Ilfotec-HC_Stand/Partial Stand Development

[blackwhite04]

What is the minimum volume of the "syrup" one should use to ensure full development and also exhaustion of the diluted "Syrup", say 1:100, one hour? I would use Pan-F and FP-4

[Ornello]

What is it you are trying to accomplish?

[Ornello]

What is the minimum volume of the "syrup" one should use to ensure full development and also exhaustion of the diluted "Syrup", say 1:100, one hour? I would use Pan-F and FP-4

Try to get good negatives rather than trying to use techniques for the sake of technique. To that end, work toward a developing time of approximately 8-15 minutes. There is nothing to be gained by significantly longer times. Instead of diluting developers, try adding boric acid in small amounts (5-10 cc of 1% solution per liter of working solution) to get a convenient developing time as described above.

The point is to get a negative that gives a good print, and nothing else.

[blackwhite04]

I am not trying to go for anything exceptional. I have read several blogs about stand development. Unlesss I come across any evidence that it far surpasses the usual development methods I will not go for it. So many questions have been asked that I am wondering why photographers have not sought advice from manufacturers of films and their associated developers. I have a feeling that if stand/partial stand is so exceptional and successful film manufacturers would have published data years ago. A grandfather of mine used to work with glass plates, no doubt he would have used stand/partial stand, therefore would one consider that we maybe are trying to resurrect an outdated system of development? I am open to any suggestions which relate to positive success, the suject is fascinating.

[Ornello]

I am not trying to go for anything exceptional. I have read several blogs about stand development. Unlesss I come across any evidence that it far surpasses the usual development methods I will not go for it. So many questions have been asked that I am wondering why photographers have not sought advice from manufacturers of films and their associated developers. I have a feeling that if stand/partial stand is so exceptional and successful film manufacturers would have published data years ago. A grandfather of mine used to work with glass plates, no doubt he would have used stand/partial stand, therefore would one consider that we maybe are trying to resurrect an outdated system of development? I am open to any suggestions which relate to positive success, the suject is fascinating.

You are right, stand development was used with glass plates, and it is not recommended for modern materials, but not for the reasons you might think. The plates (which of course are perfectly flat and rigid) were placed horizontally in the developer, and thus the by-products of development (which are denser than the developer solution, and which are acidic and inhibit development) cannot escape the surface (and remain in place where they form) if left undisturbed. The idea is to keep the highlights in check on extremely contrasty scenes. If this is attempted with film on reels (in which the film is suspended vertically, of course), the by-products of development flow down the surface of the film, leaving streaks. Intermittent agitation (the procedure recommended by most firms) distributes these randomly and avoids streaks. It was used mostly with glycin developers. Stand development dates back almost 100 years. It is not suited for modern materials and developers.

[foolscape]

I've used stand developing with sheet film with some success with Kodak HC-110, which is like Ilfotec-HC. I use the "Unofficial" dilution G (1:119 from syrup) for semi-stand (agitate for the first minute, and for 15 seconds every 3-4 minutes thereafter). My time for FP4 is 18 minutes, and HP5 is 20 minutes. For stand, I use the same dilution, but agitate for the first minute, and then don't touch them again for anywhere between 50 minutes to 70 minutes depending on the film or temperature. HC-110 requires at least 6ml of syrup per roll, or 8x10 sheet of film (4x5 = 4 sheets and 5x7 = 2 sheets). That does not change with the volume of water. Ilfotec-HC requirements should be similar.

--Gary

[Ornello]

I've used stand developing with sheet film with some success with Kodak HC-110, which is like Ilfotec-HC. I use the "Unofficial" dilution G (1:119 from syrup) for semi-stand (agitate for the first minute, and for 15 seconds every 3-4 minutes thereafter). My time for FP4 is 18 minutes, and HP5 is 20 minutes. For stand, I use the same dilution, but agitate for the first minute, and then don't touch them again for anywhere between 50 minutes to 70 minutes depending on the film or temperature. HC-110 requires at least 6ml of syrup per roll, or 8x10 sheet of film (4x5 = 4 sheets and 5x7 = 2 sheets). That does not change with the volume of water. Ilfotec-HC requirements should be similar.

--Gary

The purpose of 'stand' development was to restrain highlights in the days of plates, when films had poor latitude and development. The process was more or less born of necessity. We don't really need it now. I do use a 'restrained' agitation, a little milder than some people recommend, but that is because I use Leica lenses with rather brilliant characteristics.

[foolscape]

The purpose of 'stand' development was to restrain highlights in the days of plates, when films had poor latitude and development. The process was more or less born of necessity. We don't really need it now. I do use a 'restrained' agitation, a little milder than some people recommend, but that is because I use Leica lenses with rather brilliant characteristics.

Whether or not we need it now is a matter of debate. A 35mm Leica is far different from 8x10 sheets when it comes to exposing and developing. I have done side by side tests using standard development, semi-stand ("minimal agitation"), and stand development with high contrast scenes, and I found the stand developed negatives much easier to contact print. This may not be the case with enlargement, where there is some loss of contrast as the head moves further from the paper, but for some shots, stand development works just fine. Variable contrast papers offer some ability to lower contrast, but if the shadow detail is not brought out in developing, it won't matter much. There are times when you need to restrain the highlights while supporting shadow detail.

--Gary

[Ornello]

The purpose of 'stand' development was to restrain highlights in the days of plates, when films had poor latitude and development. The process was more or less born of necessity. We don't really need it now. I do use a 'restrained' agitation, a little milder than some people recommend, but that is because I use Leica lenses with rather brilliant characteristics.

Whether or not we need it now is a matter of debate. A 35mm Leica is far different from 8x10 sheets when it comes to exposing and developing. I have done side by side tests using standard development, semi-stand ("minimal agitation"), and stand development with high contrast scenes, and I found the stand developed negatives much easier to contact print. This may not be the case with enlargement, where there is some loss of contrast as the head moves further from the paper, but for some shots, stand development works just fine. Variable contrast papers offer some ability to lower contrast, but if the shadow detail is not brought out in developing, it won't matter much. There are times when you need to restrain the highlights while supporting shadow detail.

--Gary

Yes, we are more or less in agreement. I was speaking of roll film developed on reels. So long as the sheet is held horizontally, not vertically, the by-products don't move. That's the main issue. You don't want streaks.

I was addressing the issue of using stand development with roll film, which is not a good idea, because it produces streaks. That's why all the manufacturers recommend intermittent agitation. I use two gentle inversions once per minute, on my 35mm film.

[blackwhite04]

Thank you very much. I use an M6 with FP4+. I need low contrast negs so that I can scan them with my Coolscan V. I have been advised recently not only to scan in RGB but to scan as a "Transparency" and then convert in Photoshop, is the latter to help with contrast? I do use digital cameras however to forsake film to me would be like forsaking my native tongue. Like you, I am very proud of who I am and what I am.

There appears to be a move back to "conventional" work amongst several of the amateur fraternity in the U.K. The prices of the very best digital cameras in the U.K. are horrific, I am glad that I still have my M6., OM1n., and my 3.5F, my "Golden Oldies" in which I take a great pride.

I am very pleased to hear from those who have shared my blog, and particularly from those in the States. How is the "conventional" market in the States these days? I am also well pleased with "Digital Truth".

I am retired, I do not know how I ever found time to go to work !!

[Ornello]

Thank you very much. I use an M6 with FP4+. I need low contrast negs so that I can scan them with my Coolscan V. I have been advised recently not only to scan in RGB but to scan as a "Transparency" and then convert in Photoshop, is the latter to help with contrast? I do use digital cameras however to forsake film to me would be like forsaking my native tongue. Like you, I am very proud of who I am and what I am.

There appears to be a move back to "conventional" work amongst several of the amateur fraternity in the U.K. The prices of the very best digital cameras in the U.K. are horrific, I am glad that I still have my M6., OM1n., and my 3.5F, my "Golden Oldies" in which I take a great pride.

I am very pleased to hear from those who have shared my blog, and particularly from those in the States. How is the "conventional" market in the States these days? I am also well pleased with "Digital Truth".

I am retired, I do not know how I ever found time to go to work !!

It is better to use colour negative film to scan. Conventional B&W film should be printed, not scanned. It will produce inferior results to colour materials. This is because scanners are set up for colour materials, whose image is formed of dyes. B&W film images are made of particles of silver, and this creates a a different set of conditions.

[foolscape]

How is the "conventional" market in the States these days? I am also well pleased with "Digital Truth".

Kodak is about to go belly-up (hopefully not), but the prices for older equipment like Hasselblads or view cameras are rising again. Film is a niche market these days, but it's a sizeable one. It's traditional printing that worries me. I still print all my B&W in the darkroom, and I need good printing material. I'm not worried about Ilford paper going away, but I don't want to lose Oriental, and Bergger.

Digitaltruth rocks!

--Gary

[Keith Tapscott.]

Kodak is about to go belly-up (hopefully not), but the prices for older equipment like Hasselblads or view cameras are rising again. Film is a niche market these days, but it's a sizeable one. It's traditional printing that worries me. I still print all my B&W in the darkroom, and I need good printing material.

I'm not worried about Ilford paper going away, but I don't want to lose Oriental, and Bergger.

Digitaltruth rocks!

--Gary

I acknowledge that Ilford papers aren't to everyone's liking, but I personally would be very sorry to lose them.

I would also be sorry to see any other manufacturers silver gelatin paper disappear for that matter. The Adox MCC variable-contrast paper has been receiving some very positive reviews, so one that I will try in the fullness of time.

I have not used Oriental or Bergger papers either.

[foolscape]

You misunderstand me. I said that I'm not worried about Ilford going away because the last time I heard, they are still doing OK. If Kodak fails, Ilford will probably pick up much of the film sales that Kodak loses. I use Ilford papers extensively, and while they aren't the best, they are consistent.

--Gary

[Ornello]

You misunderstand me. I said that I'm not worried about Ilford going away because the last time I heard, they are still doing OK. If Kodak fails, Ilford will probably pick up much of the film sales that Kodak loses. I use Ilford papers extensively, and while they aren't the best, they are consistent.

--Gary

I think it is hilarious that Kodak manufactures B&W films but no B&W papers.