srtiwari
Daktari
Developed a roll of Legacy Pro 100 (Fuji Acros) as an attempt at "Stand " development.
Shot at ISO 80, developed in temp controlled Rodinal 1:50 for 1 hr., with 15 sec. gentle inversions at onset, and 5 sec. at 3 and 10 minutes
The film came out dense, and "thick" feeling, and had a UNIFORM mid-gray almost translucent look, including the sprocket holes, edges etc.
I assumed it was either overdeveloped (why, given the above parameters ?) , fogged from light leak (but uniformly ?), or inadequately "Fixed". So I cut a bit of film and dunked it in fresh fixer for 5 minutes, but NO change.
So, now I wonder... Is that what Acros is 'supposed' to look like, normally ?
Maybe this is the best way for scanning ? (Haven't tried it yet) I suspect the contrast is very high, and the highlights may be completely "blown".
Wonder what other users think, and look forward to any response, AND possible solutions !!
Subhash
Shot at ISO 80, developed in temp controlled Rodinal 1:50 for 1 hr., with 15 sec. gentle inversions at onset, and 5 sec. at 3 and 10 minutes
The film came out dense, and "thick" feeling, and had a UNIFORM mid-gray almost translucent look, including the sprocket holes, edges etc.
I assumed it was either overdeveloped (why, given the above parameters ?) , fogged from light leak (but uniformly ?), or inadequately "Fixed". So I cut a bit of film and dunked it in fresh fixer for 5 minutes, but NO change.
So, now I wonder... Is that what Acros is 'supposed' to look like, normally ?
Maybe this is the best way for scanning ? (Haven't tried it yet) I suspect the contrast is very high, and the highlights may be completely "blown".
Wonder what other users think, and look forward to any response, AND possible solutions !!
Subhash
benlees
Well-known
Do you mean 1:100? The time for 1:50 is around 11 minutes...
MartinP
Veteran
That's a very good clear description of what you did and the results, but I think in a 1:50 solution you have too much developer. As you worked out, the film has effectively been over-developed. I use 1:50 with a slightly low temperature and extended time to reduce the contrast on sunny days, but my time (for APX100, all I have tried this method with) would be well under 20 minutes. An hour is a bit much....
If there any useable results they would probably be quite low contrast, due to the high base-fog. You could try printing through the fog to make a set of contacts and see what you get. Aim for the exposure where you can only just see a difference between the (fogged) base and a sprocket hole, then pump up the contrast-grade and see what you can make out.
As long as you have about 4ml (it depends on a lot of variables, so there is no exact number) of concentrate per roll you can try dilutions of 1:100 or even 1:150 - in other words you might well need a larger total volume of developer solution than usual, just to maintain the necessary amount of concentrate.
If there any useable results they would probably be quite low contrast, due to the high base-fog. You could try printing through the fog to make a set of contacts and see what you get. Aim for the exposure where you can only just see a difference between the (fogged) base and a sprocket hole, then pump up the contrast-grade and see what you can make out.
As long as you have about 4ml (it depends on a lot of variables, so there is no exact number) of concentrate per roll you can try dilutions of 1:100 or even 1:150 - in other words you might well need a larger total volume of developer solution than usual, just to maintain the necessary amount of concentrate.
srtiwari
Daktari
Yes, I meant 1:100:bang:
MartinP
Veteran
Oops!
Sounds as though you could halve the time perhaps? It might be worth a test roll anyway. On that roll you could try shooting at different nominal speeds to work out if the changed dev. time meets up with the exposure you have given the film at some point.
I must admit that I have got enough compensation effect following tips from members here and Rodinal 1:50. There should be quite a few threads to read through (and you probably already did, and have already found everyone says something different!).
Please post any progress so we can all learn
srtiwari
Daktari
Well, here's some food for thought.
Even if I had overdeveloped it (time &/or concentration) why should the entire film (including edges and between frames) not be clear ? Whats with the translucent mid gray film, instead of clear colorless ?
Also, if 250ccs of liquid fit in the tank, 2.5 ccs of concentrate is all you get to make it a 1:100 dilution solution. Its not quite the 4 or 5 ccs minimum required for the process per film !
Even if I had overdeveloped it (time &/or concentration) why should the entire film (including edges and between frames) not be clear ? Whats with the translucent mid gray film, instead of clear colorless ?
Also, if 250ccs of liquid fit in the tank, 2.5 ccs of concentrate is all you get to make it a 1:100 dilution solution. Its not quite the 4 or 5 ccs minimum required for the process per film !
MartinP
Veteran
If you develop film enough, it will just keep on going grey. Modern emulsions and developers don't simply develop to completion, as was reputed to occur with the materials of the 1930's.
For using high dilutions it is inevitable to have to use a bigger tank. One roll of 135 in a tank (and volume of solution) that would usually be used for 120 rollfilm, for example.
Can you make out any actual image through the grey base?
For using high dilutions it is inevitable to have to use a bigger tank. One roll of 135 in a tank (and volume of solution) that would usually be used for 120 rollfilm, for example.
Can you make out any actual image through the grey base?
srtiwari
Daktari
Thanks Martin(P).
I know that high contrast would be a problem, but did not know that the the film goes clear and then backwards towards gray with excessive development.
Also, I did use a small tank. So, I will do another one using a larger tank next.
Will find out on Monday (when I get home to the scanner) if it will scan and pint.
P Lynn Miller has some great images done with stand development I imagine you are familiar with his work. If not, here is a page...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=927796&postcount=47ß
I know that high contrast would be a problem, but did not know that the the film goes clear and then backwards towards gray with excessive development.
Also, I did use a small tank. So, I will do another one using a larger tank next.
Will find out on Monday (when I get home to the scanner) if it will scan and pint.
P Lynn Miller has some great images done with stand development I imagine you are familiar with his work. If not, here is a page...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=927796&postcount=47ß
t6un
Established
The "gray" that results from overdevelopment looks very different from the grey from underfixing. Underfixed film looks "milky" just as fresh, unused film, with dark patterns on it where it was exposed to the strong light. Overdeveloped film must look either totally black or (more likely) black/transcluent gray.
What fixer are you using, and how you dilute it? You can check the fixer by cutting a small piece of leader from an unused film
and fixing it in daylight. It should turn transparent in less than half the recommended fixing time.
What fixer are you using, and how you dilute it? You can check the fixer by cutting a small piece of leader from an unused film
and fixing it in daylight. It should turn transparent in less than half the recommended fixing time.
Last edited:
srtiwari
Daktari
Just to be clear, I am talking about the UNEXPOSED part of the film looking a hazy gray. I know that exposed overdeveloped film will look dense and black/gray. I had just assumed that film base is (usually) clear and colorless. Thats why its turning gray was so confusing. Never seen that before...
KenD
Film Shooter
You have film base plus fog in the rebates... and your fog has gone high from overdevelopment. Possiblities... higher fog level with outdated film, gamma rays, your thermometer is off and your temp was high... or karma - some people do well with stand development, some of us do not. I had similar muddy results with Agfa APX400 and stand.
srtiwari
Daktari
Hmm... I thought we were trying to narrow down the possibilities, not expand them !
The film is NOT old, and the temp was controlled at the beginning at 68F (ambient temp about 76F).
Being a Hindu, I have also reviewed several lifetimes and can't see any reason for "Bad Karma".
That leaves overdevelopment, I hope.
Will try another roll soon. Hate to think either, that all my film stock is now bad, or, that I have to give up such an enticing method of film development.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Stand development is not for everyone.
1+50 is shorter (time wise) and the results still can vary depending on time and agitation regime.
1+50 is shorter (time wise) and the results still can vary depending on time and agitation regime.
ath
Well-known
ACROS base is not clear but grey. Did you compare it to the base of regulary developed ACROS?
Chris101
summicronia
I have heard it said that "stand development is its own punishment."
srtiwari
Daktari
Quantity &/or Concentration
Quantity &/or Concentration
My recent experience with this little failure of 'Stand development' resulted in very over-developed negatives, which were barely printable. I believe I got higher concentration (1:50), AND too much developer volume.
I have often heard that 3 (or 4, or 5) ml. of concentrate (lets say Rodinal) is required to develop a 35mm film. OTOH, concentration of 1:50 produces a very different outcome compared to 1:100.
My assumption is that 'Stand development' is different from other methods in that development stops by exhaustion, rather than by 'Stop bath'/ water etc. In that case, as long the total amount of concentrate exhausts at the same time that the film is "correctly" developed, the dilution should not matter (if there is enough to cover the film at all times, the agitation is similar, etc., etc.)
Or, will a higher concentrate of developer in contact with the film cause change in the 'rate' of the process ? And will this 'rate' difference produce a discernible difference in the final negative ?
Trying to get a better grasp on some of this. Somehow never encountered this before. Maybe, someone more famiuliar with this, copuld comment.
Quantity &/or Concentration
My recent experience with this little failure of 'Stand development' resulted in very over-developed negatives, which were barely printable. I believe I got higher concentration (1:50), AND too much developer volume.
I have often heard that 3 (or 4, or 5) ml. of concentrate (lets say Rodinal) is required to develop a 35mm film. OTOH, concentration of 1:50 produces a very different outcome compared to 1:100.
My assumption is that 'Stand development' is different from other methods in that development stops by exhaustion, rather than by 'Stop bath'/ water etc. In that case, as long the total amount of concentrate exhausts at the same time that the film is "correctly" developed, the dilution should not matter (if there is enough to cover the film at all times, the agitation is similar, etc., etc.)
Or, will a higher concentrate of developer in contact with the film cause change in the 'rate' of the process ? And will this 'rate' difference produce a discernible difference in the final negative ?
Trying to get a better grasp on some of this. Somehow never encountered this before. Maybe, someone more famiuliar with this, copuld comment.
skibeerr
Well-known
I did stand on Fuji Acros 100 @ ie100 rodinal 1:100 68°f 1hour with gentle agitation the first 15 seconds and 5 seconds of agitation on the half hour.
Results look normal slightly underdeveloped. Will try ie 80 next time.
Results look normal slightly underdeveloped. Will try ie 80 next time.
ferider
Veteran
How much developer did you use ? 3 or 6ml ? I am assuming you used 6ml which would be wrong for a single roll.
Ronald M
Veteran
All you need is 12" or 6 exposures to prove out a developer/film pair.
With that small an amount of film. a small tank of 1:100 is fine. For a full roll, you need a two reel tank.
With that small an amount of film. a small tank of 1:100 is fine. For a full roll, you need a two reel tank.