Stand development - Uneven

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by Peter Chant, Jul 16, 2007.

  1. Peter Chant

    Peter Chant Guest

    Ok chaps,

    it is not my week. Tried stand development. FP4+ exposed at 125. Rodinal
    1:150 for 1 hour, no agitation. Patterson tank and reals. 600ml dev (500ml
    needed to cover spool). Could be just a fluke as I normally don't have
    problems but:

    http://www.petezilla.co.uk/gallery/Oddments

    All bar the butterfly. Seemed to effect the end of the film worst as some
    other shots seem fine:

    http://www.petezilla.co.uk/gallery/july-2007

    I think is plain bad luck.

    Interestingly, on the darker part of the house a clear 'unsharp mask' effect
    can be seen in the sky next to the building.

    Thoughts - again!

    I'll look out a stainless steel tank and spools I think just to see what
    happens!

    Pete
     
    Peter Chant, Jul 16, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Peter Chant

    jj Guest

    Stand development with Rodinal 1:150 is appropriate for relatively
    high-contrast scenes (or N-2,N-1).
    Yes, do that. Seriously, Patterson reels are just terrible.
     
    jj, Jul 16, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Peter Chant

    UC Guest

    Who told you not to agitate? Who told you to use Rodinal?

    I use Paterson tanks and get EXCELLENT results.

    Dumbass....
     
    UC, Jul 24, 2007
    #3
  4. I've never been much of a fan of stand or stagnant
    development. The idea is that the reaction products of
    development are allowed to become concentrated in the
    vicinity of the image. The idea is that this will restrain
    the image development in proportion to its density. Also,
    since there is a concentration of reaction products at the
    border of a high and low density area the reaction products
    tend to restrain development in the low density region just
    adjacent to the high density one while relatively fresh
    developer diffusing into the emulsion from the low density
    region tends to accelerate development on the high density
    side. The effect is to strongly exagerate "acutance" or the
    conrast of the low to high density areas in a very narrow
    line surrounding the border. The width of the line being
    controlled mostly by the rate of diffusion in the emulsion.
    This assumes the reaction products of the developer are
    restrainers and not accelerators of development. This is
    true for Rodinal but may not be for many Metol-Hydroquinone
    developers.
    The assumption that the reaction products of development
    stay in a small area concentrated around the development
    centers is not always true. If the film or plate is exactly
    horizontal the effect can work pretty well. However, when
    film is vertical, as it usually is in a tank, the slight
    variation in density of the reaction products can cause some
    movement of the heavier materials before they can diffuse
    out into the body of the developer. This can cause
    directional streaking below high density areas due to the
    flow of restraining chemicals there. There is still some
    flow when the film is flat but it tends to move radially
    along the surface. There is also an effect known as
    "port-holing" due to the relative concentration of reaction
    products near the center of large high density areas. This
    results in lower density there.
    While stagnant development is supposed to result in high
    acutance and a "compensating" effect, that is, the
    production of a shoulder or lower contrast for highlights,
    it often just produces very non-uniform negatives. While
    many claim to get good negatives from this method and tout
    it, I am very sceptacle.
    In photographic areas requiring very uniform results,
    like sensitometry and motion picture photography, heroic
    efforts are made to insure uniform and vigorous agitation.
    The two often don't go together: for instance, the sprocket
    holes of 35mm film and the spaces between the film windings
    on a reel can cause exagerated turbulance in their immediate
    vicinity causing increased development there. This sort of
    uneveness is quite common and is familiar to those who
    process roll and 35mm in tanks. The answer is not to over
    agitate. In general the recommendation to invert an
    invertible tank about once a second for either 5 seconds
    every 30 seconds (Kodak recommendation) or for 10 seconds
    once a minute (Ilford recommendation) will result in
    reasonably uniform development although one can still find
    some non-uniformity. More uniform development requires
    constant agitation using some special techniques such as the
    spray systems used for motion picture development or brush
    development, sometimes used for sensitometric work. Another
    method of improving uniformity is the use of bursts of gas
    bubbles in sheet film tanks.
    All these efforts would not be necessary if stagnant
    development was satisfactory in general applicaton. Its not.
    Its a special technique essentially for a special effect.
    IMO it should be avoided if one want's consistently good
    negatives.

    Rodinal is an OK developer which works for nearly any
    film (and is also a good albeit expensive paper developer at
    about 1:30). However, Rodinal is probably not the optimum
    developer for any film due to its tendency toward
    graininess. This is less so with some modern films like
    T-Max, which have hard enough emulsions to resist the
    tendency of developed grains to migrate and clump, a result
    of high pH in the developer. Also, grain is not so important
    in large-format negatives. Where the grain can be tollerated
    Rodinal is a convenient all-purpose developer with good tone
    rendition.
     
    Richard Knoppow, Jul 24, 2007
    #4
  5. Peter Chant

    jjs Guest

    Hah! That's from a guy who hasn't taken a picture in thirty-five years
    and when he did, it had uneven development.
     
    jjs, Jul 25, 2007
    #5
  6. Peter Chant

    jjs Guest

    With respect, Sir Richard, have you tried it? Can you show anything you
    have done with stand development that was unacceptable?
     
    jjs, Jul 25, 2007
    #6
  7. With respect, Sir Richard, have you tried it? Can you show anything you
    have done with stand development that was unacceptable?[/QUOTE]

    Well, even if Richard never personally tried stand development, I'd
    trust what he has to say on the subject simply based on his encyclopedic
    knowledge of the subject and familiarity with tons of source material.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Jul 25, 2007
    #7
  8. Peter Chant

    jjs Guest

    Well, even if Richard never personally tried stand development, I'd
    trust what he has to say on the subject simply based on his encyclopedic
    knowledge of the subject and familiarity with tons of source material.[/QUOTE]

    Richard knows I'm a serious fan of his. Your little appeal is pathetic.

    My post was intended to bring out just the post you just wrote. I rather
    doubt Sir Richard would write about something he has not tried often.
    Your posit is full of shit. An appeal to authority, ("even if Richard
    .... tried it") is utter bullshit.

    The PROOF is in practice.

    I use stand development when I want N-1 with Agfa 100 B&W. Woe be the
    day I run out of it. Seriously. Maybe then my world will collapse, but I
    stand by it. It works very, very well.

    Tech: two rolls of 120 Agfa 100 in a two-roll tank, stainless steel
    reels in a stainless Nikkor tank. Rodinal 1:200 at whatever room
    temperature for 60 minutes (40 works, too). No streaks. No problems.
    I'll look for some examples and put 'em up if you are in dire need of
    reality.
     
    jjs, Jul 25, 2007
    #8
  9. Richard knows I'm a serious fan of his. Your little appeal is pathetic.

    My post was intended to bring out just the post you just wrote. I rather
    doubt Sir Richard would write about something he has not tried often.
    Your posit is full of shit. An appeal to authority, ("even if Richard
    ... tried it") is utter bullshit.

    The PROOF is in practice.

    I use stand development when I want N-1 with Agfa 100 B&W. Woe be the
    day I run out of it. Seriously. Maybe then my world will collapse, but I
    stand by it. It works very, very well.

    Tech: two rolls of 120 Agfa 100 in a two-roll tank, stainless steel
    reels in a stainless Nikkor tank. Rodinal 1:200 at whatever room
    temperature for 60 minutes (40 works, too). No streaks. No problems.
    I'll look for some examples and put 'em up if you are in dire need of
    reality.[/QUOTE]

    Well, **** you too, JJS.

    Just because it worked for you (and I'll take your word for that)
    doesn't mean that there are snares and pitfalls there for the unwary.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Jul 25, 2007
    #9
  10. Peter Chant

    UC Guest


    It's 'Paterson', dumbass, and thay are wonderful.
     
    UC, Jul 25, 2007
    #10
  11. Hi,

    I'm curious as to why there is this negative prejudice towards Paterson
    plastic reels. I've been using them for 10 years, about 10-15 reels a
    week on average, and except for a half dozen times where I've had
    problems (my fault, reels weren't completely dry), the rest of the
    time, it's been smooth sailing. I use them for 127, 35mm and 120 film.

    Why are stainless steel reels considered superior?

    A curious mind wants to know!

    Cheers,
    Bogdan

    UC wrote:

    --
    ________________________________________________________________
    Bogdan Karasek
    Montréal, Québec bogdan at bogdanphoto.com
    Canada www.bogdanphoto.com

    "I photograph my reality"
    ________________________________________________________________
     
    Bogdan Karasek, Jul 26, 2007
    #11
  12. In the 1980's for about two years Paterson made reels with a teflon
    coating. They are a light pink color instead of the usual white.
    They were IMHO the best reels Paterson made.

    Some people have much better luck loading film onto them. It's
    more a matter of what you like and are used to. I bought a whole
    bunch of used darkroom stuff about 4 years ago and most of it
    was stainless steel tanks and reels. I kept one set in the
    best condition just because I thought I should and gave the
    rest to someone else.

    I'm happy because I don't have to use them, he's happy because
    he can.

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jul 26, 2007
    #12
  13. Peter Chant

    Pieter Guest

    I duuno. I like Paterson reels except that they take a bit of time to dry
    out after use. Not letting them dry causes the next film loaded to swell
    and stick. Stainless can be dried quicker since the loading is not
    dependent on the film working its way down a tight fitting slot.

    What really bugs me though, is the leaky covers on Paterson tanks. I have
    new tanks in all sizes, and they all leak right out of the box. It takes
    some determination to get the caps on just right to keep from being drowned
    in photochemicals while agitating.
     
    Pieter, Jul 26, 2007
    #13
  14. "Oh! let us never, never doubt
    What nobody is sure about."

    Hilaire Belloc
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Jul 26, 2007
    #14
  15. Peter Chant

    Peter Chant Guest

    Richard Knoppow wrote:

    Richard,

    thanks for your long reply. I don't think there is much I can respond to as
    I do only a little processing on an amateur basis. I thought I would give
    it a go as I usually process using Rodinal.
    Noticeable, and not good in the following:

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/peter.chant/gallery/Oddments/crop0002.jpg

    Look at the edge near the right-hand tower.

    I suspect, from this neg and what you have said, that you need to be careful
    to see whether the subject suits this technique.
    Not aware of that, thanks. Not quite what I saw but there must have been
    some odd concentration gradient around part of my reel.

    I could see the time factor being important for commercial or other
    practical reasons.
    I mainly use Rodinal as it is convenient to me. The amount of processing I
    do is irregular. I've lost too many part full bottles of Ilfosol-S. I did
    use ID-11 for quite a while which seems to be a good all round bet.
    Rodinal seems very easy to use for me, once I get use to making the more
    dilute solutions. Lately I've been going down the MF route for B&W, so I
    suppose grain size is not too much of an issue. Do know that Delta 3200
    and Rodinal for me is not a good combination. To be frank, at the stage I
    am at the relative merits of playing with various developers probably does
    not matter too much, provided I get even development and a scannable
    result.

    I know the scanning comment is heresy to some here, but although I have
    enough basic kit that I ought to be able to make decent prints I just have
    not developed the craft skills that allow me to do so. I make better
    prints digitally.
     
    Peter Chant, Jul 26, 2007
    #15
  16. Peter Chant

    Peter Chant Guest

    Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

    I spray mine with furniture polish occasionally if sticking is a problem,
    that seems to work and I've not noticed anything untoward, though YMMV.
     
    Peter Chant, Jul 26, 2007
    #16
  17. Peter Chant

    Rod Smith Guest

    I don't think there's a really widespread "prejudice" against Paterson
    reels or tanks; if there were, they'd have long since disappeared from the
    market. There ARE, however, people with preferences for one type of tank
    or reel, and many of these people are quite willing to voice their
    opinions.

    As somebody who prefers stainless steel reels (at least, Hewes stainless
    steel reels) over Paterson plastic reels, I'll say this: I frequently
    (probably 25% of the time) have problems loading plastic reels. The film
    tends to bind up, becoming difficult -- and eventually impossible -- to
    load further onto the reel. This is an extremely frustrating experience,
    and on a couple of occasions I ended up cutting the film and loading the
    final 1/3 of a roll or so onto a second spool. This of course ruined one
    frame (cut down the middle) and required twice as much chemistry to
    develop. This problem is not because the reels are wet -- they've always
    had over a day in which to air dry, and usually multiple days. I *SUSPECT*
    (but do not know for sure) that the problem is moisture in the air -- at
    the time I made the change to SS, I was loading my reels in a bathroom
    which wasn't air conditioned, so the humidity was probably rather high. If
    I'm correct, the problem would most likely not occur to people who can
    load their film in air-conditioned rooms or in dry climates; but for those
    without that luxury, the problem is a very serious one.

    By contrast, my Hewes SS reels load very easily. I had no problem learning
    to load them (contrary to the claims of their being difficult to learn to
    load) -- but I also began using them after dealing with plastic reels for
    a while, so maybe that experience helped me. Because of the way the SS
    reels are loaded, binding because of moisture simply isn't an issue.

    That said, I also have some cheap used no-name SS reels, and they're a
    nightmare to load. I usually end up cross-threading them, which ruins
    multiple frames. I don't use them any more, except as spacers when I want
    to develop a single roll of film in a two-reel tank.

    As a bonus, SS tanks require less solution volume to cover the reels than
    do most plastic tanks. This saves a bit on chemical costs, although this
    is admittedly a minor factor. My SS tanks also leak a bit less than my
    AP-branded (Paterson clone) plastic tank.

    None of this is to say that I think everybody should ditch their plastic
    tanks and start using SS tanks and reels. My own experiences might not
    match yours; you might not have the humidity problems that I suspect have
    caused me difficulty, or you might have other concerns or special needs,
    such as limited manual dexterity. If you're currently using plastic reels
    and tanks and have no complaints about them, then there's no point in
    spending money on new tanks and reels. If, OTOH, you *DO* have problems
    with your current equipment, you might want to consider changing to
    another type. The same comment applies to SS users, but in reverse -- if
    you can't seem to get the reels loaded or if you have other problems you
    think might be caused by the reel or tank type, it might make sense to try
    plastic reels and tanks.
     
    Rod Smith, Jul 26, 2007
    #17
  18. I've mostly used Rodinal for sheet film usually at
    around 1:50 to get the time long enough for even
    development. For sheets grain is not an issue and the tone
    rendition is good. Rodinal works opposite to high sulfite
    developers like D-76 in that it becomes finer grain as it is
    diluted. In comparison its certainly grainier than
    D-76/ID-11 and maybe somewhat more grainy than T-Max RS but
    not too much so. It is certainly a very reliable developer.
    It seems to me that Ilfosol-S has had problems similar
    to those reported for Xtol of suddenly failing. Not quite
    sure of this.
    As far as stand development goes, I've tried it but
    never had much luck. Its been touted on and off for many
    decades. When it works it appears to provide a good
    compensating effect for scenes with excessive contrast,
    especially highlight contrast, but I think its difficult to
    control. I also think it works best with the negatives flat
    to avoid the convection streaking that can occur of the
    reaction products can flow along a vertical surface. Now,
    there are some, like one of the posters in this thread, who
    report perfect results with the film held vertically. I
    can't explain this but if it works it works.
    I don't think there is a perfect developer. I mostly use
    D-76, usually diluted 1:1, however, I also use Rodinal for
    tray and drum development of some sheet films and have gone
    back to using Perceptol for 35mm T-Max 100 (Microdol-X is
    about identical) because the combination yields extremely
    fine grain but with usable speed and easily controlled
    contrast. The grain of the combination is nearly as fine as
    the late, lamented Technical Pan.
     
    Richard Knoppow, Jul 27, 2007
    #18
  19. Peter Chant

    UC Guest



    Stand development was used with glass plates, placed perfectly
    horozontally in the solution. It is not an approach I would use with
    roll film, as the by-products of development tend to have greater
    specific gravity than the developer itself, and cascade down the
    film's surface, causing streaking. This may not always be obvious,
    however, depending on subject matter and other factors, but I would
    not use this technique with roll film for the reason outlined above.

    Minimal agitation accomplished much the same thing. I agitate once per
    minute, with two gentle inversions accompanied by rotation.
     
    UC, Jul 27, 2007
    #19
  20. Peter Chant

    jch Guest

    _____
    I agree with Rod about the difficulties loading film onto Paterson style
    spools when the humidity is high. I have suffered the consequences too.
    I found a solution. Simply preheat the reels to, say, 120F-150F with
    a small electric hair drier or in a heated film drying cabinet (i have a
    home built one) for a minute or so. Don't make the reel too hot or it
    may deform. This way all atmospheric moisture will be absent and stay
    away while the film is threaded in.
     
    jch, Jul 28, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.