Stand Development - is it worth a try?

[Tom Pinchenzo]

It seems like there are lots of advantages - easier, cheaper, sharper (more actuance), finer grain. The only downside I can see is that it gives very low contrast images, but if it preserves highlights and shadows then you can add contrast to tatse after scanning...

What are your thoughts/experiences?

Also, why is Rodinal hailed as the ultimate developer for stand developing??

 

[TheBigYin]

moved to film and conventional for you...



You're welcome.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

What are your thoughts/experiences?

I've done it a few times in the past and it worked for me.

Also, why is Rodinal hailed as the ultimate developer for stand developing??

I don't know that it is although it's what I use.

Here are a few sites that discuss it (to save me retyping stuff that's been said before)...

https://mrleica.com/rodinal-stand-development/
https://www.cyan-shine.com/?p=115
https://www.lomography.com/magazine/178974-monochrome-madness-rodinal-stand-developing

A sample shot on FP4 out of a Hasselblad with a 16-on back. 1 hour in Rodinal and scanned in an elderly Epson Perfection...

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

I've done it a few times in the past and it worked for me
View attachment 255237

What I’m wondering is, considering it works well, and requires less developer and some say doesn’t require stop bath, and temperature and timings aren’t as important, why is it seen as a novel method? Why, after trying it a few times, did you go back to normal development? Was it the look of the final result?

 

[StephenM]

First, I've never tried it. I note that the second link Andrew supplies recommends only using it when the film is outdated and conventional development times can't be easily ascertained.

My understanding (historically) was that it was only used when you needed to salvage a very unexposed film; the theory being that the developer is used up in the highlight areas more quickly than in the shadows (where there's less to develop). Therefore, if you don't agitate the film, transfer of active developer into the areas where it's been used up is much slower, and therefore the shadows get extra development.

When film is agitated and developed normally, the longer you develop (after actually a very short time) the higher the contrast and the larger the grain.

Assuming the film is unexpired, fixing your development timings is the only way you have to control the contrast. If printing in a conventional darkroom, the negative contrast is normally selected depending on the enlarger light source (less for condensor, more for diffuser) and on that basis for printing on a normal contrast grade of paper. Scanning gives much more freedom, but I'd still prefer to aim for a known target.

The use of a stop bath is twofold. First, the stop the development in its tracks (not required if you're effective developing to finality) and to prevent alkaline carry over into an acid fixer (assuming common developers/fixers - developers are normally alkaline but acid ones exist, and fixers are normally acidic but alkaline ones exist). If you drop the stop, you still need a rinse.

Temperatures do matter if you drop low enough (although you probably won't unless you use developer at cold water tap temperature) to fall below the minimum temperature some developers need to work at.

Horses for courses; and I prefer the maker's methods unless there is a compelling reason to vary (as in two bath development).

 

[StephenM]

Just to add: the acutance effect comes from the exhausted developer from a region of high density diffusing across to the adjacent low density area and inhibiting development, and vice versa. It's an edge effect like the Photoshop unsharp mask.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

why is it seen as a novel method?

Only by people meeting it for the first time. I first used it around 50 years ago and it was well established then. In those days if you needed a picture quickly, leaving a film to come up slowly wasn't an option. When I did press work I sometimes had half an hour to get home, dev the film and make prints to hit a newspaper's deadline. If you don't need to do that stand development is as good as any of the alternatives.

Why, after trying it a few times, did you go back to normal development

I haven't. I just can't be bothered with film these days. I keep looking at my film cameras and thinking I ought to put a few rolls through them. If and when I do I'll almost certainly use stand development because it's the most likely way to get a usable image if I've messed up the exposure.

 

[john.margetts]

It seems like there are lots of advantages - easier, cheaper, sharper (more actuance), finer grain. The only downside I can see is that it gives very low contrast images, but if it preserves highlights and shadows then you can add contrast to tatse after scanning...

What are your thoughts/experiences?

Also, why is Rodinal hailed as the ultimate developer for stand developing??

I use stand development on occasion. It has advantages - you can shoot a roll of film with the camera/meter set for a different ISO for each shot. For a film that has a problematical sensitivity (i.e. old film) it will produce usable negatives - I use it for film that expired in the 1970s. It also has problems due to the lack of agitation. It is far from uncommon to get uneven development or to get bromide drag around the sprocket holes to name to two most common defects.
For fresh film that has been shot at one only ISO setting, standard development with regular agitation will give more reliable results and probably better results.

 

[steveo_mcg]

more reliable results

That's the thing for me, if I've gone to effort of shooting a roll I need to be fairly confident in the development method and its going to produce the results I had in mind.

Having said that I use a pretty low agitation method.

 

[Ben johns]

I went through of period of only doing stand development with Rodinal. I was doing it as I was using a few different types of film so to develop them all separately would have taken ages. Plus I was pushing HP5 a lot. Stand development meant I could shot half the roll at 400 and the other half at whatever I wanted .

BUT for me the photos needed a lot of editing before they looked how I wanted. At Christmas I used HP5 pushed to 3200. I’ve pushed it lots of times but with stand development the contrast is really low. To the point of looking underexposed. The shadows had to the brought up a lot until they looked like they do normally developed.

I’ve also had problems with a few streaks from time to time.
I did semi-stand. Rodinal diluted at 1:100, developed for an hour but with a couple of agitations at 30min.

I’ve stopped using it as the results are consistent from roll to roll. I’ve also been using film less recently so I’d rather take the time to make sure it’s right

 

[Stephen L]

I'm following this with interest, as I'm about to go back to self-processing after a break of some 45 years (think Ferraniacolour and Cibachrome prints). Although I'm principally a digital user I still like to take a film camera out occasionally - either a Contax RTS or a Bronica ETRS. Previously I've had films processed commercially. My investment so far has been a Johnson Universal tank from the local charity shop at £3.50. High price, I know, but it was boxed.

 

[trypdal]

A quick tour of the Rodinal groups on flickr will give you an initial idea on whether you should try stand development or not. If you like what you see, go for it.

Personally, I do not think it's worth it. I don't find it particularly tricky to attend my 120 film for ~10 minutes honestly, and my Fomadon R09 Rodinal diluted at 1+50 is extremely cheap already, and this dilution gives extremely fine grain on most 100-400ASA 120 film stocks. Also, if needed, most traditional grain film stocks can be easily pulled and underdeveloped in a non-stand development regime, anyway. I've successfully exposed Fomapan 200 at 50 and underdeveloped in Rodinal and gotten excellent highlights and shadow definition within a normal ~8 min+normal agitation scheme.

Also, and perhaps more importantly, I've seen scans of stand developed images which were an absolute mess. Bromide drag, halos around dark objects in the photos, uneven sky development. Here's an example of the effect of bromide drag in a stand development regime (look at the sky around the metal bridge)

Bromide Drag #1

Some people might like these effects as an added bonus of stand development mind you - personally I don't.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Personally, I do not think it's worth it.

Like so many things it works for some people and it doesn't work for others. Also the benefits will outweigh the drawbacks for some but not for others. As always: the best approach for Tom will be to try it and see, taking into account the information he can gather from people who have used the technique and therefor can give practical advice.

 

[trypdal]

Like so many things it works for some people and it doesn't work for others. Also the benefits will outweigh the drawbacks for some but not for others. As always: the best approach for Tom will be to try it and see, taking into account the information he can gather from people who have used the technique and therefor can give practical advice.

Oh absolutely - as I said my comment is based on my own experience. Tom should definitely try it and see how he gets along and decide based on his preference.

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

I’m halfway through a roll of kentmere so I’ll dev that with my DD-X (apparently at normal dilution of 1:4...) for 45 mins and see how it comes out!

 

[ChrisR]

... Also, and perhaps more importantly, I've seen scans of stand developed images which were an absolute mess. Bromide drag, halos around dark objects in the photos, uneven sky development. Here's an example of the effect of bromide drag in a stand development regime (look at the sky around the metal bridge)

Bromide Drag #1

Some people might like these effects as an added bonus of stand development mind you - personally I don't.

That is very bad... however, bromide drag can rear its ugly head with other kinds of development as well. I've certainly had it using an Agfa Rondinax (continuous rotation). Come to think of it, how does bromide drag happen in stand development????

 

[trypdal]

That is very bad... however, bromide drag can rear its ugly head with other kinds of development as well. I've certainly had it using an Agfa Rondinax (continuous rotation). Come to think of it, how does bromide drag happen in stand development????

I found the following to be a very clear definition of bromide drag:

https://www.brodie-tyrrell.org/wiki/index.php?BromideDrag

Bromide is a by-product of the reduction of silver bromide to metallic silver by the developer. The issue is that the bromide reduces the reaction rate (it is part of the compensation mechanism) but it is usually denser than the developer and will therefore (if given sufficient time) run down the face of the negative while it sits in the tank.
The effect will cause darkened (thin, underdeveloped) streaks below very strong highlights, e.g. street lights in a night scene. The direction of the streaks depends on the orientation of the film in the development tank because the effect is caused by gravity.
More frequent agitation will mix the bromide in with the developer and prevent streaking. It shouldn't occur unless the film has been sitting in dilute developer for significant time (20 minutes?) with no agitation, the time required being dependent on the specific gravity and concentration of the developer and the strength of the highlights.

So to answer your question, I would hazard (I'm not an expert by any stretch of imagination by the way) that the main culprit is the combination of a) absence of agitation and b) long development time; both of which are I believe typical of stand development.

Back to your findings - perhaps the term 'bromide drag' has been used to describe wildly different types of phenomena, hence our divergent findings? Not sure - and happy to stand corrected if I've been using the term wrongly.

 

[ChrisR]

Thanks for that... you're much more likely to be right than me!

 

[Asha]

using it when the film is outdated and conventional development times can't be easily ascertained.

^^THIS^^ is when semi stand deving comesinto its own.

It can be used for any film but without any doubt offers imo inferiour results to " conventional" development of any given make / model of film.

One thing to note is that should you have several films regardless of b&w negaive, C-41 or even slide, you can soup all at the same time in the same solution with semi stand development.

 

[RaglanSurf]

What happens if you develop for an hour in Rodinal 100:1 but agitate more than one inversion at 30 mins?

 

[StephenM]

In theory, depending on the frequency of agitation, it should tend to normal overdevelopment with high contrast. Acutance effects should be reduced, also the risk of bromide drag.

For what it's worth I normally use 1:50, 16 mins, agitate continuously for the first minute, then a couple of inversions every 3 minutes. Times depend on the film, FP4 or Acros. Fomapan I've yet to develop.

 

[Asha]

What happens if you develop for an hour in Rodinal 100:1 but agitate more than one inversion at 30 mins?

Your developing tank will explode, you will be left standing around wondering what happened whilst waiting to see what develops! Pmsl

In reality not a lot
Potentially you may increase grain and contrast

 

[Peter B]

First, I've never tried it. I note that the second link Andrew supplies recommends only using it when the film is outdated and conventional development times can't be easily ascertained.

My understanding (historically) was that it was only used when you needed to salvage a very unexposed film; the theory being that the developer is used up in the highlight areas more quickly than in the shadows (where there's less to develop). Therefore, if you don't agitate the film, transfer of active developer into the areas where it's been used up is much slower, and therefore the shadows get extra development.

Having the necessary ingredients of old Rodinal, 2005 Konica Infrared 750 film and an unusually sunny day on Friday, I shot the film through a Hoya R72 filter at iso 3 in the Yashicamat 124G. Development was 1+100 semi-stand for an hour with 2 inversions at the half hour, and the results were quite pleasing. Obviously there is a lot of greenery in them to get the IR effect this late in the year, but there are a couple which were reasonable, given that the Konica is quite a fussy film. Contrast seems to have been reduced by uploading, but that's not really the point.