Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Robert James View Post
2) Stand development is not a magical panacea. It can work fine on higher contrast subjects but when the contrast range of a neg is small it will look like crap. I really don't know why people keep trying to use these obscure methods when they don't work as well as the simple plain Jane ones. If you would have simply developed the film according to the instructions on the box bot negatives would have turned out fine.
I don't think it's a magical panacea, but I did shoot a lot of high contrast subjects: dark bus when it's bright outside, inside a museum with very bright lights hitting dark fossils, a few night shots, and so on. I picked a method that went along with things I typically shoot and my skill level—stand development is pretty low-stakes. My first roll was a smashing success, after all, so I think I made the right choice.

If I developed the negatives according to the instructions on the box, I'm not sure it would've come out well. It wasn't stand development that got me into this, it was that I mixed the developer ahead of time and didn't know it was a problem. Either way, I'm developing my own film because I want to learn lots of different methods of making an image. What you take as an "obscure" method is just another method I want to master, and that's why I decided to shoot film in the first place. I could just as easily argue that we should shoot digital because it's—in a way—simpler and less obscure. We're all doing something obscure for the sake of the supposed benefits of obscure methods, joy from the sheer experience of them, the resultant understanding that comes from going through a new process, and so on. These reasons are justification enough, right?

This is all, of course, off-topic.