicker emulsions making stand a more viable technique. Back in the day (say, in the Super XX era), there are stories of commercial labs doing dunk agitation and then leaving the film to sit overnight in tanks for so-called "complete development".

It is my sense that the developer is not the constraint here. Modern films are, and they are best served by Semistand or EMA. Stand appears to be a highly variable crap shoot with these films and offers nothing Semistand or EMA don't as best as I could tell

[tundra]

I don't see any data to back up that statement. How did you test this? Where are the results?

I don't know what data would suffice. I don't have a multichannel densitometer so I have to rely on eyeballing the negatives and the prints. Based on this, I am seeing better midtones, and well behaved highlight zones.

If you really want data that you would find satisfying, I encourage you to conduct your own tests.

[tundra]

Were your tests single sheet of 4x5 or multiple sheets? Dilution matters once you add more sheets.

EMA works great as long as your Pyrocat HD is relatively fresh. After six months you will need to rerun tests. You can also reduce the part B to get less stain but need to add a bit more A. so ratio is like 1.5A : 1.25B : 200W . I basically abandoned EMA with Pyrocat HD due to sudden chemical failures as it aged. Pyrocat M works much better since the metol lasts longer than phenidone (in my opinion, not a science fact but something observed). HD and FP4+ @70* for 22-24mins was my EMA standard. For contrast control I found I could go as low as 18mins and up to 35mins fairly predictably.

For Pyrocat M I found little difference when using EMA vs a more normal dilution and time, but I reduced my agitations to 2.5 or 3 minute intervals. 3.5 :3.0 : 500 for 12:30 total time @70*.

I did both single- and multisheet testing. With one (failed) test as the exception, in every other case I had between 1800ml and 2000ml of developer in a tank, and the biggest run was 6 sheets at once - i.e., There was more than enough developer to handle the problem.

I mix Pyrocat-HD in small enough batches (500ml) that I am likely to go through it well before the 6 month mark. Even if I don't, it is so inexpensive to make, that tossing the old and making new is a trivial thing to do.

[paulbarden]

I'd be interested in seeing how Rodinal "semi-stand" compares to Divided D23 (or D-76) compares, in regards to highlight suppression and midtone expansion. I've found divided D-23 does a wonderful job of expanding midtone contrast while reigning in the highlights.

[tundra]

I'd be interested in seeing how Rodinal "semi-stand" compares to Divided D23 (or D-76) compares, in regards to highlight suppression and midtone expansion. I've found divided D-23 does a wonderful job of expanding midtone contrast while reigning in the highlights.

If you do, please share with the class :)

I specifically didn't want this to be a developer comparison because this was my first deep dive into limited agitation techniques. I knew going in it was going to be flakey. so I wanted as few variables as possible to manage.

There is anecdotal commentary that both HC-110 and D-76 stand use will have inferior grain to Pyrocat-HD. No idea about D-23.

I know there are skeptics here (and elsewhere) about low/no agitation techniques, but the ability to jack up mid-tones while holding highlights is a super useful tool that I wish I'd figured out years ago. I don't know how many times I've made a "perfect" negative that captured the full SBR only to see lousy mid-tone local contrast. I've always wondered why this kind of stuff engenders so much grousing and arguing when all people need to do is try it for themselves.

[paulbarden]

I've always wondered why this kind of stuff engenders so much grousing and arguing when all people need to do is try it for themselves.

I think you answered that question yourself: the likelihood of getting spectacularly bad results is very high unless you control the process very carefully. Lets face it - 99.9% of people who attempt this process do so with very little understanding of the issues (bromide drag being the foremost) and so they just stumble forward, following any instructions they find on the web (often poor instructions) and then discover they've produced unusable negatives. It is my distinct impression that most people who attempt the technique are working with 35mm film (and occasionally 120 rolls) and as far as I can tell, there is no way to reliably perform the process and not get bromide drag marks from the sprocket holes. Its a doomed-to-fail scenario (35mm). So its not hard to imagine why many people come away from an experience with "stand" development with a litany of complaints about the result. Someone on Photrio has described such an experience today, in fact.

I do applaud you for your detailed, thoughtful experiments - I am certain this information will serve you (and others willing to go to lengths to get the result they want) very well. I also think this document will be a real eye-opener for the general user who has embraced the misguided notion that stand development is the "cure-all" for their carefree camera/darkroom techniques. (Yes, I have seen documents on the web that suggest that very idea)
So thanks for this remarkably detailed test data. Some of the LFP community will find it very helpful.

[tundra]

So thanks for this remarkably detailed test data. Some of the LFP community will find it very helpful.

You are most welcome. I will update the document periodically when/as relevant.

One thought here, though. 35mm/120 are likely doomed to fail with Stand development. But so is modern sheet film. My observation is that modern films just can't handle NO agitation without running into unpredictable bromide drag problems. But I tested 35mm on Nikor reels in an open deep tank and agitated vigorously for the first 2 minutes, and got fine Semistand results.

So far, anyway, the hint seems to be - Don't do Stand with any modern film, do Semistand or EMA and do it in large volume tanks. If you do Semistand, be vigorous in kicking off the first 2 mins of agitation to really get development going and process those halides.

I should also mention that what I've found is just one way to get this to work. Steve Sherman uses PVC tubes. Other people use trays. Like most things, there are an endless number of ways to get this wrong, but there are also multiple ways to succeed. I have documented what does- and does not work for me and even this remains a work in progress. Others are encouraged to depart from this and do their own experimentation.

[Michael R]

Hi Paul, several years back I posted curves for these on APUG, though not in the same thread. However the Rodinal test was to see what full stand did relative to a benchmark normal process. You can probably imagine some of the comments I received. :)

My divided D-23 (actually I did it more generically at the time so I called it something like divided Metol-sulfite or something similar) study was in a different context, but nevertheless.

The notable thing from a tone reproduction perspective about divided and two-bath development is that is tends to “straighten” a film’s characteristic curve somewhat (while also giving maximum emulsion speed). Visualize it as less toe and less shoulder. From a tone reproduction perspective what it means is whatever contrast you develop for, divided development will tend to even it out (same slope) from shadows all the way to extreme highlights.

My findings on that were consistent with some similar tests Sandy King did (I can’t remember where I read it).

The goal of most stand/semi-stand techniques on the other hand, is to try to get “compensation” - that is to say, a lengthening and flattening of the shoulder. In Zone parlance, one is attempting to preferentially minus-develop the highlights while retaining as much shadow and mid tone contrast as possible (or alternatively expand shadow and mid tone contrast with as little highlight expansion as possible).


I'd be interested in seeing how Rodinal "semi-stand" compares to Divided D23 (or D-76) compares, in regards to highlight suppression and midtone expansion. I've found divided D-23 does a wonderful job of expanding midtone contrast while reigning in the highlights.

[John Layton]

Tundra...I would also like to applaud your efforts here...and for sharing some results/insights with us - "grousing and arguing" notwithstanding!

To me, this forum provides a great vehicle for such (experiential/experimental/observational) sharing, as this offers the rest of us the opportunity to use your work as a vehicle to further our own experiments/processes, and to further share our own results. This approach...I truly believe, provides us with the very best ingredients for our own learning process.

On the other hand...were you to simply state that "in my state of the art laboratory, aided by the most sensitive and precise instrumentation and my advanced academic degree, I have arrived at what is irrefutably the most complete and precise treatise on Stand, Semi-stand, and EMA film processing procedures,” I would consider this…irrefutably illegitimate!

[tundra]

Tundra...I would also like to applaud your efforts here...and for sharing some results/insights with us - "grousing and arguing" notwithstanding!

To me, this forum provides a great vehicle for such (experiential/experimental/observational) sharing, as this offers the rest of us the opportunity to use your work as a vehicle to further our own experiments/processes, and to further share our own results. This approach...I truly believe, provides us with the very best ingredients for our own learning process.

On the other hand...were you to simply state that "in my state of the art laboratory, aided by the most sensitive and precise instrumentation and my advanced academic degree, I have arrived at what is irrefutably the most complete and precise treatise on Stand, Semi-stand, and EMA film processing procedures,” I would consider this…irrefutably illegitimate!

In my early career, I did actual R&D in a commercial laboratory involving parts of the human sensory process. What I learned is this: If you are actually pushing new boundaries, there isn't some body of established experimental technique, lab equipment, or process that makes the research work. The research creates those things.

Stand is not new science. But Stand is "new" in the sense that applying it to new emulsions is just ... different. What I did here wasn't an exploration in theoretical sensiometrics - I couldn't because I don't have a multichannel sensitometer and I'm not going to buy one either :) This was (and is) an attempt to reach practical results for controlling still development in service of producing more beautiful prints.

[ic-racer]

producing more beautiful prints.

At least show the prints, that is all that matters.

[tundra]

At least show the prints, that is all that matters.

Sure, come on over ... after COVID ;)

[David Schaller]

Thank you very much for this testing. Your findings are very useful to me, as I have standardized on Pyrocat HD, and have made some preliminary steps in the direction of EMA and semi-stand. I will try a few tweaks to my process based on your results, starting with a bit more agitation at the beginning, and perhaps using your dilution ratios, which are slightly different from mine. Thanks again for posting. There are many of us who appreciate this forum for sharing practical experiences rather than for getting into theoretical pissing contests.

[tundra]

As @ic-racer points out - the image is all that matters. I don't yet have a print, but here is a scan of a Semistand FP4+ negative. Please note that I have a really lousy old film scanner and this doesn't remotely do justice to the actual negative but it does serve to illustrate the ideas discussed here.

In full disclosure, I scanned the negative to be very low contrast to fully reveal what was in it. I then manipulated the HD curve digitally to - as best as I could - mimic how I will VC print it. I didn't bother to do any tuning like dodge/burn.

In the original scene, the SBR in the central shed area was only around 2 stops or so. The dark shadows were placed on III, but it put the foreground snow on the bottom of VIII. In other words, the overall scene SBR was normal to slightly large, but the core scene geometry had lousy local contrast - a perfect candidate for some sort of stand treatment.

Incidentally, the light that day was completely flat and omindirectional in the mid-day/early afternoon after a major snowstorm. An unmanipulated negative would have shown a big gray blob in the middle and bright snow.

N+ development would have blown the snow detail way up the H/D curve. Semistand processing gave this negative full shadow speed (which you cannot see in the scan, but there is plenty of detail there) and spread the mid-tones in the center subject very nicely, while holding the snow detail.

The print interpretation will benefit considerably when I split VC print it so - again - a lousy scan of the negative is only a very rough approximation of the final thing...

212872


EDIT: See later in this thread for a scan of the final silver print for comparison.

[tundra]

Thank you very much for this testing. Your findings are very useful to me, as I have standardized on Pyrocat HD, and have made some preliminary steps in the direction of EMA and semi-stand. I will try a few tweaks to my process based on your results, starting with a bit more agitation at the beginning, and perhaps using your dilution ratios, which are slightly different from mine. Thanks again for posting. There are many of us who appreciate this forum for sharing practical experiences rather than for getting into theoretical pissing contests.

Do report your findings back in this thread. I'm anxious to hear what others are doing in this area as well.

Not-pissing-in-the-theoretical-winds-ly Yours,
tundra

[Jim Noel]

No, I didn't say that, nor was there any evidence of this. The developer in various dilutions easily lasted an hour. There are reports (not confirmed by me) of stand sessions going much longer than this.

Our ancestors used films or plates that had thicker emulsions making stand a more viable technique. Back in the day (say, in the Super XX era), there are stories of commercial labs doing dunk agitation and then leaving the film to sit overnight in tanks for so-called "complete development".

It is my sense that the developer is not the constraint here. Modern films are, and they are best served by Semistand or EMA. Stand appears to be a highly variable crap shoot with these films and offers nothing Semistand or EMA don't as best as I could tell

The camera department where I worked part time in the 1940's used extended development on all brands and speeds of roll film. Late in each day we hung all film from a large rack with a 2 oz weight at the bottom. The film was lowered into the vat of well used D-23 just prior to locking the door for the night. First thing the next morning the rack was raised and the film moved through stop bath and fixer, then washed and dried. Contact prints were made of each film strip. Rarely was there an unprintable image. The Saturday intake of film spent an additional 24 hours in the developer w/o harm.
I still use the process and used D-23 for certain exposures today. These, of course, are sheet film up to 7x17 and done in a tray.

[tundra]

The camera department where I worked part time in the 1940's used extended development on all brands and speeds of roll film. Late in each day we hung all film from a large rack with a 2 oz weight at the bottom. The film was lowered into the vat of well used D-23 just prior to locking the door for the night. First thing the next morning the rack was raised and the film moved through stop bath and fixer, then washed and dried. Contact prints were made of each film strip. Rarely was there an unprintable image. The Saturday intake of film spent an additional 24 hours in the developer w/o harm.
I still use the process and used D-23 for certain exposures today. These, of course, are sheet film up to 7x17 and done in a tray.

I'll bet that in that era you were processing thick emulsion films like Super XX that handled stand a lot better than modern films.

[paulbarden]

Bergger Pancro 400 processed in D-23 is beautiful.

[Jim Noel]

I'll bet that in that era you were processing thick emulsion films like Super XX that handled stand a lot better than modern films.

Yes, but I have used the same methods and developer on current FP4+ with good results.

[John Layton]

Jim, am I correct in seeing that you've had success with sheets in open trays?

[esearing]

It is my sense that the developer is not the constraint here. Modern films are, and they are best served by Semistand or EMA. Stand appears to be a highly variable crap shoot with these films and offers nothing Semistand or EMA don't as best as I could tell

Some claim that the edge effects are the goal of EMA or semi-stand. And it makes sense that less agitation lets the developer exhaust in areas of high exposure faster than low exposure. But just reducing agitation can achieve similar results especially if given a long 2 minute initial agitation then limiting agitations to 2-3 per cycle. The mid tone enhancement is subjective to the scene contrast. For compensation/compression of highlights while still separating higher tones, I feel (vs know) that EMA dilutions for long periods of time work out better with the right developers. My testing of this is limited to Pyrocat variants but all seem to behave the same way and produce very printable negatives despite a flatter appearance. I'm always amazed how much texture there is in white water and brightly lit rocks when developed properly.

[tundra]

But just reducing agitation can achieve similar results especially if given a long 2 minute initial agitation then limiting agitations to 2-3 per cycle.

But isn't that really the essential definition of EMA?

[Jim Noel]

Jim, am I correct in seeing that you've had success with sheets in open trays?

Yes. I place the film in the tray, agitate for one minute, cover it with a larger tray and leave the room. Sometimes I go back agitate for 30 seconds each hour for up to 6-8 hours. It all depends on the subject, lighting and desired negative scale.
I usually develop by inspection, which is also a holdover from my early life in photography.

[tundra]

Yes. I place the film in the tray, agitate for one minute, cover it with a larger tray and leave the room. Sometimes I go back agitate for 30 seconds each hour for up to 6-8 hours. It all depends on the subject, lighting and desired negative scale.
I usually develop by inspection, which is also a holdover from my early life in photography.

Emulsion up- or down?

Do you ever see bromide drag effects?

[esearing]

But isn't that really the essential definition of EMA?

No EMA requires very dilute chemistry with long periods of development and 2-3 agitations. For many of the woodland/waterfall scenes I shoot I use more normal development dilution and times with fewer agitations because they usually have plenty of tonal contrast and a full range of tones. It was something I had to see for myself and tested 1) normal dilution and development times with agitation every 1 minute, 2) slightly diluted with few agitations and normal+ time (1 4x5 sheet) , vs 3) EMA - very dilute for double normal time and few agitations. The effect is different for multi tone images than it is for low contrast scenes.

My findings and preferences:
1) contrast boosting with some loss of highlight details in high contrast scene, good overall for low contrast 3stops to 6 stops SBR. (no bright sky or white water unless zone 8 max. good for separation of green foliage)
2) slightly flatter negative with good compression - requires a grade 2.5 or higher filter for MGFB Classic, grade 3 for MGFB warmtone. Generally use for 5-7 stops SBR with lots of midtone greens/grays (waterfalls with lots of greenery in morning light)
3) slightly sharper appearance and more details in highlight separation - Use with 7+ stops SBR or very low contrast scene with zones 7-9 subjects (white churches with bright sky, or light brown roots/veins in a light gray rock)

For low contrast scenes I sometimes use #2 or #3 and extend time to increase contrasts depending on mood and time available.

[tundra]

No EMA requires very dilute chemistry with long periods of development and 2-3 agitations. For many of the woodland/waterfall scenes I shoot I use more normal development dilution and times with fewer agitations because they usually have plenty of tonal contrast and a full range of tones. It was something I had to see for myself and tested 1) normal dilution and development times with agitation every 1 minute, 2) slightly diluted with few agitations and normal+ time (1 4x5 sheet) , vs 3) EMA - very dilute for double normal time and few agitations. The effect is different for multi tone images than it is for low contrast scenes.

My findings and preferences:
1) contrast boosting with some loss of highlight details in high contrast scene, good overall for low contrast 3stops to 6 stops SBR. (no bright sky or white water unless zone 8 max. good for separation of green foliage)
2) slightly flatter negative with good compression - requires a grade 2.5 or higher filter for MGFB Classic, grade 3 for MGFB warmtone. Generally use for 5-7 stops SBR with lots of midtone greens/grays (waterfalls with lots of greenery in morning light)
3) slightly sharper appearance and more details in highlight separation - Use with 7+ stops SBR or very low contrast scene with zones 7-9 subjects (white churches with bright sky, or light brown roots/veins in a light gray rock)

For low contrast scenes I sometimes use #2 or #3 and extend time to increase contrasts depending on mood and time available.

Interesting (and thanks for sharing). Given that approach, how do you handle a full SBR scene - say with content from Zones III-VIII+ - where you want to both hold the highlights AND increase mid-tone local contrast? It was that exact problem that got me looking at the various still/stand techniques I talk about in my monograph.

Another problem I want to conquer is when you have a huge SBR that would normally call for N- development, but where doing so would - again - clobber mid-tone local contrast (because N- compresses mid-tones). I want to try David Kachel's SLIMT techniques for this. Kachel is no fan of (semi)stand or EMA and has said so in public (and in private email). But his ideas on local contrast and compensating high tones are very good. If you've not read this material, I recommend it highly.

[Jim Noel]

Emulsion up- or down?

Do you ever see bromide drag effects?

Up always

[Wayne]

Uh, scuse me, EMA? Emergency Medical Assistance? Exposure Manipulation Association? Extended Manual Aperture?

[tundra]

Uh, scuse me, EMA? Emergency Medical Assistance? Exposure Manipulation Association? Extended Manual Aperture?


:P If you go to the top of this thread, you will see I wrote up my experiences with various kinds of no/low agitation techniques (so far). In there I documented the common terms an how they are usually used. EMA = Extreme Minimal Agitation

[Wayne]

:P If you go to the top of this thread, you will see I wrote up my experiences with various kinds of no/low agitation techniques (so far). In there I documented the common terms an how they are usually used. EMA = Extreme Minimal Agitation


Oh I didn't read the link, just the thread. Carry on, Extreme Minimal Agitators.

[jamgolf]

Long time lurker here. I spent the last couple of months exploring various stand techniques and took a moment to summarize my findings. I doubt there is anything new here, but some may find this helpful ...

https://gitbucket.tundraware.com/tundra/Stand-Development

tundra, thanks for documenting and sharing your thoughts and observations.
Very useful reference.

[tundra]

tundra, thanks for documenting and sharing your thoughts and observations.
Very useful reference.

You're quite welcome. This document continues to be updated as I discover an document more, so you may want to periodically revisit it.

Again, I do not claim to be an expert in the matter and these are just a record of my own findings.

[tundra]

Scan of a silver print made from one of these test negatives. FP4+ in Pyrocat-HD 1.5:1:200 EMA processed for 30 min total. 3 equally spaced agitation intervals of 10-15 seconds after initial vigorous agitation of 2 minutes.

Original scene was flat grey in the center with the dark holes on III and foreground snow on VIII.
Note the expanded mid-tones.

213133