newfilm
Well-known
Hi guys,
I wonder if the negative frame count make any different when develop with stand development technique? For example I found this time for RPX 100 with R09 1+200 = 2 hours, I assumed it mean that's for 36 frame? What happen when I want to develop 12 frame (I roll my own from bulk loader), should I be reducing the developer concentration or the time etc?
I'm trying to find out if the frame number that are being develop in a stand development has any *significant*
many thanks!
I wonder if the negative frame count make any different when develop with stand development technique? For example I found this time for RPX 100 with R09 1+200 = 2 hours, I assumed it mean that's for 36 frame? What happen when I want to develop 12 frame (I roll my own from bulk loader), should I be reducing the developer concentration or the time etc?
I'm trying to find out if the frame number that are being develop in a stand development has any *significant*
many thanks!
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
You will need the same concentration, 1+200 and 2 hours, regardless of the amount of film to be developed. As long as the film is fully submerged you're good to go.
Though with such high dillutions I would worry about there being enough developer in the mix. I think the guideline (depending on the film) is that you need a minimum of 5ml of Ro9 concentrate per full roll of film.
With less frames I guess there is less of a chance that the developer becomes exhausted.
Though with such high dillutions I would worry about there being enough developer in the mix. I think the guideline (depending on the film) is that you need a minimum of 5ml of Ro9 concentrate per full roll of film.
With less frames I guess there is less of a chance that the developer becomes exhausted.
mfogiel
Veteran
In principle, stand development should work as follows:
- highlights are developed first, and the adjacent developer gets exhausted quickly, thus preventing blocking
- shadows are developing slowly, and the adjacent developer does not get exhausted quickly, therefore there is some speed gain and range compression
- with some developers lack of agitation creates Eberhard effects (chemical edge sharpening), enhancing visual acuity
In order to get the optimum result, you need to guess correctly the amount of developer necessary both for the quantity of film, and for HOW IT GOT EXPOSED, because a film of snow scenes will use much more developer than a film of the moon in a black sky.
In practice, you need to experiment - I suggest starting wit 3ml of Rodinal per single film if you expose on the rich side ( e.g. RPX100@64) up to 5-6 ml if you want a push.
RPX 100 is a rather flexible film, and gives the impression of being faster than EI 100 in reality. I feel it comes out very nicely in Acurol N.
Last thing: when you start experimenting, remember to expose a frame of a blank uniform medium density background to check for streaking. I've never found a stand development strategy that could avoid streaking, and eventually I gave it up in favour of intermittent agitation.
- highlights are developed first, and the adjacent developer gets exhausted quickly, thus preventing blocking
- shadows are developing slowly, and the adjacent developer does not get exhausted quickly, therefore there is some speed gain and range compression
- with some developers lack of agitation creates Eberhard effects (chemical edge sharpening), enhancing visual acuity
In order to get the optimum result, you need to guess correctly the amount of developer necessary both for the quantity of film, and for HOW IT GOT EXPOSED, because a film of snow scenes will use much more developer than a film of the moon in a black sky.
In practice, you need to experiment - I suggest starting wit 3ml of Rodinal per single film if you expose on the rich side ( e.g. RPX100@64) up to 5-6 ml if you want a push.
RPX 100 is a rather flexible film, and gives the impression of being faster than EI 100 in reality. I feel it comes out very nicely in Acurol N.
Last thing: when you start experimenting, remember to expose a frame of a blank uniform medium density background to check for streaking. I've never found a stand development strategy that could avoid streaking, and eventually I gave it up in favour of intermittent agitation.
ABrosig
Well-known
mfogiel: Wondering which developers you're referencing re. the Eberhart effect? I've tried some stand development experiments using both Adinol (the Rodinal formulation) and HC-110, with mixed results. Thanks
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
It depends. For processes where relation between film area and volume for the published formula puts the active agent past (or at least close to) depletion, it can be very significant. In cases where the developer is "slow" for some reason other than depletion, it may matter less or not at all. If the specification does not mention minimum volumes, chances are that it is not dramatically critical. But try it with test strips before you apply it to any film containing pictures you cannot repeat - stand development is risky, and gets even worse if you add your own variations...
Fotohuis
Well-known
1. Stand development is always risky.
2. Stand development gives less sharpness then a minimum of agitation development.
3. In Fact all high acutance type developers need some agitation, R09/Rodinal, Beutler/FX-1, Neofin Blue.
If you want to do stand development FX-2 is one of the best choices, however the de-sensitizer in it, Pinacryptol Yellow, is difficult to get and very expensive (around Eur. 50,- for one gram).
2. Stand development gives less sharpness then a minimum of agitation development.
3. In Fact all high acutance type developers need some agitation, R09/Rodinal, Beutler/FX-1, Neofin Blue.
If you want to do stand development FX-2 is one of the best choices, however the de-sensitizer in it, Pinacryptol Yellow, is difficult to get and very expensive (around Eur. 50,- for one gram).