Semi-stand and Portraiture

[Scott Davis]

Anyone ever use semi-stand development for portraits? I'm anticipating the answer is no, because it has too much micro-contrast and over-sharpens the image, but I could be wrong. I'd love to hear arguments on either side.

[David de Gruyl]

It depends what you mean. This picture (and several like it) was developed using Rodinal 1+125, 1 hour, with 3 inversions every 10 minutes. I find the contrast reduction helps sometimes. I also find that it is much easier for me, currently, to develop my 8x10 this way. Oh, it is FP4+ 8x10, not that that is important.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4041/4544732084_1606097f43_o.jpg

[Scott Davis]

I'm going to be shooting 14x17 and I'll have to do each sheet 1 at a time, so I'm considering semi-stand as an option anyway,

[Jay DeFehr]

I think there are a lot of variables to consider, such as film, developer, lighting, subject, etc., but in general, I find some portraits benefit by reduced agitation and extended development. Reduced agitation can encourage compensation of extreme contrasts, and enhanced micro-contrast can improve some portraits made in flat light. I'll attach example s. The first is Forte 400 developed in 510-Pyro, 1:500, 20 min, 70F, semi-stand. The second is Arista EDU 100 developed in GSD-10, 1:10, 1 hr, 70F, stand. The last is Ultrafine+ 400 developed in Hypercat, 1:10:300, 12min, 70F, 10sec/ 3min agitation. Scan quality varies from bad to worse, but I hope they show something useful.

[Ash]

Jay that middle one looks pretty nice with the lighting

[Louie Powell]

Scott -

I understand that if you are working with single sheets, the semi-stand process might be tempting. But what benefit would you be looking for.

In my mind, semi-stand is a compensation process that is designed to enhance detail. The ideal applications (and the cases where I've seen it used most effectively) is where the subject scene contains lots of detail. With portraiture, you would typically have an out-of-focus background (I'm not aware that semi-stand enhances bokeh, but it might). There could be some advantage in enhancing skin texture, but that may not be appropriate for all subjects.

[Jay DeFehr]

Thanks, Ash. The SBR was longer than the image suggests. It was kind of a torture test for GSD-10.

[Steve Sherman]

Oh, it is FP4+ 8x10, not that that is important.


Actually, different films react differently with reduced agitation methods. FP 4 for instance does not produce the adjancey effects that other films can.

OTOH, I believe all films will benefit so far as increased film speed and at the same time have a compensating effect on highlight density

Cheers

[Jay DeFehr]

Louie,

Compensation is generally meant to compress very high subject brightness ranges, by developing low values disproportionately to high values. The management of high contrast has always been an issue for portrait photographers. The adjacency effects associated with reduced agitation are side effects, and might be distracting in some cases. All of the developers used in my examples are capable of adjacency effects. I don't think a portrait is particularly susceptible to them, but I have seen them in portraits, even some famous ones (see the attached portrait of Clarke Gable, by George Hurrell). I saw a similar effect with 510-Pyro semi-stand with Tech Pan. I'll attach that example, as well. I would consider these effects defects in these examples. I'm not sure what these examples have in common (the differences are obvious!), but I suspect it could be a combination of high contrast materials and reduced agitation. The heretic, William Mortensen famously developed his negatives to gamma infinity, sometimes in the refrigerator, for days!

[David de Gruyl]

Actually, different films react differently with reduced agitation methods. FP 4 for instance does not produce the adjancey effects that other films can.

OTOH, I believe all films will benefit so far as increased film speed and at the same time have a compensating effect on highlight density

Cheers

Good point. TXP does get edge effects, which is probably not something you want so much of in a portrait.

[Robert Hughes]

William Mortensen famously developed his negatives to gamma infinity, sometimes in the refrigerator, for days! Of course, he rigorously controlled his lighting setups to take advantage of the gamma infinity development method. Uncontrolled lighting of scenes, such as found outdoors, can benefit from other techniques.

[Jay DeFehr]

Robert,

What kind of lighting do you feel benefits most by development to gamma infinity? Aside from maximum expansion, I can't imagine.

[Ken Lee]

I never heard the term Gamma Infinity before.

The Manual of Photography: Photographic and Digital imaging By R. E. Jacobson, defines Gamma Infinity as follows.

(Funny, one would think it more properly called Gamma Max, since it is a limit, and not in fact infinity. But that's just me).


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/GammaInfinity.jpg

[Robert Hughes]

What kind of lighting do you feel benefits most by development to gamma infinity? Aside from maximum expansion, I can't imagine.
Mortenson associated with cinema cameramen and used variations on the standard3-point lighting setups used in movies of the day. Key-to-fill ratios of 2:1 or 3:1 were common. With low contrast lighting, a standard development timing may come out looking flat, whereas gamma infinity would push the contrast up to enhance the dramatic effect he was going for.