Stand development times

[Ben johns]

I’ve been messing around with stand developments recently, mainly because I wanted to try rating the same roll at different speeds. I shot a 120 roll of hp5 as 800 and through a couple of 3200 shots in. Used Rodinal at 1:100 and left it for an hour. Both the 800 and 3200 looked like they were rated the same so I was happy. I’ve done some more reading and people have been leaving it for 2 hours at 3200 and 6400. I’m not sure why, my understanding was 1 hour was enough to develop whatever you used and my 3200 photo look perfectly developed to me

 

[Mr Badger]

I think stand developing is best used if there's no other option, or to try to recover some images from a old 'found film'. Otherwise, you're better off developing to the film manufacturer's recommendations, unless you're happy to have sub-optimal negatives.

 

[Ben johns]

I think stand developing is best used if there's no other option, or to try to recover some images from a old 'found film'. Otherwise, you're better off developing to the film manufacturer's recommendations, unless you're happy to have sub-optimal negatives.

Why is it considered sub-optimal? I didn’t anything to suggest to me that the negatives weren’t very good. They scanned easily and had pretty flat contrast which made the editing easy. Wasn’t much grain either but it was 120 not 35mm, yet to try it with 35mm.
I did so semi-stand so I inverted twice at 30min, don’t know if that makes a difference. Also am I right in thinking that Ansel Adams used a kind of stand development? Not sure where I’ve heard that so could be way off!

 

[Mr Badger]

Snip:

and had pretty flat contrast

You answered your question in your next sentence.

 

[Ben johns]

Snip:
You answered your question in your next sentence.

But why is that bad? It means it’s easy to scan and can add any contrast I want added on in post.

 

[Mr Badger]

So what's the point of using different films?

Or, dare I say, perhaps using film at all?

 

[Ben johns]

So what's the point of using different films?

Or, dare I say, perhaps using film at all?

I didn’t say I do use lots of different films, I basically use hp5 when I want to push film and fp4 when 125 iso is fast enough. That also doesn’t strictly speaking equal a sub standard negative, just means that it can lose some of its characteristics.

I use film because I enjoy it and the process. I like the older cameras, I wouldnt bother getting a SLR that is basically a DSLR but uses film, I like the mechanical feel of older cameras. I enjoy developing film and I wouldn’t say using stand development makes it pointless to use, it still has a different look to digital. I think anyway lol

 

[simon ess]

I find myself with a foot in both camps here.

Experimenting is very, very good. Pushing stuff to the limits and beyond, playing and doing stuff just to see what happens is all to be encouraged.

However, the joy of using manual film cameras and the film process aside, and I agree BTW, I believe that when B+W film is exposed and developed exactly right it is the most glorious thing in existence. Any compromise on that is exactly that, a compromise.

I can't help with the question though. Sorry.

 

[Ben johns]

I find myself with a foot in both camps here.

Experimenting is very, very good. Pushing stuff to the limits and beyond, playing and doing stuff just to see what happens is all to be encouraged.

However, the joy of using manual film cameras and the film process aside, and I agree BTW, I believe that when B+W film is exposed and developed exactly right it is the most glorious thing in existence. Any compromise on that is exactly that, a compromise.

I agree, I don’t think I would use stand development all the time at all. I’ve only tried it with 120 hp5 so far so I’m going to use a 35mm roll and try that but for me it’s something I’ll most probably use when I’ve rated half the roll at one speed and want to rate it another for the second half. I’m intrigued as to what it’ll do to the grain in 35mm too, it looked good in 120 but doesn’t mean it’ll translate.

 

[StephenM]

Why is it considered sub-optimal?

Increased grain, probably increased fog.

I’ve done some more reading and people have been leaving it for 2 hours at 3200 and 6400. I’m not sure why, my understanding was 1 hour was enough to develop whatever you used and my 3200 photo look perfectly developed to me

From memory, Bert Hardy produced some photos from appalingly lit scenes, and put the film in the tank and left it for the evening while he ate etc. - rather more than 1 hour. It's a trade off between developing all the exposed grains, and developing too many of the unexposed ones.

I did so semi-stand so I inverted twice at 30min, don’t know if that makes a difference.

Developer becomes exhausted when all the active developing agents have been used up. They get used up more quickly in areas where a lot of development takes place, hardly at all in the areas where there's little to develop. If you don't agitate, once the active developer is used up, you've only got diffusion to bring fresher developer in. Hence, not agitating lets the shadow areas contine to build up while the highlights are held back because the developer there is used up. The basic idea is to use this mechanism to control the contrast which could otherwise fall outside the range of the printing paper's ability to handle it.

So what's the point of using different films?

Or, dare I say, perhaps using film at all?

In my case, because the cameras are easier to use, and I can't afford a 5x4 back. Nor do I wish to add a laptop computer to my camera bag.

I’m intrigued as to what it’ll do to the grain in 35mm too, it looked good in 120 but doesn’t mean it’ll translate.

Just enlarge a small section of the 120 film to find out.

 

[Ben johns]

Increased grain, probably increased fog.



From memory, Bert Hardy produced some photos from appalingly lit scenes, and put the film in the tank and left it for the evening while he ate etc. - rather more than 1 hour. It's a trade off between developing all the exposed grains, and developing too many of the unexposed ones.



Developer becomes exhausted when all the active developing agents have been used up. They get used up more quickly in areas where a lot of development takes place, hardly at all in the areas where there's little to develop. If you don't agitate, once the active developer is used up, you've only got diffusion to bring fresher developer in. Hence, not agitating lets the shadow areas contine to build up while the highlights are held back because the developer there is used up. The basic idea is to use this mechanism to control the contrast which could otherwise fall outside the range of the printing paper's ability to handle it.



In my case, because the cameras are easier to use, and I can't afford a 5x4 back. Nor do I wish to add a laptop computer to my camera bag.




Just enlarge a small section of the 120 film to find out.

I thought stand development was usually used to control grain? Not sure about the fogging. With the next roll I’m going to cut it in half and develop half normally and half stand and compare. I did it once before a long time ago with fp4 and I didn’t see a difference but I can’t remember 100%

 

[Mr Badger]

I like to enjoy the individual character of a particular film, as to me this is one of the features of film photography. Stand developing tends to reduce the contrast, so the results aren't the same as if developing to the manufacturer's spec, or perhaps using different developers to bring out certain characteristics. Where possible (due to light conditions, etc.) I like to choose my film to suit the subject and mood I want to capture, using the characteristics of the film (grain, contrast, sharpness, etc.) to do this (hopefully!).

I don't enjoy faffing with Photoshop or Lightroom, so getting it as right as I can 'in camera' is my preferred option for film photography, that way I get to appreciate the character of the film as well as a sense of achievement. As Simon says, there's nothing that looks quite as nice as a properly developed film that's turned out 'spot on', plus you know you've nailed the exposure as well as the development.

Hope my thinking makes sense to you. Best of luck with the experimentation though, but perhaps try to avoid changing ISO half way through a roll, unless it's something like XP2 which allows for some leeway if the light is right (in sunny conditions XP2 looks very good shot at 200 ISO and developed as standard 400, but then again, XP2 is a C41 process film and not standard B&W).

With the next roll I’m going to cut it in half and develop half normally and half stand and compare.

If you do, what's the betting the frame you've cut right through the middle of is the best one on the roll!

 

[Ben johns]

I like to enjoy the individual character of a particular film, as to me this is one of the features of film photography. Stand developing tends to reduce the contrast, so the results aren't the same as if developing to the manufacturer's spec, or perhaps using different developers to bring out certain characteristics. Where possible (due to light conditions, etc.) I like to choose my film to suit the subject and mood I want to capture, using the characteristics of the film (grain, contrast, sharpness, etc.) to do this (hopefully!).

I don't enjoy faffing with Photoshop or Lightroom, so getting it as right as I can 'in camera' is my preferred option for film photography, that way I get to appreciate the character of the film as well as a sense of achievement. As Simon says, there's nothing that looks quite as nice as a properly developed film that's turned out 'spot on', plus you know you've nailed the exposure as well as the development.

Hope my thinking makes sense to you. Best of luck with the experimentation though, but perhaps try to avoid changing ISO half way through a roll, unless it's something like XP2 which allows for some leeway if the light is right (in sunny conditions XP2 looks very good shot at 200 ISO and developed as standard 400, but then again, XP2 is a C41 process film and not standard B&W).



If you do, what's the betting the frame you've cut right through the middle of is the best one on the roll!

Well I’m going to see what changing iso looks like, I did do 800 and 3200 on one roll but want to try 800,1600,3200 and 6400.
Lol I’ll cut it before I use it! Just be a roll to experiment with, nothing important on it!

 

[Mr Badger]

Well I’m going to see what changing iso looks like, I did do 800 and 3200 on one roll but want to try 800,1600,3200 and 6400.
Lol I’ll cut it before I use it! Just be a roll to experiment with, nothing important on it!

As a straight comparison you'd probably be better shooting both test films at recommended ISO (same shots taken in the same lighting conditions), and stand developing one test film and developing the other exactly as standard. That way, if both turn out OK, you'll have a baseline for comparison.

 

[Ben johns]

As a straight comparison you'd probably be better shooting both test films at recommended ISO (same shots taken in the same lighting conditions), and stand developing one test film and developing the other exactly as standard. That way, if both turn out OK, you'll have a baseline for comparison.

True, I’ll do a couple at box speed too.

 

[abdoujaparov]

Lots of wisdom already in this thread, but I will say - if we wanted the simple life, we wouldn't be in F&C. Experiment with stand dev, have fun, let us know how it goes.