I didn't mean to imply that the accordion bottle is somehow causing problems in itself. I only meant that I'm gonna stop mixing up lots of developer in advance. Sorry. (I'm trying very hard not to sound stupid…I swear that I am not.)
Originally Posted by Kevin Kehler
Excellent tip. I'm going to try that tonight.
Originally Posted by Kevin Kehler
This all brings back fond memories. I remember—when I was a kid—my mother and I would aerate buckets of water for salt water fish tanks. That would insure that the oxygen levels were high enough in the tank, and it would also insure that the salt we would add to the water is well-mixed. I guess all of my hobbies will require passing knowledge of chemistry. (;
Last edited by keyofnight; 10-30-2012 at 03:21 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Ditto! Stand development was never intended as a general purpose method. I wish that people who want to do this would first thoroughly read a book on the Zone System for a description of its intended purpose. That is contrast reduction of a contrastly subject.
Originally Posted by cliveh
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
For example, if you are trying to copy lithographic prints that have high contrast and very fine detail, then stand development may prove advantageous in the latter part of the development cycle. However, for standard shots on panchromatic film leave alone.
“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”
So there are no possible advantages to semi-stand developing high contrast subjects on panchromatic film? None at all? Not even… avoiding blown highlights? The supposed shadow detail you gain? The ability to control the contrast you get when you push? The convenience of not having to worry too much about temperature, time, etc.? Practice for other processes that require it (lithographic prints, I guess)? The fun of trying something different?
Originally Posted by cliveh
Either way I don't understand why people care about this issue so much, what supposed rule I'm breaking, what the stakes are, what nerve I (accidentally) pinched, and so on.
I'll be honest, though: this argument is taking the fun out of the process. I'll respectfully withdraw. :/ And with that…that thanks for all the help.
Last edited by keyofnight; 10-30-2012 at 09:04 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: More detail.
the best advantage that stand development has
is that you don't have to breath in the stink of
the developer you use ...
i use a strange brew of coffee and print developer
and it stinks ... i leave the room, come back in 26-30 mins
and my film is don't .. no problem ...
good luck with your problem keyofnight.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
And in fact, disregarding the obvious potential problems which have been talked about many times, stand development does not typically produce as much contrast reduction as people think it will. It depends a great deal on the chosen developer. Further, people need to think about what sort of contrast reduction they are looking for, depending on how they will print and what kind of detail they want. Using extreme compensating development procedures in an attempt to compress a long luminance range into the "paper range" can often result in more loss than gain in terms of the printable information in the negative. You can, for example, end up blowing the highlights with too much compression - as counterintuitive as that may sound.
Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch
I'm not "against" stand development. It's just that people need to know what they're really getting.
So, I've thought about this a bunch…and now I'm re-reading Ansel Adams' The Negative on the positives of the process. He writes that compensating development will bring up the shadows up a zone, but he doesn't say much about the problems. I'll keep reading.
Originally Posted by Michael R 1974
Either way, I chose the process because of it's insensitivity to error—because I'm new to development. Even still, I shoot in places where I do want to bring the shadows up a zone, even if it costs me a little in the highlights. I also know that I like the way Tri-X looks pushed, and I like having an extra two stops to work with, but I also loses some shadow detail when I push it that far. I love grain, so I don't mind Rodinal's high acutance. Printing isn't an issue yet—I scan everything on my university's Imacon Flextight X1. So…I'm shooting for negatives that scan well. I'm going to sign up for time at a high school's darkroom next quarter…they also have night classes on wet printing. I'll start thinking more about what effects compression will have on prints soon enough.
Honestly, I'm just playing around with the process to see what I like and what I don't. (I'm not sure why I'm trying to justify my decision here. Again, it's not clear why anyone is questioning my choice to stand develop. (;
Last edited by keyofnight; 11-02-2012 at 02:08 AM. Click to view previous post history.
keyofnight - I don't mean to discourage people from using stand development. By all means if it gives you the negatives you want, keep doing it. It can yield a unique tonality and sometimes pronounced edge effects, so it is certainly a viable method (although a method one needs to be careful with since there are potential problems which can ruin negatives with certain film/developer combinations).
I think the point everyone is trying to get across is simply that it is an additional method/tool, not a substitute for time/temperature/agitation controlled development. This tends to get people fired up. I view stand development as an alternative process which produces its own unique type of tonality, rather than a way to get massive contrast reduction. That's the basic point I'm making. If it is contrast reduction people are after, there are more controlled, more effective, less risky ways of doing that.
Best of luck
Problems stand developing Tri-X at box speed.
Stand development with highly dilute Rodinal will indeed tame excessive contrast, as long as you agitate ONLY at the beginning - maybe lightly halfway through would also be fine. Agitating any more makes the process semi-stand, which won't get you a massive reduction in contrast, but only gives you that "walk away" convenience factor.
As for developers exhausting in solution, a good general rule to follow is that while liquid concentrates have in indefinite shelf life, diluted liquid developers must be mixed up right before use and used one-shot. Powdered developers mixed to full stock strength (e.g., D-76, XTOL) aren't quite indefinite, but last roughly a good six months or possibly more; but any diluted to a working strength (1+1, 1+3, etc.) must also be used one-shot.
keyofnight - I was hoping you weren't writing off APUG completely but as you can see, there are some strong opinions here. Generally, if it works for you, do it! The difficulty most people have is that they see fads (stand development, water baths, obscure developers, etc.) that somebody uses successfully and then everybody copies, thinking they will have the same success. You see this in people following Ansel Adam's developer/develop times slavishly and then being disappointed their pictures don't look like his - you don't just find this in developers, when I was working in a camera store, I sold a $6k lens to a new photographer because he wanted his pictures to look like the one in the magazine and this is the lens they were using (I tried for 2 hours to talk him out of it, with no luck - it's currently for sale on Craigslist). I have done stand development, it doesn't work for me but I was glad I did it, if nothing else I now know what it does and what I do/don't like about it.
If it works for you (and you seem to think so), keep at it!
Once a photographer is convinced that the camera can lie and that, strictly speaking, the vast majority of photographs are "camera lies," inasmuch as they tell only part of a story or tell it in a distorted form, half the battle is won. Once he has conceded that photography is not a "naturalistic" medium of rendition and that striving for "naturalism" in a photograph is futile, he can turn his attention to using a camera to make more effective pictures.