Opinions on stand development

[rwintle]

Have done some but absolutely no expert. I liked the results with both Arista Premium 400 and Fomapan 200 (both in 35mm) although I like others have had sporadic problems with sprockets (surge marks) and areas that seemed under-developed (I guess because of developer settling or something)? Seems semi-stand works better but again, not enough experience to tell.

Why do I do it? Because it's fun to let the stuff sit sometimes and not be bound to the timer, that's all.

 

[Fotohuis]

What are everyone's feelings on stand development?

+:
Semi-compensating and easy to do.

-:
Not reproducible
Not really sharp
artifacts like stripes etc.

So not worthwhile to me. 🙂

 

[philipus]

I once tried semi-stand with HC110 on a Kentmere 400 pushed to somewhere around EI800-1000 (I didn't meter). The images came out ok but were rather mushy and lacking in contrast. Here's an example. I think it was about an hour with one turn of the tank at halftime. Don't recall that I got any drag or streaking or such.

Flickr

There seems to be a bit of an internet hype around stand developing but ultimately I concluded that I don't like it because of the lack of control. For true simplicity (with certain drawbacks) I find Diafine a better solution than stand development.

 

[Ronald M]

I had bad experiences with stand developing: bromide drags along the sprocket holes, uneven tones etc.

Me also. I know you will try, so leave the overexposed leader as long as you can and look at the bromide drag.

If it worked every time, Kodak would have promoted it.

 

[John Bragg]

I dont do full stand, but I do reduced agitation or semi stand. I encountered the famous sprocket hole surge mark pattern and found that using an empty reel at the bottom of a 2 reel tank and only loading the top reel completely eliminated the problem. Works for me !

 

[charjohncarter]

Only works with sporadic luck and then you praise it. And think you have solved the world's problems.

 

[steveyork]

I have had good luck (so far) with standing developing (Rodinal, 1:100 for 60 minutes with agitations at 20 and 40 minutes). Some films seem better suited then others. The last roll (Silvermax), however, resulted in low contrast/thin negatives, but it was shot in shadows with a 50mm Summicron DR; not exactly a high contrast lens. Following the times published for Rodinal in 1:25 or 1:50 has always resulted (for me) in somewhat muddy negatives.

 

[Ronald M]

Feel free to try. Some get what they like.

Every time I tried, I get bromide streaks sometimes in the image area, always in the overexposed film leader. hold it up to the light to see them.

Fast immersion and fairly vigorous agitation works for me. For high contrast images, cut the time and/or use diffusion enlarger.