FrankS
Registered User
Lately I've been using HC110 and Rodinol at high dilution (1:100) for longer times with less/much less agitation. As far as I can discern, the advantages are: compensating effect and economy. The disavantage seems to be increased grain due to longer wet times.
Your thoughts on the stand developing method, please?
Your thoughts on the stand developing method, please?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Frank,
Reduced film speed (at a given contrast) as a result of less agitation.
Risk of streamers.
Cheers,
R.
Reduced film speed (at a given contrast) as a result of less agitation.
Risk of streamers.
Cheers,
R.
slm
Formerly nextreme
My one experiment with FP4 & Rodinal resulted in a lower contrast overall (but not flat, just lower than what I usually see) and nicely developed shadows. I think the scan required a boost in contrast. I still need to test a wet print, see how it looks.
Steven
Rodinal 1:120, agitate 1st minute, stand 1hr.
Steven
Rodinal 1:120, agitate 1st minute, stand 1hr.
ChrisN
Striving
I'm experimenting with Ilford LC-29 at 1+100 (6ml developer plus 600ml water to do one roll of 35mm) at the moment, and have been pleased with the results. Like you, I'm aiming for economy, but I like the way it controls highlights too. "Streamers" are eliminated so far by suspending the roll 20mm off the bottom of the tank, and swirling lightly for 15 seconds at half-time.
Attachments
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
IMO, wet time should be kept to a minimum, which is why I don't do "stand" development. At 1:100 my theory is that the developer works to exhaustion, and ~19-20 minutes is when it's "done". Longer stand may be for special circumstances (not quite sure what those are), and in MF/LF any grain gain my not be an issue.
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
Compensating effect and good economy with stand developing. However with plastic reels I always ran the risk of streaks on my negatives. A presoak helped a lot but it didn't remove them completely. I've gone back to regular agitation for peace of mind.
FrankS
Registered User
The only time I ever got streaks (bromide drag?) was when I was using Diafine.
charjohncarter
Veteran
As everybody knows, I don't think stand or semi-stand development is worth it. I see you live in the Great White North, so maybe go out and try a roll on a sunny winter day when the ground is covered with snow and there are lots of shadows. Then put it away until next year.
slm
Formerly nextreme
I didn't get any streaking with my attempt. I thought I read somewhere you could not get bromide drag with Rodinal?
btgc
Veteran
ChrisN - that's a big volume for one roll of 35mm film, isn't it? Do stand needs larger volume of soup (not to exhaust early) or it's just easy for you to measure 6ml syrup?
Recently I heard about stand-like method - film is submerged into developer and then laid flat on glass. Developer works until it gets exhausted and because of physical arrangement it's not renewing/circulating like it happens in tank. Owner of local lab told he has used this method (for same reasons which are pursued by stand development, as I realize).
Recently I heard about stand-like method - film is submerged into developer and then laid flat on glass. Developer works until it gets exhausted and because of physical arrangement it's not renewing/circulating like it happens in tank. Owner of local lab told he has used this method (for same reasons which are pursued by stand development, as I realize).
morback
Martin N. Hinze
I'm a big fan and have been using this method exclusively for the past months.
Advantages
no need for accurate temperatures (I don't mesure, I stick my hand in the running water to make sur the water is "cool")
no need to babysit the tank (invert 1mn, don't touch for 59)
chemical economy (R09 is cheap enough already...)
beautiful negs that come out with full tonality (contrast added in post-prod)
reveals the true character of the film used (others may refer to this as "grain!")
no film speed loss (as far as I can tell)
no need for stop bath
Disadvantages
too easy
slow process (got a lot of rolls to go through?)
makes you feel dispensable
I love that process and would not go back to the now "traditional" methods. Too stressful.
Advantages
no need for accurate temperatures (I don't mesure, I stick my hand in the running water to make sur the water is "cool")
no need to babysit the tank (invert 1mn, don't touch for 59)
chemical economy (R09 is cheap enough already...)
beautiful negs that come out with full tonality (contrast added in post-prod)
reveals the true character of the film used (others may refer to this as "grain!")
no film speed loss (as far as I can tell)
no need for stop bath
Disadvantages
too easy
slow process (got a lot of rolls to go through?)
makes you feel dispensable
I love that process and would not go back to the now "traditional" methods. Too stressful.
ChrisN
Striving
This is still in the experimenting stage, but I adopted 600ml as the volume for one roll because I have the spool lifted about 20mm off the bottom of the tank, and I wanted the spool at about the middle of the column of developer. So the total height of the necessary column of developer equates to about 600ml in my tank. Various forum comments about using Rodinal suggest that a minimum of 4 to 6 ml per roll is a good idea - I don't know how the formula for LC29 compares so I've adopted 6ml per roll as my minimum for a start, and this combines with my total volume requirement to give me 1+100 - which also coincides with proven Rodinal stand development practice. I'll keep playing with this and see if I can reduce both the total volume and the amount of developer - 5 + 500 or perhaps even 3 + 500 might work just as well with careful attention to the height of the spool and the (minimal) agitation.
mike xtreme
Member
hey guys,
i have a question. the time for stand development is usually an hour right? then how many stops will it push?for example i am using a ASA100 film then when i am snapping picture on my camera, should i set the ASA to 400 or 800?
i have a question. the time for stand development is usually an hour right? then how many stops will it push?for example i am using a ASA100 film then when i am snapping picture on my camera, should i set the ASA to 400 or 800?
Jack917
Established
mike xtreme,
Most people seem to develop for about an hour, some say they haven't noticed differences after 20 minutes. For more info check the Rodinal 1:100 thread here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61643&highlight=rodinal
Good question about pushing. I've shot 100 and 400 film, but do stand development the same with both films, I haven't noticed any significant differences. Anybody?
ChrisN,
I've also been experimenting with stand development in Rodinal. I started at 5 + 500 and it was fine. I've since dropped it to 4.5 + 450 in a Universal Patterson tank with 2 reels, film on the lower reel. Just wanted to be sure there was enough liquid to keep the film submerged. I thought I read that 3ml was the min somewhere, gonna give it a shot next. What kind of tank are you using and how are you adjusting the height?
Most people seem to develop for about an hour, some say they haven't noticed differences after 20 minutes. For more info check the Rodinal 1:100 thread here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61643&highlight=rodinal
Good question about pushing. I've shot 100 and 400 film, but do stand development the same with both films, I haven't noticed any significant differences. Anybody?
ChrisN,
I've also been experimenting with stand development in Rodinal. I started at 5 + 500 and it was fine. I've since dropped it to 4.5 + 450 in a Universal Patterson tank with 2 reels, film on the lower reel. Just wanted to be sure there was enough liquid to keep the film submerged. I thought I read that 3ml was the min somewhere, gonna give it a shot next. What kind of tank are you using and how are you adjusting the height?
ChrisN
Striving
Hi Jack
I'm also using Paterson two and three reel tanks. On the base it lists 290ml as the minimum amount for a single reel. But that's with agitation. I wanted to lift the reel so I cut a 35mm spool container in half to give me a collar about 15mm long - that goes onto the centre column under the reel. My last attempt, with two reels in a three reel tank, bottom reel lifted 15mm, one litre of Rodinal 1+100 developer, showed edge burn on half the frames of both reels and quite a few with the streaking usually associated with bromide drag caused by inadequate agitation with a thin dilution. That was with 90 minutes total time and 15 seconds of gentle swirling at 45 minutes. Samples attached - first was Kodak 2485 (traffic surveillance film) and second (the OK one) was HP5.
Conclusion: back to the drawing board! I think this works better for me with a single roll of film, and with the time limited to 1 hour.
Attachments
Last edited:
morback
Martin N. Hinze
If I understand your question correctly it seems you think stand development will push your film automatically? if so the answer is no.
1hour stand is the base time for box speed. To push, you multiply 60mn x1.5 (per stop).
So if you want to push 100ASA film to 400ASA, you need to leave in there for 135mn.
Chris,
of all the films I used in stand, the worst by far is Kodak Tri-X. It has a very strong reaction to this process, but I never the streak/surge marks that you show here. That's why I started to do and inversion halfway through and then put the tank on its head for the second half of the duration. It comes out very gritty.
So far I have not spotted streaks, but the halos remain (i like those).
I also use Hewes tank, for some reason a lot of people using Paterson seem to have a lot of trouble with stand development in Rodinal. it seems to me that the best films to use like this are T-grain films. These are just observations.
Halo due to high contrast:
Usually you would also get a light stripe from the figure to the top of the frame (depending how your film hangs in the soup). This is one of the first rolls done in stand, arista premium 400.
Edit: that was shot with the Zeiss Ikon, so the stripe is at the bottom (the Contax T3 loads the film upside down), you can see it just below the statue.
Last edited:
The Man From Benaki
Member
I get halos with Tri-x too. i found that presoaking for 5 minutes and agitating slowly for 10sec every 20min solves this problem. The uneven development at one end of the negative is something that persists though. I'll try a stainless stell reel in my next roll, to check if its indeed the plastic ones that cause the trouble.
A lot of efford, but the tonality, and personality (grain) you can achieve is definetly worth it.
A lot of efford, but the tonality, and personality (grain) you can achieve is definetly worth it.
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
I have had much success with XP-2 (>10 rolls) and Rodinal Stand method, however, I have been struggling with other films with this method. I sort of traced it to the room temperature water that I use for development, which is around 30Celsius, this produced grainy pictures, especially large ones in Tri-x.
My proudest picture with Stand Dev and XP2:
I also observe that Ilford films tend to develop more evenly with the Stand Method, films from Delta (100, 400, 3200) and HP5, FP4 and even PANF400 with its big grains. Lucky 100 and Legacy Pro films developed okay.
FIlms that were patchy to me were APX400, Acros100, TMAX, TRIX and BW400CN produced fog in the photos probably due to not using the C41 process.
To be fair, I experimented with quantities and dlution, so some of the patchiness probably came as a result of a failed experiement. (For example, I tried 4ml of Rodinal with 600ml of water with 2 x 135 film. )
So far, my conclusions with stand development are:
* Due to the tropical heat, i can get acceptable grains only with lford XP-2 in Stand development.
* Agitation creates contrasts and grains. So gentle agitation is important
* For maximum edge sharpness (accutance?), 120mins without 30min agitation works best for ME, your mileage will vary.
An example of grainy patchy image from non-XP2 development:
My proudest picture with Stand Dev and XP2:
I also observe that Ilford films tend to develop more evenly with the Stand Method, films from Delta (100, 400, 3200) and HP5, FP4 and even PANF400 with its big grains. Lucky 100 and Legacy Pro films developed okay.
FIlms that were patchy to me were APX400, Acros100, TMAX, TRIX and BW400CN produced fog in the photos probably due to not using the C41 process.
To be fair, I experimented with quantities and dlution, so some of the patchiness probably came as a result of a failed experiement. (For example, I tried 4ml of Rodinal with 600ml of water with 2 x 135 film. )
So far, my conclusions with stand development are:
* Due to the tropical heat, i can get acceptable grains only with lford XP-2 in Stand development.
* Agitation creates contrasts and grains. So gentle agitation is important
* For maximum edge sharpness (accutance?), 120mins without 30min agitation works best for ME, your mileage will vary.
An example of grainy patchy image from non-XP2 development:
Last edited:
Ronald M
Veteran
Overexpose and underdevelope 20%, you get the shadows and not blow the highlights.
Streaking is not a problem.
Streaking is not a problem.
calexg
Established
90% of my rolls are stand developed, and 100% of them so far have been developed in Rodinal (I'm trying to get a thorough understanding of Rodinal before trying out other developers). I love my results. I use Hewes reels and SS tanks and have never had much of an issue. I've even stand developed at 1+200 with great success! I like it because it allows me to go about my evening routine, knowing full well that my rolls are going to come out perfectly as long as I remember to set a timer. I like the grain, I like the acutance, and I like it when people ask me, "Stand development? What's that?" 