Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: Summary Of Recent Work On Stand Development

  1. #11

    Re: Summary Of Recent Work On Stand Development

    Quote Originally Posted by Tin Can View Post
    So your developer lost all activity between 18 and 35 minutes

    I have read of our ancestors extending 'stand' to several hours

    I confirm Rodinol is dead at 20 minutes or less at high dilution
    No, I didn't say that, nor was there any evidence of this. The developer in various dilutions easily lasted an hour. There are reports (not confirmed by me) of stand sessions going much longer than this.

    Our ancestors used films or plates that had thicker emulsions making stand a more viable technique. Back in the day (say, in the Super XX era), there are stories of commercial labs doing dunk agitation and then leaving the film to sit overnight in tanks for so-called "complete development".

    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

  2. #12

    Re: Summary Of Recent Work On Stand Development

    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    I don't see any data to back up that statement. How did you test this? Where are the results?
    I don't know what data would suffice. I don't have a multichannel densitometer so I have to rely on eyeballing the negatives and the prints. Based on this, I am seeing better midtones, and well behaved highlight zones.

    If you really want data that you would find satisfying, I encourage you to conduct your own tests.

  3. #13

    Re: Summary Of Recent Work On Stand Development

    Quote Originally Posted by esearing View Post
    Were your tests single sheet of 4x5 or multiple sheets? Dilution matters once you add more sheets.

    EMA works great as long as your Pyrocat HD is relatively fresh. After six months you will need to rerun tests. You can also reduce the part B to get less stain but need to add a bit more A. so ratio is like 1.5A : 1.25B : 200W . I basically abandoned EMA with Pyrocat HD due to sudden chemical failures as it aged. Pyrocat M works much better since the metol lasts longer than phenidone (in my opinion, not a science fact but something observed). HD and FP4+ @70* for 22-24mins was my EMA standard. For contrast control I found I could go as low as 18mins and up to 35mins fairly predictably.

    For Pyrocat M I found little difference when using EMA vs a more normal dilution and time, but I reduced my agitations to 2.5 or 3 minute intervals. 3.5 :3.0 : 500 for 12:30 total time @70*.
    I did both single- and multisheet testing. With one (failed) test as the exception, in every other case I had between 1800ml and 2000ml of developer in a tank, and the biggest run was 6 sheets at once - i.e., There was more than enough developer to handle the problem.

    I mix Pyrocat-HD in small enough batches (500ml) that I am likely to go through it well before the 6 month mark. Even if I don't, it is so inexpensive to make, that tossing the old and making new is a trivial thing to do.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    1,410

    Re: Summary Of Recent Work On Stand Development

    I'd be interested in seeing how Rodinal "semi-stand" compares to Divided D23 (or D-76) compares, in regards to highlight suppression and midtone expansion. I've found divided D-23 does a wonderful job of expanding midtone contrast while reigning in the highlights.

  5. #15

    Re: Summary Of Recent Work On Stand Development

    Quote Originally Posted by paulbarden View Post
    I'd be interested in seeing how Rodinal "semi-stand" compares to Divided D23 (or D-76) compares, in regards to highlight suppression and midtone expansion. I've found divided D-23 does a wonderful job of expanding midtone contrast while reigning in the highlights.
    If you do, please share with the class

    I specifically didn't want this to be a developer comparison because this was my first deep dive into limited agitation techniques. I knew going in it was going to be flakey. so I wanted as few variables as possible to manage.

    There is anecdotal commentary that both HC-110 and D-76 stand use will have inferior grain to Pyrocat-HD. No idea about D-23.

    I know there are skeptics here (and elsewhere) about low/no agitation techniques, but the ability to jack up mid-tones while holding highlights is a super useful tool that I wish I'd figured out years ago. I don't know how many times I've made a "perfect" negative that captured the full SBR only to see lousy mid-tone local contrast. I've always wondered why this kind of stuff engenders so much grousing and arguing when all people need to do is try it for themselves.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    1,410

    Re: Summary Of Recent Work On Stand Development

    Quote Originally Posted by tundra View Post
    I've always wondered why this kind of stuff engenders so much grousing and arguing when all people need to do is try it for themselves.
    I think you answered that question yourself: the likelihood of getting spectacularly bad results is very high unless you control the process very carefully. Lets face it - 99.9% of people who attempt this process do so with very little understanding of the issues (bromide drag being the foremost) and so they just stumble forward, following any instructions they find on the web (often poor instructions) and then discover they've produced unusable negatives. It is my distinct impression that most people who attempt the technique are working with 35mm film (and occasionally 120 rolls) and as far as I can tell, there is no way to reliably perform the process and not get bromide drag marks from the sprocket holes. Its a doomed-to-fail scenario (35mm). So its not hard to imagine why many people come away from an experience with "stand" development with a litany of complaints about the result. Someone on Photrio has described such an experience today, in fact.

    I do applaud you for your detailed, thoughtful experiments - I am certain this information will serve you (and others willing to go to lengths to get the result they want) very well. I also think this document will be a real eye-opener for the general user who has embraced the misguided notion that stand development is the "cure-all" for their carefree camera/darkroom techniques. (Yes, I have seen documents on the web that suggest that very idea)
    So thanks for this remarkably detailed test data. Some of the LFP community will find it very helpful.

  7. #17

    Re: Summary Of Recent Work On Stand Development

    Quote Originally Posted by paulbarden View Post
    So thanks for this remarkably detailed test data. Some of the LFP community will find it very helpful.
    You are most welcome. I will update the document periodically when/as relevant.

    One thought here, though. 35mm/120 are likely doomed to fail with Stand development. But so is modern sheet film. My observation is that modern films just can't handle NO agitation without running into unpredictable bromide drag problems. But I tested 35mm on Nikor reels in an open deep tank and agitated vigorously for the first 2 minutes, and got fine Semistand results.

    So far, anyway, the hint seems to be - Don't do Stand with any modern film, do Semistand or EMA and do it in large volume tanks. If you do Semistand, be vigorous in kicking off the first 2 mins of agitation to really get development going and process those halides.

    I should also mention that what I've found is just one way to get this to work. Steve Sherman uses PVC tubes. Other people use trays. Like most things, there are an endless number of ways to get this wrong, but there are also multiple ways to succeed. I have documented what does- and does not work for me and even this remains a work in progress. Others are encouraged to depart from this and do their own experimentation.
    Silver Photographers Never Die, They're Just Getting Fixed

    My Stuff: https://www.tundraware.com/Photography
    Reference Material: https://photoarchive.tundraware.com/

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    1,209

    Re: Summary Of Recent Work On Stand Development

    Hi Paul, several years back I posted curves for these on APUG, though not in the same thread. However the Rodinal test was to see what full stand did relative to a benchmark normal process. You can probably imagine some of the comments I received.

    My divided D-23 (actually I did it more generically at the time so I called it something like divided Metol-sulfite or something similar) study was in a different context, but nevertheless.

    The notable thing from a tone reproduction perspective about divided and two-bath development is that is tends to “straighten” a film’s characteristic curve somewhat (while also giving maximum emulsion speed). Visualize it as less toe and less shoulder. From a tone reproduction perspective what it means is whatever contrast you develop for, divided development will tend to even it out (same slope) from shadows all the way to extreme highlights.

    My findings on that were consistent with some similar tests Sandy King did (I can’t remember where I read it).

    The goal of most stand/semi-stand techniques on the other hand, is to try to get “compensation” - that is to say, a lengthening and flattening of the shoulder. In Zone parlance, one is attempting to preferentially minus-develop the highlights while retaining as much shadow and mid tone contrast as possible (or alternatively expand shadow and mid tone contrast with as little highlight expansion as possible).

    Quote Originally Posted by paulbarden View Post
    I'd be interested in seeing how Rodinal "semi-stand" compares to Divided D23 (or D-76) compares, in regards to highlight suppression and midtone expansion. I've found divided D-23 does a wonderful job of expanding midtone contrast while reigning in the highlights.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Newbury, Vermont
    Posts
    1,633

    Re: Summary Of Recent Work On Stand Development

    Tundra...I would also like to applaud your efforts here...and for sharing some results/insights with us - "grousing and arguing" notwithstanding!

    To me, this forum provides a great vehicle for such (experiential/experimental/observational) sharing, as this offers the rest of us the opportunity to use your work as a vehicle to further our own experiments/processes, and to further share our own results. This approach...I truly believe, provides us with the very best ingredients for our own learning process.

    On the other hand...were you to simply state that "in my state of the art laboratory, aided by the most sensitive and precise instrumentation and my advanced academic degree, I have arrived at what is irrefutably the most complete and precise treatise on Stand, Semi-stand, and EMA film processing procedures,” I would consider this…irrefutably illegitimate!

  10. #20

    Re: Summary Of Recent Work On Stand Development

    Quote Originally Posted by John Layton View Post
    Tundra...I would also like to applaud your efforts here...and for sharing some results/insights with us - "grousing and arguing" notwithstanding!

    To me, this forum provides a great vehicle for such (experiential/experimental/observational) sharing, as this offers the rest of us the opportunity to use your work as a vehicle to further our own experiments/processes, and to further share our own results. This approach...I truly believe, provides us with the very best ingredients for our own learning process.

    On the other hand...were you to simply state that "in my state of the art laboratory, aided by the most sensitive and precise instrumentation and my advanced academic degree, I have arrived at what is irrefutably the most complete and precise treatise on Stand, Semi-stand, and EMA film processing procedures,” I would consider this…irrefutably illegitimate!
    In my early career, I did actual R&D in a commercial laboratory involving parts of the human sensory process. What I learned is this: If you are actually pushing new boundaries, there isn't some body of established experimental technique, lab equipment, or process that makes the research work. The research creates those things.

    Stand is not new science. But Stand is "new" in the sense that applying it to new emulsions is just ... different. What I did here wasn't an exploration in theoretical sensiometrics - I couldn't because I don't have a multichannel sensitometer and I'm not going to buy one either This was (and is) an attempt to reach practical results for controlling still development in service of producing more beautiful prints.
    Silver Photographers Never Die, They're Just Getting Fixed

    My Stuff: https://www.tundraware.com/Photography
    Reference Material: https://photoarchive.tundraware.com/

Similar Threads

  1. Basic question on minimal agitation, stand, & semi-stand development.
    By Greg in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-Dec-2018, 04:07
  2. Has anyone done stand or semi-stand development using the SP445?
    By Steven Ruttenberg in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 29-Nov-2018, 07:17
  3. Stand and semi-stand development...is there a primer?
    By Kimberly Anderson in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 24-Oct-2014, 15:59
  4. Pyrocat-HD for Stand and Semi-Stand Development
    By C. D. Keth in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 14-Jan-2013, 18:04
  5. What is stand development, semi-stand development, Agfa development?
    By ericzhu in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 21-Dec-2008, 10:35

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •