HC110 Semi stand, what's going on here?

[Takkun]

I'm actually really loving HC-110's versatility, now that I really know what I'm doing in terms of developing.

Yesterday I shot some evening shots for a long-term project and decided to try semi-stand, using Dilution M from the MDC, 45min, agitation every 5 minutes.

I used 2 rolls with 600mL of liquid, and tried to be as gentle as possible in agitation.
I did get some streaking around sprocket holes, but this is what's baffling me:

What's going on in the sky, barring some meteorological phenomenon I didn't notice?

 

[mfogiel]

There are two problems: streaks plus you have probably bent the film somewhat, which has caused the crescent sign.
If you care accepting an advice from a middle aged man, forget all the fancy things about development, and simply expose and develop like an average Joe - try to overexpose a bit in harsh light, expose at box speed in flat light, develop to a decent contrast, and agitate at least once a minute, or even once every 30 seconds.
Concentrate on special effects at the stage of taking photos and printing. The development should just give you a decent enough negative to work on it later.

 

[rolfe]

There are two problems: streaks plus you have probably bent the film somewhat, which has caused the crescent sign.
If you care accepting an advice from a middle aged man, forget all the fancy things about development, and simply expose and develop like an average Joe - try to overexpose a bit in harsh light, expose at box speed in flat light, develop to a decent contrast, and agitate at least once a minute, or even once every 30 seconds.
Concentrate on special effects at the stage of taking photos and printing. The development should just give you a decent enough negative to work on it later.

+1.

I don't know why stand and semi-stand development has evolved into some sort of cult thing. It does not solve ordinary problems It is a specialized technique to be used in very unique circumstances, IMHO. Otherwise, as Marek says, just do the normal development (either rotary or inversion).

 

[Roger Hicks]

+1.

I don't know why stand and semi-stand development has evolved into some sort of cult thing. It does not solve ordinary problems It is a specialized technique to be used in very unique circumstances, IMHO. Otherwise, as Marek says, just do the normal development (either rotary or inversion).

(1) My pictures are rubbish

(2) HEY! Here's a MAGIC BULLET.

Some people appear to have some difficulty in understanding exactly why "standard" techniques are so popular. It does not appear to occur to them that it's because they work, especially if you don't really understand what you're doing.

If you actually do understand what you're doing, you don't need to ask why it doesn't work when you don't understand what you're doing.

Cheers,

R.

 

[pdexposures]

+1.

I don't know why stand and semi-stand development has evolved into some sort of cult thing. It does not solve ordinary problems It is a specialized technique to be used in very unique circumstances, IMHO. Otherwise, as Marek says, just do the normal development (either rotary or inversion).

From what I've noticed many people see it as the idiots guide to developing. You can throw just about anything into ultra dilute rodinal for 30 minutes and get a workable neg. It seems like that thought has trickled into other developers.

I've never been a fan personally, I'm too impatient and would be very upset if I wasted an hour developing a roll to find something messed up.

 

[Ronald M]

There are two problems: streaks plus you have probably bent the film somewhat, which has caused the crescent sign.
If you care accepting an advice from a middle aged man, forget all the fancy things about development, and simply expose and develop like an average Joe - try to overexpose a bit in harsh light, expose at box speed in flat light, develop to a decent contrast, and agitate at least once a minute, or even once every 30 seconds.
Concentrate on special effects at the stage of taking photos and printing. The development should just give you a decent enough negative to work on it later.

YUP. Forget the "experts on the internet"

Worst thing you can do is skip around trying different things.

I think stand works sometimes to some degree if the moon stars, & sun are aligned .

Cut time to lower contrast

 

[VertovSvilova]

Exposure controls density and development controls contrast. That's an old adage that will always be applicable. I'm not sure why people are trying to re-invented the wheel. Newcomers to film are posting images that often look pretty horrid and I think it's maybe because they've never had any real experience of using any standard to go by. Instead they seem to be playing around developing film with whatever is in vogue on the internet, etc.. There's not that much attempt at understanding the basics first. Granted, one doesn't have to be a chemist (sometimes the 'experts' can go a little overboard with too much esoteric and unnecessary trivia) but an understanding of fundamentals is a good thing.

I don't know where this stand development phenomenon came from (other than diluted Rodinal which is nothing new.) I think we're really better off just developing film normally and methodically (i.e., repeatability), and we should really be spending more of our time on the content and context of the image itself. For the most part, a specific developer and film combo will not make or break an image (e.g., is there really that huge of a difference between HP5+ and Tri-X?) Granted, I have my own personal film and developer favorites but looking at images from the history of photography, the first thing I respond to when engaging with the image isn't about what film and film development that the photographer might have used.

 

[charjohncarter]

Stand and semi-stand are for high contrast shots, very high contrast. The only one I still use, as all the other methods where really a mess, even with high contrast scenes, is Ansel Adams Semi-Stand method with HC-110 (which he also used). Ansel's method is more like a highly dilute, minimally agitated, FIXED time, agitation and temperature, and to be used with a film that will benefit. These are traditional emulsions, but TriX is even a little thin on emulsion for SS ala Ansel. Maybe you would have better luck with high contrast scenes using Ansel's method and one of the European films that may still have a thicker emulsion.

I agree with above: streaking and a improperly loaded reel (we've all done that). Go by MFOGIEL's advice.

 

[Takkun]

Bumping this because I'm getting the same odd pattern intermittently on a batch I just developed using standard dilutions and inversion. I'm wondering if it has something to do with my tank, since it's only showing on the uppermost roll.

For the record, though, I have been doing standard development procedures for over a decade now, and I'm well aware of the benefits of repeatability in workflow. I also appreciate that certain methods, like stand development, come into vogue as a panacea for sloppy technique, but I will say that in this case, it was a genuine interest in experimentation. After all, we all occasionally get the itch to try a new film or chemistry, and it was surprising to see the mostly negative response against it in this thread.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Bumping this because I'm getting the same odd pattern intermittently on a batch I just developed using standard dilutions and inversion. I'm wondering if it has something to do with my tank, since it's only showing on the uppermost roll.

Methinks you have a very small light leak somewhere in your process.

Phil Forrest

 

[Takkun]

Update:
Ater having this problem with a number of rolls and various developer and process combinations, I gave up on my tank (the lid was leaking badly anyway) and went with a JOBO 1500 series tank. No problems so far.