Semi Stand and EMA Development Question

[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. 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.