Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,898   Posts: 1,584,359   Online: 724
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11
    keyofnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Kehler View Post
    The accordion bottle has nothing to do with it, I use them for my fix/stop and they work well.
    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.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Kehler View Post
    The most consistent results I get are from pouring water into my mixing container, letting the water sit for 2-3 hours and then adding Rodinal and stirring briefly a couple of minutes before adding to the film for developing. (My brother works at a water plant and explained to me they inject air into the water in order to lower the density of the water and have it move more freely through the pipes; letting it sit for a couple of hours allows the air to dissipate.)
    Excellent tip. I'm going to try that tonight.

    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.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,140
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    well said.
    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.
    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
    3,675
    Images
    344
    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”

    Francis Bacon

  4. #14
    keyofnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    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.
    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?

    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.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    16,887
    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.
    - john

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    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.
    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.

    I'm not "against" stand development. It's just that people need to know what they're really getting.

  7. #17
    keyofnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,095
    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

    Michael

  9. #19
    Terry Christian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    598
    Images
    18

    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.

  10. #20
    Kevin Kehler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Regina Canada (sounds more fun than it is)
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    605
    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.

    Andreas Feininger

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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