Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,687   Posts: 1,548,620   Online: 1257
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34
  1. #11
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,353
    Images
    343
    Forgive me if wrong, but I always thought stand development, or as we say in the UK still bath development (assuming we are talking about the same thing) is dependent on lack of agitation during the development cycle to increase micro contrast (Adjacency effect), not over development. I would suggest that this technique is best used as partial stand and like most photographic techniques, done in moderation and not with very long extended development.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,861
    Precisely, done in moderation. The main use for stand development is to compress the tonal scale of the negative of a contrasty subject. This has been said over and over again on APUG. It is not intended to be a general purpose developing method! Anyone who believes that it is a general purpose method should read a book on the zone system.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  3. #13
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,353
    Images
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    The only valid use for stand development is to compress the tonal scale of the negative of a contrasty subject. This has been said over and over again on APUG. It is not intended to be a general purpose developing method! Anyone who believes that it is a general purpose method should read a book on the zone system.
    Don't you mean of a non-contrasty subject?

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,861
    No, the intent is to make the tonal scale of a contrasty negative fit a normal paper grade. The idea is to get both shadow detail and highlights that are not washed out. If you have a subject with a short tonal scale (lacks contrast) you would use a conventional developer and over develop a bit.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,774
    The intent when stand developing is an extreme form of "controlled" local exhaustion or compensation. In theory it can do several things:

    1. Restrain highlight development/compress macro contrast
    2. Maximize film speed
    3. Maximize edge effects

    The reality depends greatly on the film and the type of developer used. Contrast reduction is often less severe than one might expect.

    There are some potential risks depending on the subject matter and materials used, namely:

    1. Uneven development
    2. Bromide streaking
    3. Dichroic fog (with faster films)
    4. Excessive flattening of local highlight contrast
    5. Overly exagerrated edge effects/haloing which can be distracting and reduce fine line detail

    The results should be examined carefully to determine what has been achieved and whether or not it is something one wants to use often, occasionally etc.

    It should not be considered a fail-safe substitute for controlled time/temperature/agitation development.

  6. #16
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,353
    Images
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    The intent when stand developing is an extreme form of "controlled" local exhaustion or compensation. In theory it can do several things:

    1. Restrain highlight development/compress macro contrast
    2. Maximize film speed
    3. Maximize edge effects

    The reality depends greatly on the film and the type of developer used. Contrast reduction is often less severe than one might expect.

    There are some potential risks depending on the subject matter and materials used, namely:

    1. Uneven development
    2. Bromide streaking
    3. Dichroic fog (with faster films)
    4. Excessive flattening of local highlight contrast
    5. Overly exagerrated edge effects/haloing which can be distracting and reduce fine line detail

    The results should be examined carefully to determine what has been achieved and whether or not it is something one wants to use often, occasionally etc.

    It should not be considered a fail-safe substitute for controlled time/temperature/agitation development.
    I agree completely.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Boone, North Carolina, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    It should not be considered a fail-safe substitute for controlled time/temperature/agitation development.
    Obviously not, but it has worked for me over dozens of rolls of film, until the last two batches. And even in those, all the negatives are printable. I am not an AA fan. I use an incident light meter. My thing is grab shots, not carefully controlled static shots (even when using the view camera). I can easily compensate for the problem I am seeing here by underexposing by a stop, and my apartment stays in the 65 to 75 degree range. I would rather figure out why the results are not as I expected. In fact, I thought at first the problem was caused by a slow shutter in the new to me Yashicamat, but when I saw the same problem in the roll from another camera, that has not had a problem in the past, I figured I needed to look into this.

    I chose this method, after consideration, for two main reasons: 1. My disability brings with it a problem with concentration, by using a 100% identical process every time, and even then I have to have it written down, I can work around that. 2. It is cheap.

    I do not get a great deal of pleasure developing film by time and temperature, that is something better done by an automatic machine. The fact is however, that properly done stand developing in a very dilute solution should process the film to completion. The fact it does not seem to be doing that for me now, only indicates I am not doing it properly, or there is something going on I do not understand. Hell, it could be that the AC is vibrating the apartment enough that I am not actually doing true stand development.

    One does not appreciate being told that something that has been working perfectly well for several months, will not work at all. As I said, I can easily compensate for what is happening, but I would like to actually know why it is happening.

  8. #18
    Shawn Dougherty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,133
    Images
    290
    Film does not develop to completion in the sense that paper does...
    If your shutter(s) were slow you would have seen a density / detail increase in your shadows areas.

    Based on the information you've given you are experiencing problems because of the 10 degree temperature shift. As other have stated that is a HUGE change in temperature in terms of film development, including stand development. Rodinal, even at 1:100 without agitation, has plenty of energy to keep developing and increasing contrast and will do so if you extend the time or increase the temperature.

    I'm am not an expert but have developed hundreds of rolls in Rodinal using the stand and semi-stand processes. (I have since switched back to a more standard time/temperature routine for many of the reasons listed above).

    I think we're all just trying to help answer the question which you posted... Please keep in mind that your definition of "perfectly well" (and mine) may differ greatly from others on this forum.

    Best of luck.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,861
    Nice summation Michael. This evening I thought of an additional risk. It probably doesn't do film any good to stand for long periods of time in a developer particularly a highly alkaline developer like Rodinal. This would be particularly true of older formula films like Foma, Efke, ... which are not hardened like modern films from Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji. Temperatures above 20 C increase this risk.
    Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 07-23-2012 at 08:38 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,341
    When I stand or semi-stand develop film, I keep my developer and other chemicals at a consistent temperature in a shallow styrofoam tub. In summer here, the tap water is about 70F, which is my normal developing temperature. I've lived in places where I've had to use an icewater bath to cool my chemicals, and in winter here, I have to warm everything up to working temperatures. Once at temperature, I fill the styrofoam tub with a couple of inches of 70 degree water and let the film sit in it. I use steel tanks and reels, so it's pretty easy to keep temps regulated for as long as I process the film.

    The amount of developer absorbed by the film is indeed very small, but the molecules in the surrounding bath are not static, and the reactions taking place in the emulsion do create byproducts that diffuse back into the solution. This is what causes the dreaded "bromine drag." Even though you're not agitating the film to renew the developer, things are a-movin', and at 75 degrees, they're moving quite a bit faster than they are at 65 degrees. A rule of thumb I've used in the past is that a basic development time increase to move from normal to normal-plus-one contrast is achieved by multiplying your development time by 1.4, or 40 percent. You've achieved about the same thing by using developer that's 10 degrees warmer than your "normal" temperature and time established at 65 degrees.

    Peter Gomena

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin