H&D Curve for Stand Development?

[m00dawg]

I've been thinking about this lately but haven't been able to find a good explanation - stand development is a method of compensating in the highlights as I understand it? When thinking about H&D curves, that means it would lower the highlight portion of the curve and/or accentuate the shoulder? But I'm not sure what that means for, say, CHS ii, which has a notable shoulder already as compared to FP4 (which has a seemingly long straight line - I haven't really seen the shoulder in my own H&D curves) and how that compares to, say, just pulling the film.

Basically I was trying to find some H&D curves for various stand developers, 510-Pyro in particular as compared to standard development and I can't seem to find any when I've looked. I plan on trying this in the next few weeks to see for myself (and I can certainly share those results) but the lack of H&D's out in the wild kinda surprised me given the benefits people mention with stand developing. Knowing how the curve behaves seems like a really useful tool for understanding stand dev?

510 was talked about at length in a recent Sunny 16 podcast and Shoot Film Like a Boss has used it before. Since I've been thinking about Pyrocat-HD for when I move to 8x10 (for alt process and/or contact printing). I figured I should look at 510 too though I haven't found a good explanation of the differences between the two though I've read and seen a lot of folks recommending 510 for stand which seems interesting. As far as stand dev goes, I've done semi-stand development with HC-110 a few times with success. Success being defined by "oh look there's negatives!" and they at least scanned decently (I can't remember if I printed from any or not honestly).

I'm generally pretty happy with my process at this point (using XT-3 Replenished) but the idea of both staining developers and stand seemed interesting as tools in the toolbag as it were.

So long story short, anyone happen to have some H&D curve comparisons worth sharing with semi-stand, stand and optionally using 510?

[paulbarden]

I experimented with Rodinal semi-stand development and 8x10 negatives years ago, and got some of the worst negatives I've ever seen: uneven development, blotches, marks, hot spots, etc. Never again. I do NOT recommend it.

If you really want proof, I suggest you shoot one sheet of 8x0, looking at a flat medium value (zone 5 or 6) surface and process it and review your results. I think you'll be shocked just how uneven the development is.

[Michael R]

I've been thinking about this lately but haven't been able to find a good explanation - stand development is a method of compensating in the highlights as I understand it? When thinking about H&D curves, that means it would lower the highlight portion of the curve and/or accentuate the shoulder? But I'm not sure what that means for, say, CHS ii, which has a notable shoulder already as compared to FP4 (which has a seemingly long straight line - I haven't really seen the shoulder in my own H&D curves) and how that compares to, say, just pulling the film.

Basically I was trying to find some H&D curves for various stand developers, 510-Pyro in particular as compared to standard development and I can't seem to find any when I've looked. I plan on trying this in the next few weeks to see for myself (and I can certainly share those results) but the lack of H&D's out in the wild kinda surprised me given the benefits people mention with stand developing. Knowing how the curve behaves seems like a really useful tool for understanding stand dev?

510 was talked about at length in a recent Sunny 16 podcast and Shoot Film Like a Boss has used it before. Since I've been thinking about Pyrocat-HD for when I move to 8x10 (for alt process and/or contact printing). I figured I should look at 510 too though I haven't found a good explanation of the differences between the two though I've read and seen a lot of folks recommending 510 for stand which seems interesting. As far as stand dev goes, I've done semi-stand development with HC-110 a few times with success. Success being defined by "oh look there's negatives!" and they at least scanned decently (I can't remember if I printed from any or not honestly).

I'm generally pretty happy with my process at this point (using XT-3 Replenished) but the idea of both staining developers and stand seemed interesting as tools in the toolbag as it were.

So long story short, anyone happen to have some H&D curve comparisons worth sharing with semi-stand, stand and optionally using 510?

While not 510-pyro-specific, several years ago I did post on APUG some attempts at evaluating several aspects of Rodinal stand development (curves and uniformity). Attached is an example, minus the gory details.

It should be noted that simply diluting a developer and letting it stand does not imply compensation (although that is the assumption people make).

[m00dawg]

Thanks folks! Good point Paul, I've never tried stand in 8x10 (I don't have my 8x10 camera yet) but I've had decent luck with it in 4x5 with a MOD54 and Patterson tank. I haven't tried it in my JOBO 2500 yet though.

Michael thank you again! I'm gonna guess you're the same Michael that commented on my Photrio post about CHS ii and pyro so thanks for your insight there as well! These curves were exactly what I was looking for, thank you!

And they're rather interesting. If I'm reading these right, if placing Zone 0 at say 0.6, there isn't much magic going on between them and we're largely in the straight line? In looking at the shoulder, looks like Xtol clearly has the greatest compensating affect but it's also quite aggressive making me think the highlights you do get are going to be mushy?

[Michael R]

Hi, yes on Photrio I'm michael_r .

I realized after I posted the chart I forgot to clearly indicate the test film was FP4+. Sorry about that.

To clarify just in case, the XTOL curve was one of the references curves to compare with. Development was a regular/standard process to a normal gradient. Also note my "stand" experiments were full stand following initial agitation. They were not reduced agitation/semi-stand.

I think you're on the right track. Some observations I made:

1. The commonly used arbitrary 1-hour time was too long for normal contrast. 30 minutes was better
2. For all the downsides involved (uniformity was abysmal), the resulting 30 minute curve is essentially replicating the reference curve. This implies a slight speed increase relative to regular processing in Rodinal, however overall there is nothing about this curve which cannot be easily generated with regular methods and chemistry

To answer your XTOL question - yes it tends to shoulder a little earlier than some other general purpose formulas including D-76 etc. However keep in mind from a Zone perspective you're generally talking Zone XII or higher depending on the film. These are extreme highlights.

A few notes regarding reduced agitation/stand techniques in general:

1. One of the things some people are going for is increased "micro contrast" (amplified edge effects). I did not test for this. Edge effects have as much to do with the emulsion and the type of developer as agitation frequency, so it is difficult to generalize.
2. From a uniformity perspective the emulsion and the developer both play crucial roles. Some developer/film combinations may be better suited to these techniques than others

Thanks folks! Good point Paul, I've never tried stand in 8x10 (I don't have my 8x10 camera yet) but I've had decent luck with it in 4x5 with a MOD54 and Patterson tank. I haven't tried it in my JOBO 2500 yet though.

Michael thank you again! I'm gonna guess you're the same Michael that commented on my Photrio post about CHS ii and pyro so thanks for your insight there as well! These curves were exactly what I was looking for, thank you!

And they're rather interesting. If I'm reading these right, if placing Zone 0 at say 0.6, there isn't much magic going on between them and we're largely in the straight line? In looking at the shoulder, looks like Xtol clearly has the greatest compensating affect but it's also quite aggressive making me think the highlights you do get are going to be mushy?

[m00dawg]

All very good points! Thanks for the explanation and insight!