No-agitation developing?

[sanking]

Please try to avoid personal comments. The issue is not about whether you agree with me or not. It is about the definition of stand development. You can have any opinion you like, but the definition of stand development is determined by consulting historical and contemporary usage of the term.

In an earlier thread you wrote, “I would remind you both that stand development is defined as no agitation (as correctly stated by the OP), not infrequent agitation.”

That is simply not true. Stand development is generally defined exactly as Stephen G. Anchell and Bill Troop defined it in The Film Developing Cookbook.

“Stand development is a technique which relies upon highly dilute developers and extremely long development times. This means film development times of thirty minutes to several hours with no agitation after the initial minute.”

A similar definition is also used by Michael Axel in the new book on stand development I referenced in an earlier message.

“Stand definition is a variation of standard film processing, whereby the film is given the initial agitation, then left to stand with no farther agitation, for an extended period of time. “

With regards to the merits of stand development I have made the case many times that the most critical period of development is the initial agitation at the beginning of development. Many of the failures of stand development can be traced to inadequate agitation during this critical period.

Sandy

[sanking]

And just for the record, I definitely consider Steve Sherman one of the "primary innovators" in the use of stand and semi-stand development procedures over the past decade. Working in both 5X7 and ULF film sizes he has produced a large body of work on silver gelatin that would be the envy of most photographers on this forum. I know that some of that work has involved the use of stand type development. Steve has also shared his techniques with many photographers, through articles in View Camera and with photographers in the New England Large Format Collective

And his work has received extensive external validation, both in his home area and in one-person galleries in Toronto and at the prestigious Paul Paletti Gallery in Louisiville.

For those interested in minimal agitation techniques there is a long and informative thread on the subject in the archives of the AZO forum, hosted by Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee. Anyone interested in the technique could do themselves a favor by reading those threads, and by consulting the articles published by Steve Sherman in View Camera magazine.

Sandy

[Jay DeFehr]

Sandy,

You're claiming your issue is that I referred to "No-agitation development" as stand development? Really? And you're not embarrassed by this? You can define anything any way you like, but it doesn't make it so. Reasonable people understand the term stand development to refer to development without agitation, whatever the technical details, and if I had nothing better to do, I could cite innumerable examples of just such usage. Developer dilution and term of development are related, but not definitive, which is why it's not called dilute development, or extended development, and why Axel's definition centers on agitation, and not developer dilution (not mentioned) or development time.

I'm not sure who you're arguing with about the importance of initial agitation -- did you imagine I claimed otherwise? I know you're in a tough spot, because you really have nothing upon which to base your objections, since you can't disagree with anything I've actually written, except to claim stand development doesn't refer to standing in developer, which must be awkward, at best.

[Jay DeFehr]

And just for the record, I definitely consider Steve Sherman one of the "primary innovators" in the use of stand and semi-stand development procedures over the past decade. Working in both 5X7 and ULF film sizes he has produced a large body of work on silver gelatin that would be the envy of most photographers on this forum. I know that some of that work has involved the use of stand type development. Steve has also shared his techniques with many photographers, through articles in View Camera and with photographers in the New England Large Format Collective

And his work has received extensive external validation, both in his home area and in one-person galleries in Toronto and at the prestigious Paul Paletti Gallery in Louisiville.

For those interested in minimal agitation techniques there is a long and informative thread on the subject in the archives of the AZO forum, hosted by Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee. Anyone interested in the technique could do themselves a favor by reading those threads, and by consulting the articles published by Steve Sherman in View Camera magazine.

Sandy

No one said Steve didn't do good work -- I'm sure he's quite competent -- but what exactly was his innovation, and why does it place him above photographers like Atget or Mortensen, who might reasonably be considered "primary innovators", long before Sherman arrived on the scene? Let's be honest, there's nothing particularly complicated about low frequency agitation with dilute developers, if that's the definition you prefer, and there's nothing you or Sherman have said that hasn't been said before.

[sanking]

Sandy,

You're claiming your issue is that I referred to "No-agitation development" as stand development? Really? And you're not embarrassed by this? You can define anything any way you like, but it doesn't make it so. Reasonable people understand the term stand development to refer to development without agitation, whatever the technical details, and if I had nothing better to do, I could cite innumerable examples of just such usage.

No, Jay, reasonable people define stand development exactly as did Anchell/Troop and Axel.

What you wrote was this. “I would remind you both that stand development is defined as no agitation (as correctly stated by the OP), not infrequent agitation.”

Sorry, but the way you define stand development is not the way most other reasonable people define it. If you want to wade through the contemporary and historical literature and find someone who defines it the way you want you are free to do so.

Sandy

[sanking]

No one said Steve didn't do good work -- I'm sure he's quite competent -- but what exactly was his innovation, and why does it place him above photographers like Atget or Mortensen, who might reasonably be considered "primary innovators", long before Sherman arrived on the scene? Let's be honest, there's nothing particularly complicated about low frequency agitation with dilute developers, if that's the definition you prefer, and there's nothing you or Sherman have said that hasn't been said before.

I did not compare Sherman to Atget or Mortensen. I wrote that Sherman was a primary innovator "over the past decade." Why don't you bother to read what other people write before you reply?

The complication with minimal agitation procedures is in the details and the doing, not in the talking. I recognize the contribution of Steve Sherman because he is a doer, with a body of work to support what he does. Talk is cheap. Accomplishments that are widely recognized by others require hard work.

Sandy

[Steve Sherman]

Been quite sometime since I've visited the Forums prior to the one line post in this thread. Sadly, I'm clearly reminded why.

Thanks Sandy and others for your kind words, the rest, focus your energy being creative!

Cheers!

[Andrew O'Neill]

For me stand development is vigorous agitation in very dilute pyrocat-hd in a BTZS 8x10 tube (tube is filled to the top with developer) for the first minute, halfway through tube is opened and film is flipped upside down, and that's it. I do semi-stand in a tray, again dilute pyrocat-hd and vigorous agitation at the beginning for 1 minute, then 3sec every 10 minutes.

Pros: enhanced sharpness and edge effects. Cons: chance of mottling/streaking/bromide drag effects.
When stand or semi-stand is anticipated, I always shoot a backup just incase.

PS. I love this site, even with all the good, the bad, and the ugly!

[Bill Burk]

...I saw the "scratch" had a coil at the end, a shadow and a reflection. And then I realised scratches tend not to have any of those things.

Well, it's great that it's not a scratch.

I've gotten so accustomed to scratches that I have accepted them as part of my style. But I do try to minimize them. I process six 4x5 sheets at a time in a 5x7 porcelain tray emulsion up. I attend to each sheet so long as the film is wet. I carry my process motions all the way through 20 minutes of washing, never letting the film sit unattended until it is hanging to dry. I recently experimented with changing the agitation to a single sheet, and it's fine. I actually have more control over agitation (12 rocks per minute) but found that I am more comfortable with six sheets, and am willing to take that risk of physical damage. Yesterday I developed six sheets in D-76 1:1 for 13 minutes and they came out nicely.

Tonight, after spotting out two pinholes with spotone, I printed my favorite shot, possibly to be the favorite shot of the whole vacation (I made a point of developing the beach shots first because I thought I had something). First test strip with my new enlarger lamp head was way too dark. Second test strip looked perfect but the print (on Grade 2) is a bit flat. Guess I mixed my Grade 3 and Grade 2 test strips in the paper safe, I'll have to throw out all the test strips. The print will have to be reprinted when I get some Grade 3 paper. I rushed the processing and put it in selenium toner after only a quick rinse after fixing. Turned the paper brown. Never saw that before. There wasn't hypo-clear in the toner, maybe that's critically important if you jump from fix to toner?

So the coincidence that motivated me to write... There, between my daughter and my father, are several very fine wavy strands that made my stomach sink. But no mistaking it. My daughter was showing off her collection of seaweed! It looks exactly like the scratches I try so hard to avoid.

[Flauvius]

To ensure scratch free negatives, use a "can" and a rod for agitation.

Given that the rod does not come in contact with the film, it is impossible to scratch your film so long as you develop one sheet at a time. To assure that you can remove a sheet of wet film from your "can", use a paint brush handle to create a gap between the "can" wall and the back of the sheet of film.

From my experience, the critical thing about "stand", "semi-stand", "minimal", or "normal" development is your agitation technique and developer temperature. I would compare the requisite technique to playing a violin, your stroke must be delicate but firm, and consistent.

As Steve Sherman's work shows, once you know what you are doing - "stand" development, and however you want to define it, works like a charm every time!