ericzhu
Established
What is stand development? What is semi-stand development? What is Agfa development? After searching this forum, it seems that they are all connected with reduced inversion times, for example, 1 inversion every 1 minute.
Last edited:
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
stand development is a loose term for letting your film sit in developer unagitated for long periods of time. When I think of "stand" I think of 1 hour in rodinal at 1:100 with 30 seconds initial agitation, a few inversions at 30 minutes and let sit for another 30 minutes for an hour total time. This has worked well for me with both tri-x rated at 3200 and acros rated at 100...
charjohncarter
Veteran
Stand is supposed to exhaust the developer in the highlight areas so they don't blow out. It also provides more fresh developer to the shadow areas to fully develop these areas. This is achieved by not agitating the used develop out of the highlight areas, and leaving less used up developer in the shadow areas. Generally, it is used for scenes that have a large number of stops (very high contrast), too many for normal development. So I guess you would not use it on controlled, lighting indoor, overcast day, or other low contrast scenes.
Two Bath development is somewhat different. It is suppose to temper highlight development while encouraging shadow development, sounds the same to me. But somehow, it is suppose to bring all contrast scenes on the same roll into proper development. They say it is achieved by #1 what I said in my second sentence, and #2 by giving the mid-tones more contrast in flat scenes and not so much in high contrast scene. Read up on Barry Thornton for a better explanation of Two Bath.
Two Bath development is somewhat different. It is suppose to temper highlight development while encouraging shadow development, sounds the same to me. But somehow, it is suppose to bring all contrast scenes on the same roll into proper development. They say it is achieved by #1 what I said in my second sentence, and #2 by giving the mid-tones more contrast in flat scenes and not so much in high contrast scene. Read up on Barry Thornton for a better explanation of Two Bath.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Stand development as mentioned above tames contrast a bit - but with "surface" type developer like Rodinal, it also enhances the "adjacency" effect. The image appears sharper than it really is! Edges almost looks cut with a scalpel!
It is not without problem, you can get uneven development, bromide drag lines down the negatives (caused by cavitation from the sprocket holes) and with systems like the Paterson tanks and reels, this is more common, than with the stainless steel reels.
You can also get a perception of higher film speed - shadows look better, but part of that is also in the skill of metering. With films like Neopan 1600 - i measure for shadows and develop for them - with stand development you can let the highlights go where they want and still get a print.
It is worthwhile trying - shoot some film of a variety of subjects and under different light conditions, use something simple like Rodinal - either 1:100 or even :150 and let it "stew". I find that I tend to adjust my times and dilution to the average length of a DVD movie ( who wants to stand in the darkroom for 60-120 minutes anyway). When you get to the "sappy" part - go and agitate (one or two turns/30 min interval).
Split developers is a different animal altogether. This was very popular back in the days when film came with generous helpings of silver and gelatin layers. If you are shooting classic emulsions like XXX/XX/HP5/Arista 400 etc - it still works. The theory is that you soak the film in "static" developer compounds - but without a "activator". The film will soak up about 5 ml of developer/roll and when dunked in the activator it will develop to exhaustion and moderate contrast. There are classic formulas for this, Vestal's split D76/Farber split D76/ D 23 and so on. With modern films I find that Td 201 works well. If you are interested in this stuff, get Anchell/Troop's "The Film Developing Cookbook". Essential reading for the chemically dependent!
It is not without problem, you can get uneven development, bromide drag lines down the negatives (caused by cavitation from the sprocket holes) and with systems like the Paterson tanks and reels, this is more common, than with the stainless steel reels.
You can also get a perception of higher film speed - shadows look better, but part of that is also in the skill of metering. With films like Neopan 1600 - i measure for shadows and develop for them - with stand development you can let the highlights go where they want and still get a print.
It is worthwhile trying - shoot some film of a variety of subjects and under different light conditions, use something simple like Rodinal - either 1:100 or even :150 and let it "stew". I find that I tend to adjust my times and dilution to the average length of a DVD movie ( who wants to stand in the darkroom for 60-120 minutes anyway). When you get to the "sappy" part - go and agitate (one or two turns/30 min interval).
Split developers is a different animal altogether. This was very popular back in the days when film came with generous helpings of silver and gelatin layers. If you are shooting classic emulsions like XXX/XX/HP5/Arista 400 etc - it still works. The theory is that you soak the film in "static" developer compounds - but without a "activator". The film will soak up about 5 ml of developer/roll and when dunked in the activator it will develop to exhaustion and moderate contrast. There are classic formulas for this, Vestal's split D76/Farber split D76/ D 23 and so on. With modern films I find that Td 201 works well. If you are interested in this stuff, get Anchell/Troop's "The Film Developing Cookbook". Essential reading for the chemically dependent!
mh2000
Well-known
Hey, I have some TMY "stewing" in rodinal 5+500ml right now... rated at 600 and will take it out after 1 1/2 hours. I don't do a mid-inversion, just the initial 30 secs... but I'm no expert and haven't been doing it long yet, but very happy with my first few rolls. Haven't had any uneven development problems, but using it with 120 in SS tanks.
40oz
...
AFAIK, stand development is no inversions after initially pouring the film in the tank and sloshing it around to ensure the entire film is coated. Semi-stand would be one or two inversions over an extended development period.
I've done this once with HC-110 and Tri-X:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=54204&ppuser=4407
It works just fine, IMHO. I'm not a fan since while it is easy, it takes longer than paying attention and agitating. And there is the issue of strange lighter colored streaks from the darker regions in the linked shot. *I* don't know what caused it, but above the stack and peaks of the brewery office you can see a lighter "streak" going to the top of the frame. Hardly an obvious and significant defect, but a defect not existing on any roll I've ever developed using standard agitation..
I'm *not* saying it doesn't work. I've only done it once myself and it worked as far as I'm concerned. I'm saying there can be trade-offs that IMHO make it a fun experiment but not better in any way than agitation. I'd suggest giving it a try just for fun.
Portraits or busy backgrounds might work better than a shot of a building against a clear sky. As a technique, you might find scenes or subjects that are uniquely suited to the practice. Or personal conditions that make it a viable option in a pinch. If nothing else, it's fun to try differnt things justto see, especially when you get the decent results I saw.
I've done this once with HC-110 and Tri-X:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=54204&ppuser=4407
It works just fine, IMHO. I'm not a fan since while it is easy, it takes longer than paying attention and agitating. And there is the issue of strange lighter colored streaks from the darker regions in the linked shot. *I* don't know what caused it, but above the stack and peaks of the brewery office you can see a lighter "streak" going to the top of the frame. Hardly an obvious and significant defect, but a defect not existing on any roll I've ever developed using standard agitation..
I'm *not* saying it doesn't work. I've only done it once myself and it worked as far as I'm concerned. I'm saying there can be trade-offs that IMHO make it a fun experiment but not better in any way than agitation. I'd suggest giving it a try just for fun.
Portraits or busy backgrounds might work better than a shot of a building against a clear sky. As a technique, you might find scenes or subjects that are uniquely suited to the practice. Or personal conditions that make it a viable option in a pinch. If nothing else, it's fun to try differnt things justto see, especially when you get the decent results I saw.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
The streaking that you're seeing is probably from uneven development, which is a complication that can happen with stand development. It's actually one of the reasons why people go with semi-stand in case. A little bit of developer movement is needed.
Something else you can see from the example is that stand development with normal contrast scenes or when pushing film will result in a very flat, low-contrast negative. If you shoot a normal scene and then let it go stand, you smush your mid-tones.
Something else you can see from the example is that stand development with normal contrast scenes or when pushing film will result in a very flat, low-contrast negative. If you shoot a normal scene and then let it go stand, you smush your mid-tones.
marke
Well-known
Hey, thanks to John Carter and Tom A for explaining this better than I have ever heard it before. Once when I asked about stand developing (in this forum, I believe), I got replies that offered not much more than "google it".
So anyway, thanks guys, for taking the time to explain clearly and simply what stand developing is. Now I really want to try it!
So anyway, thanks guys, for taking the time to explain clearly and simply what stand developing is. Now I really want to try it!