Stand development: why do people do it?

Film Photography & Darkroom discussion

Moderator: Keith Tapscott.

Kristyanna1019
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:03 pm

Re: Stand development: why do people do it?

Postby Kristyanna1019 » Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:22 pm

Hi people,

I have a problem. I am a 56 Yr old College student and getting back into Photography, My school used Kodak HC 110.

I got some Kentmere 400 ISO film and it does not show any thing about HC 110?

I know its made by Ilfprd but I need to develop with what the school has???

I am going to try and use the times for Astra EDU Ultra 400 and I have been using the Ilford HP5+ which

works great, I just did not like the Astra film, grain is too big even developing at a Temp of 64 degrees F

wanted to use a different film annd I liked Ilford but I did not like what the school gave us.

Astra EDU Ultra 400 ISO. Does anyone have an idea on time to develop this film Using HC-110 - B.

I have looked on Ilford's Site and Kentmere's plus several others including this one.

Your help in this topic will be greatly needed.

Thanks

Kristyanna Virgona :D
Screaming Tut Productions[/b]


miha
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:42 am

Re: Stand development: why do people do it?

Postby miha » Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:16 pm

Kristyanna1019 wrote:Hi people,

I have a problem. I am a 56 Yr old College student and getting back into Photography, My school used Kodak HC 110.

I got some Kentmere 400 ISO film and it does not show any thing about HC 110?

I know its made by Ilfprd but I need to develop with what the school has???

I am going to try and use the times for Astra EDU Ultra 400 and I have been using the Ilford HP5+ which

works great, I just did not like the Astra film, grain is too big even developing at a Temp of 64 degrees F

wanted to use a different film annd I liked Ilford but I did not like what the school gave us.

Astra EDU Ultra 400 ISO. Does anyone have an idea on time to develop this film Using HC-110 - B.

I have looked on Ilford's Site and Kentmere's plus several others including this one.

Your help in this topic will be greatly needed.

Thanks

Kristyanna Virgona :D
Screaming Tut Productions[/b]


Kentmere 400 needs 8 minutes in Ilford Ilfotec HC at 1+31 (according to the chart on this site), use the same time with HC-110 B (ilfotec HC at 1+31 is very similar to HC-110 B)

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Stand development: why do people do it?

Postby Ornello » Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:27 pm

Kristyanna1019 wrote:Hi people,

I have a problem. I am a 56 Yr old College student and getting back into Photography, My school used Kodak HC 110.

I got some Kentmere 400 ISO film and it does not show any thing about HC 110?

I know its made by Ilfprd but I need to develop with what the school has???

I am going to try and use the times for Astra EDU Ultra 400 and I have been using the Ilford HP5+ which

works great, I just did not like the Astra film, grain is too big even developing at a Temp of 64 degrees F

wanted to use a different film annd I liked Ilford but I did not like what the school gave us.

Astra EDU Ultra 400 ISO. Does anyone have an idea on time to develop this film Using HC-110 - B.

I have looked on Ilford's Site and Kentmere's plus several others including this one.

Your help in this topic will be greatly needed.

Thanks

Kristyanna Virgona :D
Screaming Tut Productions[/b]


You should probably start a new thread for this question.

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Stand development: why do people do it?

Postby Ornello » Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:10 pm

miha wrote:
Ornello wrote:
Keith Tapscott. wrote:I think I read somewhere (The LF forum?) that silver chloride papers such as Kodak Azo were often used for contact-printing 8x10 negatives by commercial photographers.
Lodima (Amidol spelt backwards) is a new silver chloride paper designed as a replacement for Azo.
The technical information for Azo might still be useful for anyone who wants to try Lodima.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professi ... 10/g10.pdf
I wonder who's manufacturing the paper? Someplace in Hungary? Czech Republic?
There are at least two candidates: Fujifilm and Foma Bohemia

http://www.japanexposures.com/2008/06/0 ... ght-paper/
http://www.foma.cz/upload/foma/prilohy/F_lux_en.pdf

They are both RC papers, though.
Well this is odd...I don't know, really...interesting to see what's going on though.

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Stand development: why do people do it?

Postby Ornello » Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:03 pm

kcf wrote:I tried stand development once when I used to push a lot of film. I used a method I'd read about in Les McClean's book "Creative Darkroom Photography" which recommended Tri-x in D-76 1:40 (!) stood in a bath for five hours. I have to think the dilution he recommends was a misprint. Needless to say the experiment was an utter failure, yielding blank plastic. I've never since considered stand development, but I do read about others doing it and wonder where the idea comes from and why people do it. Les McClean says he got his method from an old newsman, which makes me assume its an older method from another era. There's something quaint and mysterious about it, which might account for its popularity in internet discussion groups: people love lost, secret methods known only to old newsmen. But is there any real reason to do stand development nowadays?
The idea behind stand development is to have basically no movement of developer or development by-products. On a plate that is perfectly horizontal, the byproducts of development remain where they are formed. They thus retard development in proportion to the density of development, so there is a considerable capacity for compression of extreme contrasts. Highly dilute developer is used, and development is extended for hours.

There is a thread on APUG about it:

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/6672 ... pment.html

foolscape
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:01 am
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Re: Stand development: why do people do it?

Postby foolscape » Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:43 am

The 1:40 dilution is not a misprint.

--Gary

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Re: Stand development: why do people do it?

Postby Keith Tapscott. » Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:28 am

The 1:40 dilution is not a misprint.

--Gary.


Interesting, although D-76/ID-11 seems to be an odd choice because it is considered to be a low to moderate energy developer, even at full strength.

mrred
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:57 am

Re: Stand development: why do people do it?

Postby mrred » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:19 pm

Ornello wrote:Will these discredited old ideas never die? Stand development was used with glass plates when the plate could be placed perfectly horizontal. With roll film it has no practical application. When placed perfectly horizontal, the by-products of development cannot move and locally inhibit development in dense areas. If the film is roll film positioned vertically, you get streaking. That's why proper agitation is important.

Instead, use dilute developers and agitate once per minute properly.
Perhaps you should visit flickr and do a search on "stand". Pretty sure there are virtually no glass plates and no streaking. Here is an example of 2hr stand developing in Rodinal. http://www.flickr.com/photos/peterbcart ... 674774965/

I'm not sure why you are so concerned about perpetuating a myth that doesn't exist.

mrred
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:57 am

Re: Stand development: why do people do it?

Postby mrred » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:34 pm

For me there are two reasons I tend to stand develop.

1) Although I normally use a pyro to compress the dynamic range of the negitive, pyro's tend not to push very well (none that I have tried). I expose for the shadows (alot) and rely on the pyro to control the highs. I pull the ei more often than not. When pushing, stand development has the same result. You will get what seems to be a thin negative, when done properly. When you use high contrast papers, the result is an amazing amount of captured details in the shadows and the highlights. When scanning, the DMAX is lower and details can easily be sucked out without loss of shadows or highlights.

2) It tends to control the grain better. http://www.flickr.com/photos/peterbcart ... 674774965/ was taken with 35mm hp5+ at ei 3200. Considering it was developed in Rodinal, it has amazing low grain.

My main reason for doing stand is #1.

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Stand development: why do people do it?

Postby Ornello » Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:41 pm

mrred wrote:
Ornello wrote:Will these discredited old ideas never die? Stand development was used with glass plates when the plate could be placed perfectly horizontal. With roll film it has no practical application. When placed perfectly horizontal, the by-products of development cannot move and locally inhibit development in dense areas. If the film is roll film positioned vertically, you get streaking. That's why proper agitation is important.

Instead, use dilute developers and agitate once per minute properly.
Perhaps you should visit flickr and do a search on "stand". Pretty sure there are virtually no glass plates and no streaking. Here is an example of 2hr stand developing in Rodinal. http://www.flickr.com/photos/peterbcart ... 674774965/

I'm not sure why you are so concerned about perpetuating a myth that doesn't exist.
There is a definite risk of streaking when the film is not a glass plate held perfectly horizontally.

mrred
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:57 am

Re: Stand development: why do people do it?

Postby mrred » Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:53 am

Ornello wrote:There is a definite risk of streaking when the film is not a glass plate held perfectly horizontally.
Risk is a strong word and horizontal placement has nothing to do with it.

When the bromide is released during development, on some films it can re-attach and produce streaks. This my happen more on some films then others and the same with developers. This has nothing to do with horizontal placement and is easily resolved by "semi-stand" development. For stand development for an hour or more, I agitate at thirty minute intervals. Otherwise, I go at halfway.

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Stand development: why do people do it?

Postby Ornello » Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:11 pm

mrred wrote:
Ornello wrote:There is a definite risk of streaking when the film is not a glass plate held perfectly horizontally.
Risk is a strong word and horizontal placement has nothing to do with it.

When the bromide is released during development, on some films it can re-attach and produce streaks. This my happen more on some films then others and the same with developers. This has nothing to do with horizontal placement and is easily resolved by "semi-stand" development. For stand development for an hour or more, I agitate at thirty minute intervals. Otherwise, I go at halfway.
Stand development was used in Germany in particular, and from what I have read, was already obsolete by the turn of the 20th century. It was used to develop glass plates; the plates were placed in a perfectly horizontal position in the solution. That way, there is no movement of the development by-products away from where they form. These by-products are heavier than the developer solution and tend to fall along the surface of the emulsion, where they impede development. They do not 'reattach" themselves to the film or developer. They are expelled from the emulsion's surface in proportion to the intensity of exposure. Sometimes they simply cause an extremely noticeable line around dark areas, producing a rather unsightly effect:

I found the attached images on the internet.

I believe these are called "Mackie lines". The other shows streaks.

I believe that the stand development technique works best with glycin developers, and since glycin is not used in most commercial products available today, it is probably not worth the trouble.

http://www.jackspcs.com/glycindv.htm

One such formula is Hübl Paste:

Hot water (50-55 C), 500ml
Sodium sulfite (anhydrous), 165g
Glycin, 135g
mix well and add gradually
Potassium or sodium carbonate, either crystals, 625 g or anhydrous, 560 g
Water to make 1 litre

Formula from:
http://www.frugalphotographer.com/info- ... eneral.htm
Attachments
scan0911120003o.jpg
Streaks
scan0911120003o.jpg (52.73 KiB) Viewed 12598 times
00PzMm-52695584.jpg
Mackie lines
00PzMm-52695584.jpg (110.2 KiB) Viewed 12599 times


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests