Thanks for passing along your thoughts Mark. Very valuable. As with anything, I guess YMMV.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Mark C <[email protected]> wrote: > I have used stand processing quite frequently. It's a good process but it's > not 100% bulletproof. > > My process was to put a single roll of 35mm film into a double roll tank, > add developer solution for 2 rolls to the tank, (usually Rodinal at 1:100 > but sometimes HC110), agitate for 1 minute, let stand for 60 minutes. Most > films exposed at their rated speed will come out well with a 1 hour stand in > 1:100 rodinal. Rodinal seems to result in less grain when stand processed vs > conventional agitation. I used the double tank because you have to pay > attention to the minimum amount of developer needed per roll. > > But - it does not work well for everything. I have some crappy "Pro Max 100" > film (which I am 99% sure is Lucky SHD) and figured stand processing would > be a good alternative for it. Nope, not at all. It gets weird stains and > streaks and looks terrible. HC110 Dil B works well with it though. My > experiments with Arista Edu Ultra 200 stand processed in Rodinal also did > not go well, though it can be very nice processed regular agitation in > Rodinal. > > I've also had problems with streaks in 120 film when stand processing. I > theorize that thermal currents in the tank will cause streaking, and the > greater surface area on 120 film makes it more susceptible, though I have > seen some streaking on 35mmm rolls as well. I have taken to wrapping the > tanks in a towel or two as insulation around the tank. Otherwise a cooling > or warming tank will generate thermal currents and result in streaking. > Worse streaking if the tank is not 100% level. > > I've stand processed many types of film but only use it as a standard > technique with Ultrafine xtreme 400 (which really shines when stand > processed in Rodinal) and Rollei IR 400 (which is very contrasty and > benefits from the flatness of stand processing in HC110). I've even managed > to push Rollei IR400 a couple stops using a stand technique, without it > getting excessively contrasty. When pushing you do need to increase the > stand time. > > As noted I've had a situations where it has not worked, so testing with any > film would be advisable. Personally, after experimenting with it I went > back to conventional development -ts faster and I like a more contrasty > negative even for scanning. Though if I had an unknown expired roll of film > stand processing would be my first choice. > > BTW - Ansel talked using HC 110 DIl G for semi stand development, but as I > recall he still agitated a bit. > > Mark > > > On 1/27/2016 11:26 AM, Darren Addy wrote: >> >> I've been out of the darkroom side of things for a while, so maybe >> this isn't news to anybody but me, but this concept of "stand >> development" is an interesting one (for multiple reasons) and if you >> plan on scanning your negatives (not printing them in a wet darkroom) >> it really seems to be the ONLY way to go. >> >> The wild part of this concept is that you do the same thing regardless >> of the film or ISO. And you don't have to shoot an entire roll of film >> at the same ISO. It is also the perfect technique to use for >> developing an unknown ISO roll of film (or vintage film). I found a >> roll of exposed 620 in a camera I purchased and am going to use this >> technique to develop it. >> >> This article explains it well (using Rodinal as an example, but the >> principle works with any film developer). The point is to mix a very >> dilute developer (so it is economical) and that developer is >> completely used up in the developing of the film. Next-to-no agitation >> is employed. The film "stands" until all of the developer is used up. >> Your highlights don't block up because the developer is only strong >> enough to develop them fully (then, with no agitation, only exhausted >> developer is in contact with that part of the film. Meanwhile the >> shadow detail can come in. Many stand developers let the film sit for >> an hour or more. >> >> The only downside I can see is that negatives are flatter than usual >> (lower contrast) but this is no problem if scanning because you can >> change that with levels or curves in post-processing. The main thing >> of importance is in developing all of the captured detail you can from >> shadows to highlights, without losing or blocking up either one. >> >> Here's the article: >> >> http://jbhildebrand.com/2011/tutorials/workflow-tutorial-2-stand-development-with-rodinal/ >> >> Anybody tried this method? Thoughts? >> >> > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- Life is too short to put up with bad bokeh. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
