Stand development....is it worth it?

Dave Wilkinson

Dave Wilkinson

Veteran
Local time
8:07 AM
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
2,289
Location
Hull, Yorkshire, U.K
View My Gallery
I have been processing black and white films on and off for the best part of fifty years, and naturally have tried a few methods and dev./film combos, although I am actually a bit blai'se about developers, and for many years was quite happy to soup in good old Geoffrey Crawley's brews - Aculux, Acutol etc. when they were available.
Lately I read here about stand dev. - and I'm just curious!, so before I commandeer the kitchen sink for an hour or two, instead of my usual twenty mins., apart from cost - is it really worth the hassle?, or just a gimmick or fad?
- so gimme the lowdown please in honest opinions!
Cheers, Dave.
 
To me, it is less hassle. Set it up, walk away and go do something else and just return in an hour without needing to dedicate x amount of time to pay attention to temperature or timing agitations.
 
Dave Wilkinson said:
good point!, what I really meant was - are the results worth the hassle?
Dave.
Click to expand...

I think so, but I've only done two rolls stand development in rodinal. Dont have them uploaded yet. Lots of others' photos on flickr though, see here.

Also, good samples in the rodinal 1:100 thread here on RFF.

I got very nice tonal gradation when I used the stand development method.

At any rate, you could always cut a roll of film in half and develop half stand development method and the other half as you normally would. Then just compare the results. 🙂
 
Dear Dave,

Is it worth it?

If you've tried everything else, and still not got good results, probably.

If you've already got good results another way, probably not.

There are innumerable ways of achieving indistinguishable results in photography.

Cheers,

R.
 
I find Rodinal 1:100 to be less susceptible to changes in temperature. Apart from looking out for too cold or hot rinses which would cause reticulation, the approach is very tolerable. I also use the Lynn-Miller procedure, 3 min pre-soak, 20 inversions in first minute, untouched for 59.

Keeping baths on temperature always was troublesome for me since the living room in both summer and winter time is the only room in the house with a rather constant temperature (18 to 21 degrees Celcius). Now, I mix up the soup and ditch the film in once the temp is right and then just put in in the living for an hour.

Results are brilliant to me, I have used it with Fomapan 100 and 200, Tmax 100 and Efke 100, Ilford FP4. Usually rate films at 2/3 speed, 100=80, 200=160.

One 500ml bottle will develop approx 110 films, 1 film per 450ml tank. Fixer costs more than Rodinal when working like this.
 
I use it with films like Technical Pan and Fuji's Minicopy II. Rodinal 1:200 for 120 min (or whatever length the latest DVD blockbuster movie lasts - great timing system). It doesn't work all the time or with all films - but it has its place. I get aout 20 asa from the Minicopy and 80-100 from the Tech Pan in moderately contrasty light.
Occasionally i end up with the proverbial "dogs breakfast" of films, mainly due to the generosity of friends who decide that they are going digital all the way. I quickly shoot them (the films, that is) and process them. Just stuff all of them in 5 reel Paterson tanks - Rodinal 1:100 or 1:200 and leave them "stewing" for 90-120 min. Usually get something on the negs. Works with really old film too - just did some Tmax/FP4/Panatomic in 120 this way. A bit fogged, but all the rolls were old enough to vote.
 
I've been using that method exclusively for the past 10+ rolls. I like it a lot.

It's less a hassle to process (as outlined by all the previous posters) and the results are as good if not better than the usual processes. At least for me and Tri-x/Arista premium 400.

I got my most pleasing (to me) results with Foma200 and Rodinal 1:100 so far. To me it is worth it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom