Stand developing - the good and bad

sorry to rant but i mean all this talk about stand development and rodinal, etc. am i the only one who thinks is makes just about no difference in the final product? can't say i've ever been too impressed by it but everyone has their tastes. i guess it makes sense from an economic standpoint but it just seems to be a rather unorthodox approach to doing something that is very simple 99 percent of the time.

edit: this coming from a true expert, you know, as expert as any on this forum 😉
 
I yet have to try stand development but recently did hear from old photographer he used to pour developer on glass plate and apply negative on it. It's stand, too - developer isn't circulating and as it gets more and more exhausted fresh soup isn't coming to blow highlights. He told this technique were used to extend tonal range.

As I understand there are certain motifs and shooting conditions which benefit from stand development. Just like there are scenes screaming for highly concentrated dilution. Or fine grained developers, or grainy films with coarse developer. All themes, all pictures do not have to look same.
 
canetsbe said:
the whole stand development fad is getting old.
Click to expand...

Unless you are a serious sheet film photographer, but for roll film, at least, the way most of us shoot it: it is crazy (and in most scenes contra-productive).

Now, if you are someone like John Sexton who at times has 15 stop scenes. It makes for very good photography.

In this article Sexton describes his stand or semi stand process (which is really more correctly called 'compensating development') with TMax100 using high dilution TMax developer. I have seen the images that were made using this process and they are stunning. In some, the bulbs and the metal lampshade are separately and completely distinguishable while still having complete detail in even the deepest shadows:

http://johnsexton.com/images/Compensating_Development.pdf
 
charjohncarter said:
Unless you are a serious sheet film photographer, but for roll film, at least, the way most of us shoot it: it is crazy (and in most scenes contra-productive).

Now, if you are someone like John Sexton who at times has 15 stop scenes. It makes for very good photography.

In this article Sexton describes his stand or semi stand process (which is really more correctly called 'compensating development') with TMax100 using high dilution TMax developer. I have seen the images that were made using this process and they are stunning. In some, the bulbs and the metal lampshade are separately and completely distinguishable while still having complete detail in even the deepest shadows:

http://johnsexton.com/images/Compensating_Development.pdf
Click to expand...


Several years ago I shot a couple of rolls of 120 Efke 25 in extremely contrasty scenes. Extremely bright light as well as deep forest shadow were in the scene. Even with doing clip tests the lab couldn't get the development "right". I have a feeling this would have fit the bill.

Well it's high noon here, and I'm off work early. Going out to my fav wooded area and shoot some garish high contrast scenes and try this compensating development again.
 
6875710272_396ecba8bc_c.jpg


Stand development can work - particularly in very high contrast scenes.
This is with Neopan SS - rated at 100 iso, Leica MP and C Biogon 35mm f2.8
Pyrocat HD 1:1: 200 (7.5 ml A, 7.5 ml B and 1500 ml of water). 40 minutes
with a quick "flip" at 15 min and 30 min.
Pretty well a straight scan in Vuescan.
 
So far, no one here has convinced me why it's better to let a film can sit for an hour when 5 to 10 minutes would do the job. Please stand and deliver. Perhaps the process ties in with someone's yoga, or meditation, practice.
 
^Simple. Because I can walk away from it. IMO standing in my bathroom with a stopwatch so I can flip a stupid can every minute is a moronic way to spend my free time.

Of course it also saves developer. I know what you'll say, you can just order chemicals X, Y and Z in bulk and mix something that's even cheaper. More wasted time, if you ask me.
 
Even though I mostly do semi-stand (20-30' with very few agitations), I like stand on occasion.

69-TMY-Scan-120228-0004.jpg


69-TMY-Scan-120228-0008-XL.jpg


Many internet "facts" about stand however, are simply untrue. For example, if somebody tells you that (s)he uses the same recipe independent of film speed, on, say, 100, 400 and/or 800 ASA film equally, ask youself if and why that person used a light-meter.

Roland.
 
ferider said:
Even though I mostly do semi-stand (20-30' with very few agitations), I like stand on occasion.

69-TMY-Scan-120228-0004.jpg


69-TMY-Scan-120228-0008-XL.jpg


Many internet "facts" about stand however, are simply untrue. For example, if somebody tells you that (s)he uses the same recipe independent of film speed, on, say, 100, 400 and/or 800 ASA film equally, ask youself if and why that person used a light-meter.

Roland.
Click to expand...

Is semi stand - stand your usual way of developing BW, or just for very contrasty scenes?
 
Dana B. said:
So far, no one here has convinced me why it's better to let a film can sit for an hour when 5 to 10 minutes would do the job. Please stand and deliver. Perhaps the process ties in with someone's yoga, or meditation, practice.
Click to expand...

I use Diaphine because its a compensating developer to moderate contrast, but I use it for added shadow detail without blowing highlights to extend my contrast range.

Using solvent developers in a standard manner cannot reach the same performance, especially under high contrast situations.

Stand developing is another approach to extend the contrast range.

I use to do standard development a lot and now make much more detailed negatives with extended contrast range.

Cal
 
ferider said:
Many internet "facts" about stand however, are simply untrue. For example, if somebody tells you that (s)he uses the same recipe independent of film speed, on, say, 100, 400 and/or 800 ASA film equally, ask youself if and why that person used a light-meter.

Roland.
Click to expand...

Roland,

Isn't stand developing to completion, thus developing at nominal film sensibility whatever it is?
I thought that only push/pull processing could be an issue...
 
Dana B. said:
Great explanation, thanks.
Click to expand...

BTW using some of what I learned from threads on stand development taught me how to make better negatives using solvent developers to control contrast range.

LanceEric spoke of shooting Tri-X at 3200 ISO, but the associated images had remarkable mid-tones. His trick was minimizing aggitation and then extending the time to make up for the loss of development with Microphen. His time was 25 minutes and only two gentle inversions every minute.

Cal
 
I use stand development in Rodinal on slow films because it works great and is easy for me. I use it on faster film when I want a gritty and rough negative. I use it for my toy cam films because it seem to extend exposure latitude just a little bit.

I'm most of the time happy with the results and I like the process. Mix it up and let it stand while having a coffee, reading something interesting. Just about when I start to get impatient it is done.
 
Lund said:
I use it for my toy cam films because it seem to extend exposure latitude just a little bit.
Click to expand...

I've always said that compensating development especially with roll film is for a day at the beach or the mountain on a sunny snow day (an over simplification of the use of compensating development), but you have found another good use for compensating or stand development. Verichrome and Verchrome Pan were Kodak's film of choice for these 'toy' cameras, and the reason was they had an expanded tonal or dynamic range (great film, I wish it was still around). Which gave a very acceptable print from a mass market camera
 
lund, to illustrate the type of scene that compensating or stand develop was designed for, and also wonders of Verichrome in a box camera. This is a found photo from a friend's box. It was taken prewar and the negative said Verichrome:

7026942105_5259fc3f5d.jpg


I'm not sure I would know how to expose and develop this one. Maybe it was a lucky shot or maybe a lucky pharmacy pick. There is highlight detail, shadow detail (the faces in the car and under the car). The highlights are blown on the sunny side of the snow bank but still a very difficult shot, with surprising tonal range. Photographer is unknown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom