Summary Of Recent Work On Stand Development

[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.