Underdevelopment through Stand development possible?

[frotog]

From a sensitometric perspective, restraining highlights with this method will not really do anything you can't do by simply reducing development time. Less contrast, less emulsion speed, no magic.

The advantage of restraining highlights with Rodinal stand development has everything to do with developing the shadows to completion. This in fact is very different than pulling development with a standard agitation scheme. For starters, unlike pulling the development, with stand dev. you gain emulsion speed due to the increased density in shadow areas.

For the OP, if your desire is to restrain highlights as much as possible, use a single gentle inversion at the beginning of the process. The difference between a gentle inversion and the usual 5" or 10" agitation scheme at the start of an hour long stand session is very noticeable in regards to highlight density.

[Michael R]

The advantage of restraining highlights with Rodinal stand development has everything to do with developing the shadows to completion. This in fact is very different than pulling development with a standard agitation scheme. For starters, unlike pulling the development, with stand dev. you gain emulsion speed due to the increased density in shadow areas.

Ok you win. It isn't what the data show, but I'm not here to argue.

[Peter De Smidt]

If you want highlight compensation and full film speed, you really should try divided Pyrocat.

[Kirk Gittings]

If you want highlight compensation and full film speed, you really should try divided Pyrocat.

ditto

[Steve Sherman]

You should really test it for yourself. Dilute Rodinal/stand/semi-stand is one of those things - claims are made, tempers flare, war breaks out. Ultimately, however, it is largely myth and hyperbole.

Certainly the internet is a wealth of information, all of us have benefited in so many ways through shared experiences. However, the internet is also a wealth of miss information as reflected in the above quote. I simply can not understand why the above statement was posted. Clearly Michael you have either been completely unsuccessful with reduced agitation forms of film development or you have no knowledge of the process whatsoever and chose to make an unfounded statement for reasons that escape me.

The scores of photographers who don't know for sure if the process is what I claim it to be are left to believe the loudest voice and in most cases it is not me, I have little time to argue with folks who simply make erroneous statements about something they clearly have no knowledge of or who have been unsuccessful with so therefore it can't possibly work.

That is until now, I have begun teaching workshops on the Power of Process which covers Pyro chemistry and Reduced Agitation forms of film development. Admittedly, I have a narrow window of expertise when it comes to the Black and White Large Format genre, but within that window statements such as the two you've made in this thread along with others where you and I have shared differing views leads me to believe there are some who say things to hear themselves while others say things in the hopes of passing on knowledge that has been researched and proven to be of significant value to the wet process film photographer.

So, let me explain to all who care to listen why the process works and is so incredibly powerful on so many levels.

As was loosely alluded to by another informed poster, when developer is diluted to such a degree that the areas of the film that are most heavily sensitized (highlights) quickly exhaust the developer, hence these densities are restrained due to developer exhaustion. While the shadows ( areas of density dictated more by exposure than development ) continue to build density even with dilute developers. So, it becomes a relationship of dilution and extended amounts of time and frequency of agitation, or in this case lack of agitation, thereby allowing the shadows to fully develop, hence the claim of Max Film Speed while the highlights are never allowed to fully develop to a density that Normal development would have allowed for. Hence the claim of extreme compression of highlights is possible. These two extremes of the film's response are fairly easy to test for and ultimately control. In workshops I liken these two components as nothing more than the Levels function in PS.

The real advantage of Reduced Agitation forms of film development are seen in the mid tone area, micro contrast, the relationship of adjacent tonalities is greatly exaggerated and for those who have years of B&W printing experience understand that is the most difficult part of the print to effect the desired result. In workshop settings I liken this effect as the Curves function in PS to put it in perspective for the hybrid photographer.

While I cannot speak with specificity to the results of Rodinal, I can offer what I believe to be true, the process of Reduced Agitation is much more about the process and effect than it is about one developer to another or use with different films. Certain Film Developer combinations may yield greater results but I am quite confident the effect with be dramatic no matter the developer or film used when the correct dilutions / agitation relationships are used.

Lastly, I've attached two scenes that should dramatically illustrate the Creative potential and ability to make a statement such as, when one masters this process the ability to photograph in any lighting condition and produce a printable negative is entirely possible.

Utah Back Country Erosion, one degree spot meter told me of no more than 3 zones of contrast in the original scene. This is the negative that actually was the first successful attempt with a one hour Semi-Stand with one 30 second agitation cycle at the mid way mark, this development roughly equates to N + 4 development. To see this negative side by side with an identically exposed negative processed with Weston's ABC Pyro prompted Michael A Smith to make a rather bold observation when he saw the two side by side. See my testimonials page here if you would like to learn his thoughts on the differences between the two processes.

http://www.steve-sherman.com/workshops.cfm

The other scene was shot in the interior of a Philadelphia prison. The walls ( with Zone 2 detail ) closest to the camera while the extreme highlights in the center of the scene read Zone 15, this negative received a Normal minus 5 development and is not a difficult print to make.

I have mentioned nothing about "increased sharpness" because it is a perception of greater sharpness but in reality sharpness is a function of lens resolution and the film's acutance. For me the process will always be about the Creative possibilities I now have which did not exist prior to the discovery of this technique.

Cheers,

[Michael R]

As I said before, you guys win. There is no need to fly apart at the seams. I don't use semi-stand techniques in my own work (most often under extremely high contrast circumstances), but I have done a lot of work on it and other related procedures out of interest in sensitometry and tone reproduction. I won't present any data or prints here as I have already done so elsewhere and I don't think it would help much, but in the interest of defending my reputation, I must at least point out that I don't make unfounded statements. In fact I am one of the few who present experimental data/evidence and cite reputable sources regarding theory/practice rather than offering what I believe to be true. I wish everyone the best in their image and print making.

[Peter De Smidt]

<snip> I won't present any data or prints here as I have already done so elsewhere...<snip>

Where?

[Michael R]

There is lots of it on APUG. I've only recently signed up on LFF (although I have followed periodically). Anyhow, there is no need to discuss this further. People go bonkers over nothing. In the end there are usually a variety of ways to get from subject to print.

[Kirk Gittings]

Just for the record you were the first one to throw stones in this thread:

You should really test it for yourself. Dilute Rodinal/stand/semi-stand is one of those things - claims are made, tempers flare, war breaks out. Ultimately, however, it is largely myth and hyperbole.

[Michael R]

Well, many claims, sometimes wild claims have been made over the years about dilute Rodinal with stand/semi-stand techniques with respect to both reducing contrast and maximizing emulsion speed. Almost no evidence of any kind has been presented.

Don't worry I won't be sullying these threads anymore. Carry on and happy printing