TRIX 3200 isos rodinal 1+100 souped for 2h30

Can someone explain this stand development thing to me please?!

I know very well I'm no expert in film development but I do know, that with one or two exceptions, Diafine springing instantly to mind, you develop a film for a given time depending on the film stock, it's speed (taking into account a push or pull) and temperature.

With stand development, much of this appears to go out of the window: People use dillutions of 1:100 and 1:200 for between 1-3 hrs with film shot between 400 and 12800 - and all seem to get away with it! I take Sitemistic's point about "true" ISO but all the same - the results are astonishing and I look forward to an explanation of the phenomenon.

Thanks

Charly
 
great shots. I have no problem with clipped highlights. It is what Trix films do and I love broad midtones and care much less for clipped shadows and highligts.
 
Charly, one reason sometimes cited for stand development is that when there is less agitation the developer in contact with the highlights becomes exhausted while it continues to work on shadow detail. So you could get better shadow detail without blown highlights. Another good reason to try it is it's fun to experiment and see the results.
 
Supposedly, with stand development the highlight areas of a negative exhaust the developer and then the highlights cease to develop further. In normal development these highlight areas are lucky enough, though agitation, to get fresh developer and then they can continue to develop. Conversely, the shadows on the negative which need less developer to develop are allowed to continue developing while standing. If it works or exists, the highlights are controlled which would not occur in normal agitation development, and the shadows are allowed to develop to their fullest.

Now, Diafine which is a compensating developer is slightly different. The developer is designed to control highlights and encourage shadows to develop fully.

Stand development isn't really for 'pushing' film, it is for increasing shadow detail while controlling highlights. But as you can see, you can use it to push and get daytime pictures.
 
charjohncarter said:
I'm not sure I understand the need to take a picture of a horse in broad daylight with TriX at 3200 E.I. especially considering the concomitant decrease in tonal values and the increase in grain, but I'm with sitemistic on testing for true E.I. If le vrai is having trouble with blown out highlights the problem would probably be over developing rather than metering. By reducing exposure by three stops (E.I. 3200), it would be hard to over expose the highlights. Rodinal has the reputation of being a 'compensating like developer' so highlights should be easy to control by reducing the 'stand development' time.

Here is a woman that does stand development with Rodinal also using TriX (and other films). She is not pushing but she sure gets great results:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/yolise/350780526/
Click to expand...

I didn't always shoot in broad daylight, most of them were shot @ 1/125 f1.7

as I said it was an experiment and I want to use this technic at night in town :)
 
charjohncarter said:
Good, le vrai, post some of them.
Click to expand...

I shot this roll in countryside this weekend, I made 3 shot in town , will post them quickly but they are not, to the "artistic " point of view interesting ;)
 
2226624326_16eaa3b136_o.jpg


trix-3200-rod1+100-2h30020@.jpg



2226626630_031d1bba1e_o.jpg


The last one : a bit before night : at 400 iso it would be 1/30 @ f2, i think I shot @ f2.8 or f3.5 1/60 or 1/125 probably


I hope I will soon have a full roll of cityscpae by night
 
Last edited:
The last one shows what your process can do. Don't worry about the 'artistic' quality. We have all experimented. Why did you decide to shot the last one at 400? I really like that one (technically).
 
sitemistic, maybe you don't have to meter for Rodinal stand development. le vrai exposed the last image at 400. Maybe with Rodinal at 1+100 or 1+200 you just use what you camera is set at or guess, pour in the Rodinal, possibly don't worry too much about temp. Develop for an hour or two or when you finish the pizza, and agitate just enough to not get bromide treaks.
 
charjohncarter - Isn't le vrai saying that he did not expose it at 400 asa, that in fact it was under exposed by at least 2 stops, and maybe by as much as 4 stops? (thus 1600-6400). Maybe I am reading this wrong:

"The last one : a bit before night : at 400 iso it would be 1/30 @ f2, i think I shot @ f2.8 or f3.5 1/60 or 1/125 probably"
 
Le vrai has posted some quality photos with helpful technical information. Just the type of thing that makes this site valuable. So I say "thank you" to him.
 
wde60- I definitely agree. Between this thread and the Double X / Adox thread, those two have contributed more great information than I've seen on this forum in the last several months.

Cheer to Le vrai!
 
dpetrzelka, you are right, I read it too fast. Thanks for the correction. So he shot it at 1600.

I, also, congratulate le vrai. We need more of this. Thanks le vrai.
 
charjohncarter said:
The last one shows what your process can do. Don't worry about the 'artistic' quality. We have all experimented. Why did you decide to shot the last one at 400? I really like that one (technically).
Click to expand...

I didn't shot at 400 but 3200, but I know what speed and aperture would be at this time If I were at 400
 
Sitemistic

You're right - the true EI one gets in stand development won't actually be 12,800. But the point of pushing isn't to work at the true film speed. It's to shoot at a speed that let's you get the shot, then develop to get a usable print. Usually, this means bringing up the midtones at the expense of highlights, and a complete loss of shadow detail due to underexposure.

Compensation can combat this and produce more usuable negs. But I don't think anyone is claiming they are actually shooting at a true ISo 12,800. Certainly, I am not. I am saying that I've shot in situations where the light is really low (well off the meter on my canonet) and compensation via stand development and reduced agitation has helped save my negatives and made them usable. That's all I meant.

And one point is very impotant - 3 hours is almost certainly too long. I did that because I forgot about them for the last hour, and I was watching a 2 hour movie before that :). About 1.5 hours is the longest one would need to go.

We all know from H&D curves that a certain amount of photonic energy (light) needs to hit the silver on film X to produce any reaction at all with the developer. A speed decreasing developer like Rodinal needs even more there than, say, Microphen to get that reaction. That's why Rodinal usually produces a longer toe.

But, if ISO tests is what you want, then I'll go do them. I'll shoot a roll of TXT with a medium tone subject (don't have a card, so probably a towel) at a whole bunch of EI's and then do a stand dev test. I'll see what I get. Perhaps I'll try a couple of different films.

allan
 
sitemistic said:
le vral, how are you metering these?
Click to expand...

sekonic 208 incident light :)


I didn't move to my subject since these days in bordeaux are quite cloudy, since there i no shadow you don't need to move to your subject to measure :) just make sure the light stay constant whatever is the direction.

In "real night" I mean at midnight I don't measure, the lght is so contrasted that t has no meaning, I take 1/8 f1.7 400 iso in lighted streets as a basis, and convert it if I use a different sensibility :)
 
charjohncarter said:
sitemistic, maybe you don't have to meter for Rodinal stand development. le vrai exposed the last image at 400. Maybe with Rodinal at 1+100 or 1+200 you just use what you camera is set at or guess, pour in the Rodinal, possibly don't worry too much about temp. Develop for an hour or two or when you finish the pizza, and agitate just enough to not get bromide treaks.
Click to expand...

I exposed at 3200 the last one :) but give you the equivalent couple speed aperture at 400 I use with such a light ;) for I can't rememberthe aperture I used exposingat 3200


And when you push you NEED to METER correctly, I don't use to burn white and have undetailled shadows with trix at 400 sos, "metering" with my eyes , while at 3200, Even if you meter well at 3200 you have burned white sometimes for the film lattitude is not as wide as for a 400 iso exposed film
 
sitemistic said:
I see a lot of stuff on the web that claims they are shooting tri-x at 12,000 or 25,000. Frankly, from very long experience with Tri-X, I think all of this is just faulty metering or lack of understanding about what they are getting.

Mostly, they are photos with blown highlights and blocked up shadows with a tiny bit of detail somewhere in the photo. Without doing formal testing to determine the true ISO, I'm not convinced these speeds are real or achievable. I am open to being convinced, though. :)
Click to expand...

Take a gray card to meter If you don't have a lightmeter and shoot just before night when it is becoming dark but enought light to make sure metering has still a real meaning ;)

that also why I shoot the horses just before night. As I use to say, In town , during the night, metering hasn't a real meaning ;)
 
I e just noticed I scanned at 3200 dpi but in jpg and not Tiff as I use if it change anything concerning burned white I will tell you ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom