Stand development with fx-39

[kennylovrin]

Hey

Tomorrow I was thinking of trying stand development. However I only have Paterson fx-39 developer so I have two questions I haven't figured out:

1. Will it potentially work at all?
2. How do I figure out the dilution? I can't find any info on how much developer is actually needed for one film, I just know the bottle says 1+9 which in my normal cases is 30ml for a 35mm roll. But my understanding when I read about stand development is that much less developer is actually needed than that. But how do I find out how much? Do I just start with 1+99 and see how it turns out or are there ways of calculation it with more accuracy beforehand? I seem to read 1+99 in most cases but some say 1+150 etc. all of them also say rodinal for that matter. 🙂

Thanks!

Kenny

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Kenny,

Although I've never tried it, I'd be surprised if it worked at all with FX39: I suspect that the developing agents would oxidize or hydrolyze too rapidly. But of course I could be wrong.

I'd also suggest that stand development is something of an Internet fad, i.e. a lot of people see what they want to see, rather than being objective. Of course there's a lot of alchemy in black and white -- you may get different results according to the phase of the moon, or abstaining from eating meat for three days before developing the film -- but equally, there's a good reason why standard developers at standard dilutions are standard: they work! To the best of my knowledge, very, very few great photographers ever used 'trick' developers or development techniques.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Joakim Målare]

Apart from the joy of experimenting, what would be the potential gain from doing stand development with FX-39? Isn't it supposed to be very gentle to grain and generous with latitude by design? That's what I have learned and although I haven't really started printing any of my rolls developed in FX-39, from the look of it, that seems to be true.

But hey, go for it, you might be the pioneer who discovers some hidden feature!

 

[kennylovrin]

Thanks for the replies!

Really I have no actual reason other than just wanting to try it. And the reason I have FX-39 developer right now is because I just started and when I ordered stuff that is what they gave me in the "kit" kind of. 😉

But I trust Roger on this one I think, so I might not play around with that until I have Rodinal in that case. Even though I have a roll which would be fine if it got ruined, I don't see the point in knowingly ruining it.

I think for learning purposes I am better off anyway doing what I've done so far, because I just shot a different film than the others I have developed, so I think there might be better value in it for me to just do it normally so that I can compare it to my other results.

I have to say though, I probably should have gone for a more common developer to start with really. It's been a bit strange when I try to google things because it seems not too many people are using FX-39 and then writing about it on the web. 🙂 So using it hasn't really been helping me in that sense.

 

[haempe]

Beside the fact, that I avoid stand development because it always keeps the risk of uneven development, I doubt the suitability of FX-39 for stand dev.
From my experience FX-39 works in higher dilutions compensating, so I suspect in highest dilution it will produce very flat negs.
And that for the price of reduced acutance and muddy (partially dissolved) grain - this starts already with the longer development times of the 1+19 dilution.
I don't say you should not try it, but don't expect miraculously high quality results.
And don't use films with important shots for the test ...

BTW, I'm a great fan of FX-39.
But I prefere the fatter (1+9 or 1+14) dilutions.
I like the short times, the pronounced grain and acutance.

 

[mfogiel]

Personally, I have tried stand developing in Rodinal a couple of times, but no matter how clever I wanted to be, I always got uneven development, so in the end I gave it up. Diluting developers and decreasing the frequency and amount of agitation, will always produce increased sharpness, more compensating development, and in case of acutance developers can also create the edge effect (mackie lines) similat in effect to edge sharpening in PS. It is not true, that diluting a developer has to result in muddy tonality - this will depend on exposure, development time and film. Personally, I find for example the tonality from extended development in diluted DDX better than in case of standard development.
FX39 works great with certain films - I have tried it with various emulsions, usually at the 1+19 dilution, and the best results I had were with Fomapan 200. In theory, this developer should shine with the likes of Delta 100 or Tmax 100, but I shoot these films infrequently. My standard for semi stand development, is continuous agitation for the first 30-60 secs, and then 3 inversions every 3 minutes. For example Tri X @EI 2000 in DDX 1+8 x 30 minutes at 20C gives quite acceptable results, at EI 1000 for 18 minutes is about perfect.
PS, avoid films over 200 ISO with FX39, they don't come out right.

 

[Trius]

The initial reasons for stand development (or development with a minimal agitation scheme) were to improve grain characteristics (the primary reason), extreme push and altered/improved tonal characteristics. Personally I subscribe to the first reason, though I have no objective evidence through a controlled test. My non-scientific observation, however, is that results do show a difference. (Performing such a test really isn't that difficult, I just haven't done it. Maybe I should -- see below.)

Normally Rodinal or HC-110, at high dilutions such as 1:100 or even higher are used. Both developers are highly active, hence dilutions of 1:25 (Rodinal) or 1:32 (HC-110) are the strongest ratios typically used. For Rodinal 1:50 or 1:100 are far more common. In true "stand" development of 1:100 or higher for one hour or longer there may be something going on due to chemical action, but we also cannot rule out physical changes due to extended wet time, especially when the film is subjected to Rodinal 1:100 in the fridge for a week or two!

My own regimen for Rodinal 1:100 is 19 minutes with initial agitation of 1 minute and then stand. For a bit of a contrast bump I sometimes agitate three gentle inversions every three minutes, though 1:50 at 9 ~ 11 minutes (again with no agitation after the first minute) is probably as effective if not more so, and certainly gets the film drying more quickly.

If I get a chance this weekend and weather cooperates, I may try some HP5+ in 4x5 with a "standard" agitation regimen in Rodinal 1:100 and stand at 1 hour. I realize most people don't shoot 4x5, but it's easier than exposing whole rolls of 35mm or 120 in exactly the same ways.

 

[Trius]

35mm Tri-X @EI 250, Rodinal 1:100, 20 min with agitation every 3 minutes.

 

[funkydog]

Don't be afraid to go against conventional wisdom. Otherwise the earth would still be flat and darkroom workers would be burned at the stake for sorcery.

Do whatever you want to do with FX39. Just do it methodically and consistently. Record everything, and have replicable results.

Buy ten rolls of the same film. Expose the same way. Record the same scenes. Better still if in the same lighting. Shoot of a bunch of shots at EV-3,-2,-1,0,+1,+2,+3 outdoors and indoors for each clip test. For testing, I use a camera with a flip back so I can easily cut the film out. For your M6 perhaps you could respool a roll of 36 into halves using empties the photo labs give away.

If 1+100 for FX39 is too dilute. Make up your own ratios of whatever quantity you find convenient to pour. 1+18,1+27, etc. Personally, I find calculator kung fu too tedious so I just go with 10ml increments of DDX developer + water to reach a volume approaching capacity for my 2 reel tank (10ml +650ml water, 20ml+650, 50+600). You're not selling a method for others to use, you're doing this for yourself on your own time and dime so make up your own cookbook.

Timing - try stand for 15 minute increments for each ratio of developer concentration. If the results at a given concentration look like they might fit somewhere between 30 and 45 mins, narriow down further with trials at 35 and 40mins.

Temperature - be consistent with that. If you happen to like or find it convenient to develop at 24degrees C instead of 20 then do it that way all the time.

If you learn nothing else from all this testing, at least you will be able to impress the ladies at parties with your skills at rapid loading developing tank reels while blindfolded.

 

[kennylovrin]

Hey

I actually skipped the experiments this time. 🙂 I think I will do that when I have more time some day, but for now I figured I will just do as I usually do and see how it turns out with this film.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Don't be afraid to go against conventional wisdom. Otherwise the earth would still be flat and darkroom workers would be burned at the stake for sorcery. . . .

Then again, there's 'conventional wisdom' and there's having some idea of what you're talking about. Would you dismiss as 'conventional wisdom' the suggestion that you don't put the fixer in before the dev?

Those of us who suggest it's a bad idea have not said it won't work: just that we think it won't, and why. Your example of flat earth and sorcery is somewhat overstated.

It's also worth remembering that Kenny is comparatively new to developing, and that there are probably better ways he could spend his time, even though your experimental protocols are a good start for anyone who is determined to try stand development with unknown/unsuitable developers.

Cheers,

R.

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

Kenny,

go for it. We are seeing the decline of film and film developing,
life is too short not to experiment with it 🙂 Having said that,
don't stand develop with your serious / production film.

I do stand development as i am used to it, recently
i tried stand with hc110 instead of rodinal. it works but
with shorter development time. i usually take notes and try to refine the process.

uneven development happens sometimes, the bottom of the
negative is more developed than the top, i try to minimize it
with mid-point agitation.

raytoei

 

[pdh]

I'd also suggest that stand development is something of an Internet fad, i.e. a lot of people see what they want to see, rather than being objective.

I've tried stand development a few times (using Rodinal) ... it's very forgiving of technique, and it's very easy ... whether it produces negatives which are as good as they could be if developed by other means is another story I'm sure ... but in a world where much film gets scanned but perhaps never printed, it will probably be "good enough" for most people.

 

[funkydog]

Roger, I'm not sure why you seem peeved by my comments to Kenny as they were not a dig at you personally. There's more than one way to skin a cat and just as many for developing film. I could go on but that would derail this thread so this is the gist of it. Feel free to continue this by private messaging if you have further thoughts to share.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, I'm not sure why you seem peeved by my comments to Kenny as they were not a dig at you personally. There's more than one way to skin a cat and just as many for developing film. I could go on but that would derail this thread so this is the gist of it. Feel free to continue this by private messaging if you have further thoughts to share.

Sorry, that wasn't my intention, and (too late) I realized that my message might have seemed a bit testy. Indeed, there are many ways to skin a cat, and many ways to the same end, but it just struck me that this was not, perhaps, the best use of Kenny's time.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kennylovrin]

Hey guys

I think you are both right actually, and I appreciate the two different standpoints. 🙂

Like Rogers says, right now I am probably better of trying different films with the developer I have currently with my normal process so that I can find a favorite or something. 🙂

On the other hand I like funkydogs standpoint as well and I will definitely try stand development soon, but I might pick up some Rodinal first to make sure it's worthwhile. Going against conventional wisdom is something I do gladly, maybe that is why I get sub par results every now and again. 🙂

One day I'll let you guys know about my stand development endeavors, but now I will scan some of that Delta 100 that I shot today to see how that turned out. 🙂

PS. Just realized I ended every paragraph with a smiley there. Sorry for burning everyones eyes, but that is just how I am. 😉

 

[Trius]

I think it's very wise to stick with one developer until you know it well and are either tired of it or unhappy with it.

 

[Chinasaur]

Actually, the scientific method says to shotgun it. Try anything you want and enjoy your time on earth. Experiment widely, but keep notes and disregard those who will tell you what you should do or how to think.

Do what you want.