Bill Clark
Veteran
Thanks for helping Roland. I just keep it simple and use it mainly for Pan F Plus, Fuji 100 Acros and a few others, exposed at designated ASA. Don't use any 1600 film anymore. I don't use this developing method very often but find it interesting, especially if I have my eyes glued to the TV! It gives me 30 min., then agitate, then 30 min. more!
For me, it's something different to use every so often.
Did a friend request on FB.
Thanks! Have a wonderful week.
For me, it's something different to use every so often.
Did a friend request on FB.
Thanks! Have a wonderful week.
marcr1230
Well-known
There have been some long threads on this. my take-away was that you chance uneven development, so then people start talking about semi-stand...
I recall reading about and seeing for myself issues with more development or streaks due to sprocket holes or convections within the tank
Wet darkroom photography should be based on repeatability of process and consistently usable results
sure there are going to be creative mistakes and unintended but positive occurances
it just seems to me if you use stand techniques, you open yourself up to randomness of results and who wants to ruin negatives
I recall reading about and seeing for myself issues with more development or streaks due to sprocket holes or convections within the tank
Wet darkroom photography should be based on repeatability of process and consistently usable results
sure there are going to be creative mistakes and unintended but positive occurances
it just seems to me if you use stand techniques, you open yourself up to randomness of results and who wants to ruin negatives
Whateverist
Well-known
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
tho60
Well-known
I had bad experiences with stand developing: bromide drags along the sprocket holes, uneven tones etc.
tho60
Well-known
Roger Hicks
Veteran
(1) Almost anything will work, for a given value of "work".
(2) Until you know what a decent negative looks like, your value of "work" is worthless.
(3) So, posts 16 and 17 are exactly right.
Cheers,
R.
(2) Until you know what a decent negative looks like, your value of "work" is worthless.
(3) So, posts 16 and 17 are exactly right.
Cheers,
R.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I've posted this a few time already on RFF. But it always seems somebody has dreams of stand development solving all their problems. This is not a mini essay on stand development but you will see that CONTROLED high dilution can and WILL help with high contrast situations. John Sexton is probably the last expert that is well-known on Zone System development. So, his knowledge is precious, at least for me.
http://johnsexton.com/images/Compensating_Development.pdf
http://johnsexton.com/images/Compensating_Development.pdf
Ronald M
Veteran
I have tried it with test films. Expose some uniform grey areas and watch for streaks.
A few times it worked, usually not. The worst offender was the leader which is overexposed. Bromide drag streaks all over the place every time. Sooner or later it will ruin a sky.
Internet is full of success, nobody reports failures. Maybe you will be lucky.
A few times it worked, usually not. The worst offender was the leader which is overexposed. Bromide drag streaks all over the place every time. Sooner or later it will ruin a sky.
Internet is full of success, nobody reports failures. Maybe you will be lucky.
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
How about semi-stand, have any of you that dislike full stand tried semi-stand AKA reduced agitation? When I've tried full stand, I've run into the bromide drag and uneven dev issues but semi-stand (invert every 15 mins) has mitigated all.
Whateverist
Well-known
Apart from experience, do you have any good resources that can help with this?
Sid836
Well-known
A note to those using stand development; stand development in solvent developers always results in reduced sharpness.
Santtu Määttänen
Visual Poet
There's two reasons why I use stand development from time to time (alway in rodinal, since it seems to work nicely in stand). First is to tame down contrast, either from the scene or from film + lens combo that I know to produce very very high contrast (happens when shooting Rollei Retro 80S with Fuji GW690). In those cases stand development helps me constrain the contrast to a level where I can print it nicely with out 0 or 00 filters (target figure for me is 2 in VR papers for most work).
Second reason of stand development is to get an effect. Mainly in special cases where there's plenty of fog in the scene and I'd like to further reduce the contrast to get creamy look.
Mostly I use regular development. It's easier to get consistent results and it's faster too
Second reason of stand development is to get an effect. Mainly in special cases where there's plenty of fog in the scene and I'd like to further reduce the contrast to get creamy look.
Mostly I use regular development. It's easier to get consistent results and it's faster too
Ronald M
Veteran
To reduce contrast, expose at 1/2 box speed and cut your normal development 20%.
This will also reduce grain considerably specially if you skip stop bath. Pushed film has larger grain clumps.
Time in developer is how to increase or decrease contrast. Do not control it with agitation .
This will also reduce grain considerably specially if you skip stop bath. Pushed film has larger grain clumps.
Time in developer is how to increase or decrease contrast. Do not control it with agitation .
Ronald M
Veteran
Goes to prove "surge marks" are from too little agitation not too much. Bromide drag stops replenishment locally.
Randomise agitation and do more of it specially first 30 seconds after immersion.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I may have missed a post (or two) but I'm pretty sure there is no agreement on a definition of "stand development". How long for a given developer? How much agitation to start? ANY agitation thereafter? If so, how often and how many inversions, twists, etc.?
I've backed off on agitation to improve grain characteristics - it works for my set of variables. IMO trying to determine a unified theory is akin to asking "What is your experience of the world?"
Be prepared for lots of information, a lot of which may or may not apply to your situation.
I've backed off on agitation to improve grain characteristics - it works for my set of variables. IMO trying to determine a unified theory is akin to asking "What is your experience of the world?"
Be prepared for lots of information, a lot of which may or may not apply to your situation.
Santtu Määttänen
Visual Poet
Of course there's plenty of definitions of stand development and semi stand, I how ever don't like definitions and work on what works
For me personally, when I say stand development I mean very little agitation, low concentration developer and long time. In my case it's mostly 1+100 rodinal. First 30seconds heavy agitation, then inversions at half way point. Mainly done for one hour, at times even two, inversions always at half hour marks. Several of them, not so spesific on times or amounts, but there must be quite a few.
I had problems with sprocket marks in early days when I tried stand development. But never had them since I started inversions in middle of development. Not saying my method is the best or that it would work for you. But for me, it works in cases where needed. I would never rely only on stand development though. Film is too expensive to be tossed into tank with out a second thought. In cases where it's effects are preferred, it's a way to get them.
For me personally, when I say stand development I mean very little agitation, low concentration developer and long time. In my case it's mostly 1+100 rodinal. First 30seconds heavy agitation, then inversions at half way point. Mainly done for one hour, at times even two, inversions always at half hour marks. Several of them, not so spesific on times or amounts, but there must be quite a few.
I had problems with sprocket marks in early days when I tried stand development. But never had them since I started inversions in middle of development. Not saying my method is the best or that it would work for you. But for me, it works in cases where needed. I would never rely only on stand development though. Film is too expensive to be tossed into tank with out a second thought. In cases where it's effects are preferred, it's a way to get them.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Alas, no. But if you know any other photographers whose prints you admire, ask as many of them as possible if they would mind showing you their negatives. Explain why!
Trying to illustrate a good negative in print or on a screen is extremely difficult. The differences have to be exaggerated to show up meaningfully.
Cheers,
R.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Of course there's plenty of definitions of stand development and semi stand, I how ever don't like definitions and work on what works
Well yeah, that was my point.
jalLee2001
jallee55
I have tried it twice. The last time tried 4 rolls of Bergger 400 with (rodinal). Was not happy at all with the results. Some bad streaking around the sprocket holes on two of the four films. The films were soft and grainy. Now---I am sure there was user error somewhere.
I will stick with Xtol.
.I will stick with Xtol
.