Originally Posted by Toffle
Just don't try going to LFPF, it's frequently even more poisonous with a cadre of self-appointed experts who seem to have "being smugly narrow-minded/unhelpful" and "insulting people" as their day-job. It's a pity, because there are also some wonderful people there too.
I remember tkamiya started a thread this sort of thing a while back.
Originally Posted by Truzi
Look, things tend to get very heated when it comes to the following words:
That's just the way it is. Myths abound, lots of bad information out there, etc. Let people vent and then it cools off on its own as people get bored.
If it can remain civil, I actually think it's good that something like standing development gets scrutinized, because it is a little bit controversial (as we can clearly see here). It's good for future generations to be able to search for threads to see that some people claim it to be the best thing since sliced bread, and others vehemently oppose it. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, and hopefully that person is smart enough to realize that when they look into it.
Having tried standing development, as well as intermittent agitation, for a couple of years, using Rodinal and Pyrocat, I have had all the problems in the book with uneven development and wonky tonality. With standing development, it is a matter of time WHEN you will get that problem, not IF. But it does have its virtues, if you consider the work of Steve Sherman, for example, who has done some breathtaking work using the technique.
Like with everything else, any technique has virtues and limitations, and it matters a lot more HOW we incorporate that into our work flow, than the technique itself, which is always secondary to skill, ingenuity, curiosity, inventiveness, passion, observation, and application.
Have fun and make good photographs.
The point of this thread was whether it's possible to get finer grain from Rodinal with faster films, a worth while question and discussion is/was about whether adding other chemicals could help.
There's nothing inherently wrong with this idea, whether it's worthwhile is another issue but if someone wants to try there's no reason to attack their ideas.
There is a lot of disinformation about some developers usually frrom those who should know better, as MichaelR says Stand, Rodinal, Pyro, Amidol, all have their place, as for myths I fear it's usually people deriding them because they aren't to their own personal liking. It's the final results that count, how you get there is craft.
That was the point Ian, but for those that followed the whole thread the OP determined that the salt w and w/o had no impact on grain, however, it was noticed that a stand 1:100+salt yielded (on a scan) an nice looking image.....
However it was also noted (and validated by my own test) that there is uneven development in the stand 1:100+salt technique
So we sit here today, wondering if any of the 'stand' folks can overcome the streaking (or over dev on the right side as noted by - I forget).
This is not a dead thread but a challenge at this point, if someone can overcome the 1:100+salt-streak-paradox we might have the Ming-Rider-Rodinal-semi-stand-salt-technique
That's the deal here.
We have streaking on negs as shown by the OP and me
If someone can solve for that, then we might have an alternative dev tech that someone might add to his/her bag'a tricks
I can't stand that there is a contingent of folks that want this line of thought to fail. I want the OP to succeed (regardless if I am not a stand type of guy)...
For those with streaks, how much working solution did you have, vs. how many spools of film were in the tank?
I'll stand one or two rolls in 1L of working solution, and swirl for initial and midway agitation, and my Tri-X doesn't seem to suffer streaks.
^Criteria is defined in posts #67 a #75 or so....
The working "theory" is that salt + stand = streaks
Well, if one wanted to do this experiment properly, it would first be important to determine whether or not the stand development procedure yielded tonality, speed and image structure characteristics that could not be duplicated otherwise with a less extreme procedure. A characteristic curve would be helpful. If we can't get that, at the very least we need carefully controlled test images and printed grey scales as a way to evaluate film speed and contrast index so that apples can be compared with apples.
Originally Posted by zsas
Once a controlled set of results for the stand procedure are available, the issue of streaking/even development can be addressed. With Rodinal and HP5, I suspect a less extreme procedure (for example agitation every three minutes with a possible change in dilution) would accomplish the same thing. The problem remains that we have no real information regarding OPs stand results (besides streaking). Coming to meaningful conclusions is impossible under those circumstances. So all you have is flame war bait.
Incidentally this is a problem with most "test" threads. Any sort of scientific method is ignored, and we're supposed draw conclusions based on nothing but screen resolution scans and feelings. No wonder they all end in heated debates.
Various levels of working solution, based on a minimum of 3ml concentrate per roll of film (Rodinal). Sometimes I used 5ml per film, and sometimes 6ml. I got uneven development from all types of films, mainly FP4+ and Kodak Tri-X, but also Fuji Neopan 400 and Efke films. There was no pattern to why some rolls came out uneven and others did not. I should add that much of the subject matter I photograph has even tonality, or slowly shifting tonality, like sky, a calm water surface, a wall that is uniform in texture, etc - subject matter where those types of things would reveal themselves very readily.
Originally Posted by viridari
If I photographed in the woods, where lots of abrupt changes in tonality take place, with tree trunks, leaves, tree branches, etc, make it almost impossible to distinguish slightly uneven tonality.
That's my experience. Some rolls were perfect. Others were not. I'd say maybe a 70% good / 30% bad ratio.
Michael do you realize that the OP approached the query with one idea, then branched into a side analysis....does salt+1:100 stand yield a nice image?
Had he scientifically quantified the virtues if stand, he'd be no where
Can't we just agree that the artist Thomas cites had nice results (eg Steve Sherman), and thus your whole point that the virtues of stand need to be proven before beginning any suggestion that salt is a new varriable that can have any effect on outcome?
I was reading an article today oddly enough suggesting that those in science need to experiment....
Sometimes the formal (eg six sigma) approach is great, but to find a new N....outside the box
Don't believe me, search "Google X Labs)...