Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,334   Posts: 1,537,522   Online: 1055
      
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    baachitraka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Bremen, Germany.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,336

    Standardizing Stand-Development for PanF+

    For example,

    Film: ILFord PanF+, shot at box speed.

    Developer: Rodinal, lets say 5ml for 500ml of water.

    If the difference between shadow and the highlight say 6EV what development times you choose to have decent contrast. Then how much you will adjust for 5EV and 7EV.
    OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
    Rolleicord Va: Humble.
    Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,641
    It does not really work that way with full stand development. Development is virtually to "completion" with stand development, with the developer exhausting faster in highlight areas while shadows continue to develop more fully.

    While a significant amount of highlight compression does take place, in fact there is typically less overall compensation than one might expect, so one should not necessarily use it strictly for that purpose. Stand development is not the same as controlled contraction or compensating development and should not be considered a substitute for those techniques, even though it ultimately relies on the same basic principles. Rather it should be used for its own qualities. It yields a unique tonal scale and, depending on the devleoper/film combination, also maximizes edge effects which can provide a noticeably different look particularly when a negative is greatly enlarged.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    central anatolia, Turkey
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    412
    Images
    16
    panf in stand development - panf is main variable. it is that contrasty compared to other films. even with stand dev - i've done it in rodinal and pyrocat m and you never get box speed for starters. rodinal at 1:100 will keep developing highlights till they block up with panf. i would start at rodinal 1:200 and test from there if you want the developer at the highlights to exhaust. you also run the risk of streaking in skies which can be remedied by intermitent agitation. i've currently pinned it in pyrocat m at 2ml:2ml:500ml ( using sod hydroxide as B bath ) with full inversions for the first minute then 5 every 5 min for 35min at ei 25. you get a long scale neg that handles many lighting situations ( i shoot roll film ) i shoot for diffusion.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1
    I believe you have some missunderstanding about stand development in Rodinal. It is NOT the dilution rate, but the ratio between the volume of developer to film area. If you used 5ml Rodinal to 500 ml water you have pushed the film by one stop. The box speed ratio is 3.5ml Rodinal in whatever volume of water you use to cover the film, 500ml, 1000ml,.... . Two rolls require 7ml Rodinal.

  5. #5
    Steve Sherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    520
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post

    While a significant amount of highlight compression does take place, in fact there is typically less overall compensation than one might expect, so one should not necessarily use it strictly for that purpose. Stand development is not the same as controlled contraction or compensating development and should not be considered a substitute for those techniques,
    Simply untrue, in fact Semi Stand and reduced agitation development regimes can effect a greater impression of contrast expansion in low contrast scenes as well as controlling extreme amounts of contrast like no other technique I have ever encountered. For years prior to Semi Stand I regularly made photographs in extreme amounts of contrast so I have considerable experience in all means to control and effect contrast.

    A bit out of character but I doubt many have ever been able to control and maximize tonal control with the success I have enjoyed with the Semi-Stand technique of film development.

    I've said it before, make no mistake, SS and Reduced Agitation Dev. will maximize film speed, maximize mid tone contrast all while compressing highlight contrast. As with any unusual technique, considerable trial and error and real world experience are the keys to repeatability.

    See this link for an informed discussion by some notable photogs about the process and it's possibilities. http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/2...vie-photo.html

    Cheers
    Real Photographs are Born Wet !
    http://www.steve-sherman.com

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    828
    Images
    131
    That is interesting. Recently I've gone to semi-stand development with PMK and Tx400. Contrasty light, stand 5 of the ten minutes; flat light, stand 2 of the 10 minutes. So far results have been mixed, but indeed it does make a difference.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,641
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Sherman View Post
    Simply untrue, in fact Semi Stand and reduced agitation development regimes can effect a greater impression of contrast expansion in low contrast scenes as well as controlling extreme amounts of contrast like no other technique I have ever encountered. For years prior to Semi Stand I regularly made photographs in extreme amounts of contrast so I have considerable experience in all means to control and effect contrast.

    A bit out of character but I doubt many have ever been able to control and maximize tonal control with the success I have enjoyed with the Semi-Stand technique of film development.

    I've said it before, make no mistake, SS and Reduced Agitation Dev. will maximize film speed, maximize mid tone contrast all while compressing highlight contrast. As with any unusual technique, considerable trial and error and real world experience are the keys to repeatability.

    See this link for an informed discussion by some notable photogs about the process and it's possibilities. http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/2...vie-photo.html

    Cheers
    Geez did you read the rest of what I wrote? I was talking about stand and semi-stand (almost stand) development being their own animals to some extent, how they produce their own unique tonalities (which implies different speed, gradation etc as you noted) compared with reduced agitation or controlled compensation (extreme minus) development. Edge effects are different as well.

    Perhaps it is a semantics issue. Maybe what you are calling semi-stand is what I would call reduced agitation. Not sure.

    I also have alot of experience with extreme contrast and I wager I can control gradation and the rendering of highlight tonalities in the final print as well with reduced agitation as anyone does with semi-stand or full stand. That does not mean they are the same. I'm not doubting anybody's abilities, just trying to be informative.

    So what I am trying to say is that stand development needs to be considered on its own tonal merits, not merely for control of highlight contrast. I would also warn people looking for highlight compression to be careful. Simply reducing highlight contrast does not guarantee quality highlight detail and gradation in the print. One must be careful to consider local contrast in addition to the total luminance range.

    I think this is important because I see too many people considering stand development as a fail-safe fix-all. If you like the unique qualities it produces then by all means use it. I'm not knocking it at all. It is a valuable technique that can produce wonderful negatives when done properly, and with the right film/developer combination. I'm just trying to get the point across that it is an alternative, not simply a substitute.

    Everything I said in my original post is technically correct and I stand by it.

    On that note I think I'll exit the forums. It's becoming tiresome. We should all just take more pictures. My sense is increasingly that unless the question is very simple, issues concerning the "photographic process" cannot be discussed properly in forums like this. Too much is misread and/or misinterpreted and some of the topics are just too complicated to be dealt with in this way without inevitable arguments ensuing. One suggestion I'd make is for people not to write things like "simply untrue" when something is not simple.

    Regards
    Michael

  8. #8
    baachitraka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Bremen, Germany.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,336
    Yes, I was. Now, it is clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by fourpi View Post
    I believe you have some missunderstanding about stand development in Rodinal. It is NOT the dilution rate, but the ratio between the volume of developer to film area. If you used 5ml Rodinal to 500 ml water you have pushed the film by one stop. The box speed ratio is 3.5ml Rodinal in whatever volume of water you use to cover the film, 500ml, 1000ml,.... . Two rolls require 7ml Rodinal.
    OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
    Rolleicord Va: Humble.
    Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.

  9. #9
    Steve Sherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    520
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Geez did you read the rest of what I wrote? I was talking about stand and semi-stand (almost stand) development being their own animals to some extent, how they produce their own unique tonalities (which implies different speed, gradation etc as you noted) compared with reduced agitation or controlled compensation (extreme minus) development. Edge effects are different as well.

    Perhaps it is a semantics issue. Maybe what you are calling semi-stand is what I would call reduced agitation. Not sure.

    I also have alot of experience with extreme contrast and I wager I can control gradation and the rendering of highlight tonalities in the final print as well with reduced agitation as anyone does with semi-stand or full stand. That does not mean they are the same. I'm not doubting anybody's abilities, just trying to be informative.

    So what I am trying to say is that stand development needs to be considered on its own tonal merits, not merely for control of highlight contrast. I would also warn people looking for highlight compression to be careful. Simply reducing highlight contrast does not guarantee quality highlight detail and gradation in the print. One must be careful to consider local contrast in addition to the total luminance range.

    I think this is important because I see too many people considering stand development as a fail-safe fix-all. If you like the unique qualities it produces then by all means use it. I'm not knocking it at all. It is a valuable technique that can produce wonderful negatives when done properly, and with the right film/developer combination. I'm just trying to get the point across that it is an alternative, not simply a substitute.

    Everything I said in my original post is technically correct and I stand by it.

    On that note I think I'll exit the forums. It's becoming tiresome. We should all just take more pictures. My sense is increasingly that unless the question is very simple, issues concerning the "photographic process" cannot be discussed properly in forums like this. Too much is misread and/or misinterpreted and some of the topics are just too complicated to be dealt with in this way without inevitable arguments ensuing. One suggestion I'd make is for people not to write things like "simply untrue" when something is not simple.

    Regards
    Michael
    PM Sent
    Real Photographs are Born Wet !
    http://www.steve-sherman.com



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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