Stand Development (Tank)

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by hortense, Jul 3, 2005.

  1. hortense

    hortense Member

    Messages:
    612
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Location:
    Riverside, C
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    As well as LF, I am now into MF (120 film). I have used “Stand Development” for 4x5 film using a “slosher” that provides 6-separate compartments for each sheet of film. This is what I have used thus far. Now that I am into 120 films that requires development in tanks, is there enough space for developer between film layers to avoid excessive exhaustion of the dilute developer solutions that must be used? Stated another way, has anyone successfully used “Stand Development” for 120 roll film in a tank? Feedback would be appreciated.
     
  2. Ole

    Ole Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    9,281
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Location:
    Bergen, Norw
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    I've tried, and it worked so well I've done it repeatedly. Fx-2 at half strength, any film at 90 minutes with agitation the first 30 seconds and again after 30 minutes.
     
  3. P C Headland

    P C Headland Subscriber

    Messages:
    744
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Location:
    Wellington,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Hi

    It's worked fine for me in 120 film using Rodinal @ 1+100 and 1+200.

    My preference however is for 1+100 and minimal agitation rather than pure stand development.

    Paul
     
  4. rjs003

    rjs003 Subscriber

    Messages:
    266
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Finger Lakes
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    What were the temps and times used when using Rodinal, I have wanted to try this but have no idea as to what time to use. I have been shooting mostly Arista 400 Professional.
     
  5. photobackpacker

    photobackpacker Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    430
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    John Sexton assembled some "slosher" trays for MF film out of inexpensive, off-the-shelf items that appear to be very promising. He used vinyl roof gutters with end caps (caulked to ensure water tightness). He tapes the 120 film to a long, thin length of acrylic plastic to hold the film flat and emulsion side up. This film "sandwich" is submersed in the tray and is processed in the same way as with the sheet film slosher. FWIW :smile:
     
  6. jjstafford

    jjstafford Inactive

    Messages:
    735
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Location:
    Minnesota Tr
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    For years I thought I was the only one who admitted to using stand development for 120. I'd been called crazy too often. It is clear that there are some experienced persons here who have had similar good results.

    Speaking here of 120 APX 100 and Rodinal 1:150 or 1:200: Temperature: high enough to be sure the developer can be active; I use 65 to 75F. Time: Long enough to exhaust the developer. With Rodinal 1:150 or 1:200, AXP 100, and a conventional Nikor tank for two rolls, the time merely has to be at least 45 minutes. I use one hour. Agitation: 30 seconds at the start, and rap the tank to remove air bubbles. Gentle agitation of one inversion every 15 minutes, although I've used none whatsoever with the same results.

    Outcome is N-1 for my printing.
     
  7. hortense

    hortense Member

    Messages:
    612
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Location:
    Riverside, C
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Ole what is FX-2 and did you develope ROLL film in a tank?
     
  8. Lee L

    Lee L Member

    Messages:
    3,247
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    What is your total liquid volume and minimum amount of Rodinal per 120 roll? I'd think that this is important in developing to exhaustion, and I'm about to try it myself. Also, what EI do you use?

    Thanks,
    Lee
     
  9. Ole

    Ole Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    9,281
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Location:
    Bergen, Norw
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    FX-2 in one of Crowley's developers, a really nice non-solvent developer. Photographer's Formulary sells a variant of it, or you can mix your own.

    I develop all my roll film and 35mm in a paterson plastic tank. Stand development works just fine there - as it does in my otherwise useless "Johnson's Cutplate Developing Tank" for 4x5" and 9x12cm.
     
  10. jjstafford

    jjstafford Inactive

    Messages:
    735
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Location:
    Minnesota Tr
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Lee, I only do two rolls in a standard Nikor (approx 32oz) tank. I have not tried four rolls in a larger Nikor tank of twice the liquid capacity. Intuition tells me that the outcome would be the same, but intuition doe not always work. Perhaps someone else can help us in this regard.

    EI: 100 with APX 100.
     
  11. Lee L

    Lee L Member

    Messages:
    3,247
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks very much. This helps. I was mostly concerned about the amount of Rodinal available per roll of film. E.g. if you'd only done one roll in enough total solution to cover, or alternately, one roll in a two roll tank full of developer, I'd expect different outcomes, with more development where more Rodinal stock per roll is available.

    I'd expect that given the same ratio of active developer to film in your example, the outcomes would be essentially identical.

    Lee
     
  12. Tom Hoskinson

    Tom Hoskinson Member

    Messages:
    3,879
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Location:
    Southern Cal
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'm not Ole, but the recipe for FX-2 is posted in the APUG Chemical Recipes:

    http://www.apug.org/forums/article.php?a=48

    FX-2 is a Metol/Glycin accutance developer formulated by G. Crawley.

    I have been stand developing 120 roll film (2 rolls at a time) on Hewes reels in stainless steel tanks with excellent results.
     
  13. garryl

    garryl Member

    Messages:
    542
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    Fort Worth,
    Shooter:
    35mm
    After reading these posts, it occurs to me that somewhere tonight Mortensen's ghost is smiling.:wink: Of course, Ansel's ghost is yelling"ANTI-CHRIST":D

    Do I hear 1 1/2 to 2 hours?:rolleyes:
     
  14. Grunthos

    Grunthos Member

    Messages:
    30
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2004
    Location:
    Out West
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Nah, I don't think Ansel's ghost has problems with this. Adams had a great respect for Mortensen's technical abilities, he just couldn't stand his pictures.

    Grunthos the flatulent
     
  15. P C Headland

    P C Headland Subscriber

    Messages:
    744
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Location:
    Wellington,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Hi

    For 1+100 I use 8ml Rodinal + 800ml water, for 1+200 4ml Rodinal + 800ml water. Seems to work well for me. Obviously you don't need quite so much sloshing room for the liquid, and I have read that you need a minimum amount developer in the solution (4ml?). So far with this method I've had no problems.

    For 1+100, most 100-400 films I've tried come out ok in the 18-22 minutes range (Efke 25 works well too). For 1+200, which so far I have only used on sheet film, I have tried 45, 60 (for Efke 25) and 90 minutes. The 90m was for 5x4 classic pan 400. I have yet to scan this, and it's not yet 100% dry, but it looks good, and very even across the sky.


    Paul
     
  16. hortense

    hortense Member

    Messages:
    612
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Location:
    Riverside, C
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Thank you all for the feedback. I'll let you know after my first attempt.
     
  17. Donald Qualls

    Donald Qualls Member

    Messages:
    1,845
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2005
    Location:
    North Caroli
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    FWIW, I've done stand development with 120, 35 mm, and even 16 mm in tanks. Works fine if you have the right developer. I like highly dilute HC-110 for this, but others like Rodinal and still others find they can use whatever. I don't personally like the very pronounced adjacency effects in smaller formats -- the required enlargement changes an acutance increase into a very unnatural look -- but it seems fine in 120.