PDA

View Full Version : Minus Development versus Stand Development



Michael Graves
2-Jun-2011, 08:53
I'm looking for the best way to photograph a high-contrast subject using 8x10 HP5 film. I've had some success using stand development in the past, but occassionally get a bit of mottling in areas of even tone. However, my experience with minus-development using HC110 has been less than optimum. Has anyone done a direct comparison of minus versus stand? Ordinarily, I'd just burn a couple of film holders full of film and try it myself. Only I'm shooting the subject this weekend and won't have the opportunity to test in advance. And I only get one chance.

Ken Lee
2-Jun-2011, 09:19
Try Divided Pyrocat HD (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=52913).

It is neither Minus Development nor Stand Development - and suffers from the limitations of neither.

As you can see in the images posted in the above-linked discussion, it is no problem whatsoever to encompass a range of 14 Zones.

You really have to see it yourself to believe it because it's so far outside our normal experience with b&w film.

Just be sure to add a little wetting agent to the developer to avoid any mottling.

Here are links to additional discussion:

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/64343-divided-pyrocat-hd.html (http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/64343-divided-pyrocat-hd.html)

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=67154

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=62871

Lynn Jones
2-Jun-2011, 15:17
Diafine will do it quite easily.

I test all my films and developers to go from GBar .3 up to 1.0 and further test for exposure and development for these contrasts to always get a .70 for middle grey often called Zone 5.

Lynn

Jay DeFehr
2-Jun-2011, 15:32
Michael,

If it was me, I'd develop in a tube, 5:00 pre-soak, 510-Pyro, 1:500, 70F, 1:00 initial agitation, 10 seconds agitation at 5:00 intervals, for 20:00.

I wouldn't trust a staining 2-bath developer for something important until I was sure I had the process worked out.

engl
2-Jun-2011, 15:48
Trying a new developer with an important negative sounds crazy. The question from the OP was about two techniques with which he was familiar, but had not conducted direct comparisons of.

I'm sorry, I do not have much to contribute about stand vs minus. I do use stand development myself and get good results, as long as the film, tank and developer are at room temperature (to avoid convection).

Jay DeFehr
2-Jun-2011, 16:12
Stefan,

Which two developers? I think the question was about stand development versus minus development- two techniques.

Technically speaking, stand development and minus development are not mutually exclusive, if minus development is taken to mean less than normal development. In fact, stand development is frequently used for minus development of film exposed to high Subject Brightness Ranges. In short, I think the question was somewhat mis-stated, but I understood his meaning. Perhaps relating what I would do is less useful than my opinion about what his best course of action might be with the developer he has on hand.

Michael,

If you're getting mottling with stand development, but otherwise satisfactory results, just increase agitation. A few seconds every 5 minutes ought to eliminate mottling.

Good luck!

engl
2-Jun-2011, 16:58
Yes you are right, I meant techniques, I have edited my message. Thanks.

Ben Calwell
2-Jun-2011, 18:19
I don't quite understand divided Pyrocat HD. From my reading of the threads on this, it sounds as if each bath -- A and B -- is the exact same thing. How does that provide a compensating effect?
With divided D23, you've got D23 in the first bath and then a second bath of Kodalk --two trays, each with a different solution in it.
What am I not understanding?

sanking
2-Jun-2011, 18:22
Jay writes, "I wouldn't trust a staining 2-bath developer for something important until I was sure I had the process worked out."

Totally agree, and I would add that for important work I would not trust any procedure not already worked out.

It is also important to take into consideration whether any slight blemishes/imperfections are tolerable (as they might be if we expose and develop to scan) or if a near perfect negative is required (as it might be for printing directly with analog processes).

I say this because while reduced agitation (stand, semi-stand, etc.) and two-bath development have a long history use in photography, it is a fact that very refined technique is required with any minimal agitation procedure to make negatives that are totally free of development artifacts such as mottling, spots, streaks, uneven development, etc. If you need to expose and develop to print with analog processes for scenes of high contrast I would seek out specific process details from Steve Sherman. He is one of the best I know at this.

Sandy King

Jay DeFehr
2-Jun-2011, 20:24
Sandy,

I agree on all counts.

bobpin
2-Jun-2011, 20:48
8x10 Orthofilm developed in a Jobo drum, 5:00 pre-soak, 510-Pyro, 1:500, 1min fast speed initial rotation, 19mins very slow rotation, total 20 mins

http://i650.photobucket.com/albums/uu222/bobpin/Portrait/BWLarryChanTell.jpg



4x5 HP5+ developed in a Jobo drum, 5:00 pre-soak, 510-Pyro, 1:300, 16mins normal speed rotation.

http://i650.photobucket.com/albums/uu222/bobpin/Portrait/friend07.jpg

Michael Graves
3-Jun-2011, 03:29
Thanks for the suggestions. I have used Pyrocat HD rather extensively in the past, and even have tested speeds for HP5. The only reason I ever stopped was that the last two times I tried to order it, it was back ordered and I wound up switching over to HC-110.

I'm thinking that I'll shoot four to six sheets and develop the first side of each film holder in Pyro-split. If that doesn't work out, I'll do the others in stand. The Diafine sounds interesting and I will probably try it some time soon. But I don't want to dive into anything totally unfamiliar.

From what I understand, I won't get any film speed difference using Pyrocat split over single solution will I?

Ken Lee
3-Jun-2011, 04:06
I don't quite understand divided Pyrocat HD. From my reading of the threads on this, it sounds as if each bath -- A and B -- is the exact same thing. How does that provide a compensating effect?
With divided D23, you've got D23 in the first bath and then a second bath of Kodalk --two trays, each with a different solution in it.
What am I not understanding?

Actually, Divided D-23 is not a fully divided developer, because development actually takes place in both baths. It might be better to call it dual bath.

With Divided Pyrocat (and Diafine), the developer is merely absorbed into the film during the first bath. No development takes place at all. (I have watched with an Infra Red monocular and can attest to this). In the second bath, the developer is activated. It gets exhausted in the high values rather quickly, but continues to work in the shadow areas for a short time.

I apologize for not answering the original posting directly (minus versus stand). I tried to reply to the spirit of the question, rather than the letter.

Ken Lee
3-Jun-2011, 04:18
The only reason I ever stopped was that the last two times I tried to order it, it was back ordered...

From what I understand, I won't get any film speed difference using Pyrocat split over single solution will I?

It's even cheaper when you mix the chemistry yourself. The only big expense is the one-time purchase of a scale :) and that pays for itself in the saved shipping charges of chemistry you're not buying any more. My scale cost around $50-75. I got it from Old Will Knot Scales (http://www.oldwillknottscales.com). I get my chemicals from Artcraft Chemicals (http://www.artcraftchemicals.com/products/) in upstate NY.

If anything, film speed increases when you use a truly divided developer. And apparent grain is lessened. Even more significantly, all films get developed for the same time and temperature.

Brian K
3-Jun-2011, 04:32
Have you considered pre flashing your film? By giving it a zone I to a zone II pre exposure you can gain significant density in the low tones, and then you just expose to get the high tones into zone VII or VIII.

straight exposure:
ZI----ZII---ZIII----ZIV---ZV----ZVI---ZVII---ZVIII
0-----1------2------4-----8-----16-----32------64---- Light quantities

Zone I preflash:
ZI---ZII----ZIII---ZIV---ZV---ZVI----ZVII---ZVIII
1-----2------3-----5------9-----17-----33------65

Zone II preflash:
ZI----ZII----ZIII---ZIV---ZV----ZVI---ZVII---ZVIII
2-----3------4-----6-----10-----18-----34-----66

You can see the way the preflash adds density to the low tones but barely affects the higher tones. This also does not require tedious experimentation with other developers which can also alter tonalities, grain, acutance, etc.

Ben Calwell
3-Jun-2011, 05:15
Ken,
So in the divided technique, each tray or tank or whatever contains Pyrocat HD at the same dilution?
We're moving the film from one bath of Pyrocat HD into another bath of Pyrocat HD at the exact same dilution and everything?

sanking
3-Jun-2011, 06:26
Ken,
So in the divided technique, each tray or tank or whatever contains Pyrocat HD at the same dilution?
We're moving the film from one bath of Pyrocat HD into another bath of Pyrocat HD at the exact same dilution and everything?

To be clear, with divided Pyrocat the first tray contains a dilution of Stock Solution A, which contains the reducing agent (s), and the second tray contains a dilutin of Stock Solution B, which is the alkaline agent.

The film absorbs reducer in the first solution, but no image development takes place. The image develops when you transfer it to the second solution, and the appearance of the image is almost instantaneous.

Sandy

Ben Calwell
3-Jun-2011, 13:31
Sandy,
Thank you. I understand now.
I'm reminded of the old saying, "It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, rather than open it and remove all doubt."

Steve Sherman
3-Jun-2011, 14:11
I'm looking for the best way to photograph a high-contrast subject using 8x10 HP5 film. I've had some success using stand development in the past, but occassionally get a bit of mottling in areas of even tone. However, my experience with minus-development using HC110 has been less than optimum. Has anyone done a direct comparison of minus versus stand? Ordinarily, I'd just burn a couple of film holders full of film and try it myself. Only I'm shooting the subject this weekend and won't have the opportunity to test in advance. And I only get one chance.

It would help to know what exactly you consider a "high contrast" subject before offering a method to develop that specific piece of film.

Give us a shadow zone & highlight zone or a SBR for the scene you are trying to tame.

Jerry Bodine
3-Jun-2011, 16:00
Michael,

I just discovered this thread, and I think I can come close to answering your OP question. I’ve just recently completed my zone system tests of HP5 / HC-110, but have not used the results in the field as yet. As you can see below, I’ve only confirmed even development for N-5; N-1 through N-4 will only be known by field work but I don’t anticipate a problem. My testing was rather rigorous, using 4x5 film and a Stouffer 31-step wedge in the film holder in order to get characteristic curves for N+2 to about N-5 (with even development). The target was a white surface, illuminated by blue floods, using my 5x7 Sinar Norma with bellows hood to reduce flare.

All tests were kept at 68F by water jacket. Attention was given to insure that Kodak’s published developer capacity was never exceeded. A 2-minute presoak was used for each test.
Personal EI = 200 was found to produce a density of .10 above fb+f.
Agitation for all tests, except N-5, mimicked my standard tray development – shuffling through a 6-sheet stack every 30 seconds. The N-5 development was done by using two films in a quad hanger (one with Stouffer exposure & one without to confirm even development); tray agitation was done by keeping the hanger submerged while slowly raising/lowering.

RESULTS FOR CONTRACTIONS (Note: All dilutions are from concentrate)

N-1: 7 min, 1+31 (Dil B), add 1/3 stop exposure to preserve shadow detail.

N-2: 6 min, 1+31 (Dil B), add 1/3 stop exposure to preserve shadow detail.

N-3: 7 min, 1+63, add 1 stop exposure to preserve shadow detail.

N-4: 6 min, 1+63, add 1 stop exposure to preserve shadow detail.

N-5: 20 min, 1+123, add 1 stop exposure to preserve shadow detail.
Agitation for 1st min, then 15sec every 5min (105sec total), the least amount of agitation that would produce even development. [6-min interval was uneven, 3-min interval was even.]

Hope this helps,
Jerry

Steve Sherman
3-Jun-2011, 17:30
Certainly there are many methods to develop film to arrive at a desired result. Jerry has certainly spent considerable time to research and test the above technique. I can attest that his suggestions / methods do in fact yield considerable contrast compression. I have used my own variation of the above HC 110 technique as high as N - 7 with acceptable results for twenty years. However, there are considerable printing gymnastics that need to happen with these type ultra low contrast negatives, nevertheless very beautiful prints are possible.

That was before Semi -Stand / Reduced Agitation development techniques were discovered a few years ago. This technique is superior in all three of the most important factors when attempting to reduce extreme amounts of contrast. First, film speed is maximized, 2nd, micro contrast (mid tone contrast) is significantly increased, these two components of the development process work exactly opposite from the highly dilute HC 110 technique. Lastly, with both techniques highlight density is held in check by virtue of exhausted developer never allowing highlight density to climb as high as it would with normal strength developer. For a variety of reasons not pertinent to this discussion a pyro based developer is superior in everyway to a non pyro developer.

See this link for a very informative discussion on the Reduced Agitation Development technique.

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/24023-semi-stand-description-illustratvie-photo.html

FWIW, I have tried the Divided Developer method and can attest that this technique can also reduce extreme amounts of contrast while still preserving max film speed. However, I find this technique better suited for more normal scene contrast as the results with Reduced Agitation techniques and extreme amounts of contrast to be much more predictable.
Cheers!

sanking
3-Jun-2011, 18:16
I saw an exhibition of Steve Sheman's work a few weeks ago in Toronto and the quality of his printing in silver gelatin from in-camera negatives is really break taking.

For those in the Louisville area he has a show at the Paul Paletti gallery up now.

“Steve Sherman: A Landscape Scene” will be at the Paul Paletti Gallery, 713 E Market St., 589-9254, from June 1-Aug. 31. The exhibition will open during the June 3 First Friday Trolley Hop.

When it comes to making a silver gelatin print sing Steve Sherman is someone who can really walk the walk.

Sandy King

ic-racer
4-Jun-2011, 05:47
You don't need any special concoction or goofy process to develop to a lower gamma.

Jay DeFehr
4-Jun-2011, 07:11
ic,

I'm sure you didn't intend it, but your post comes off as arrogantly dismissive. These guys know of what they speak.

Andrew O'Neill
4-Jun-2011, 07:55
You don't need any special concoction or goofy process to develop to a lower gamma.

Disagree. Sometimes I have to. For very extreme contractions, I've employed the "bleach & redevelopment in a monobath" process. This is the best method for retaining shadow and highlight separation. Compression only occurs in the mid tones, which is preserved when printed. I've used this method for up to N-7.

Also, since I started using pyrocat-hd almost ten years ago, I don't contract as much as I used to when printing on VC papers.

Someone also mentioned pre-flashing film. It works quite well, but I have found that it must be kept to a "minimum" otherwise shadows get pretty ugly pretty quick. For HP5 I don't go beyond a flashing placement of zone 1.

ic-racer
4-Jun-2011, 08:45
ic,

I'm sure you didn't intend it, but your post comes off as arrogantly dismissive. These guys know of what they speak.

Nothing wrong with anything I saw posted, but there is no NEED for any of it to make a printable negative with modern film under any lighting conditions.

Besides "contraction" is a horrible term to use. The films density range (H&D curve x-axis) is fixed at the time of manufacture. You can narrow it with age and poor handling but you can't extend it. T-max curve is straight way beyond the range of values a lens can project onto the film plane unless you are including light sources in the image.

sanking
4-Jun-2011, 09:35
The films density range (H&D curve x-axis) is fixed at the time of manufacture. You can narrow it with age and poor handling but you can't extend it.

You are not serious, right? Or are you?

Sandy

Jay DeFehr
4-Jun-2011, 10:44
Sandy, I'm afraid he might be.

Steve Sherman
4-Jun-2011, 11:35
Nothing wrong with anything I saw posted, but there is no
Besides "contraction" is a horrible term to use. The films density range (H&D curve x-axis) is fixed at the time of manufacture. You can narrow it with age and poor handling but you can't extend it. T-max curve is straight way beyond the range of values a lens can project onto the film plane unless you are including light sources in the image.

Right here is where everyone makes their mistake!

We don't frame & hang the negative, we need to manipulate the SBR first to the negative's range of acceptance and ultimately to the final positive process of choice.

My years and large waste basket assure me of a negative's useable range is twice what silver gelatin's paper is. Include all other photo processes and the film's full scale range is still not completely used.

Sir, there is not one thought in your comment that is accurate.

Andrew O'Neill
4-Jun-2011, 13:47
The films density range (H&D curve x-axis) is fixed at the time of manufacture. You can narrow it with age and poor handling but you can't extend it.

It may be fixed at the time of manufacture, but it still can be manipulated by the photographer via developer and dilution.

Brian K
5-Jun-2011, 11:02
The problem I have with stand development is the ease in which mottle can occur. And if you're someone who likes to shoot wide areas of smooth tone it can be the kiss of death for the image as mottle is not easily hidden, retouched or repaired. I've heard good things about staining developers for expanded tonal ranges and for scanning of negatives this is supposedly a good way to go. I don't like to work with stained negatives but that's just a matter of personal comfort.

Ole Tjugen
5-Jun-2011, 11:51
There are some cases where staining developers are the way to go, some cases where N-X development is the way to go, and some where stand development gove the best result.

In one extreme case, which did involve including a light source in the shot (the sun, during a partial solar eclipse), I ended up using Windisch' Extreme Compensating developer on my single negative. It did the trick, leaving details in the foreground as well as the sun (sun spots were visible). That was the original Windisch', not the one in the cookbook which gives far far less contraction.

Gary L. Quay
7-Jun-2011, 17:35
I'd be interested in knowing the formula for the original Windisch. I tried the one in the Cookbook, and was unimpressed. I prefer tanning developers over contractions whenever possible because I like to work with "normal" development times whenever possible. I find that there is less chance of splotching up a negative that way.

--Gary


There are some cases where staining developers are the way to go, some cases where N-X development is the way to go, and some where stand development gove the best result.

In one extreme case, which did involve including a light source in the shot (the sun, during a partial solar eclipse), I ended up using Windisch' Extreme Compensating developer on my single negative. It did the trick, leaving details in the foreground as well as the sun (sun spots were visible). That was the original Windisch', not the one in the cookbook which gives far far less contraction.