Sometimes, when I am lazy, i use stand development. It works great but like mentioned in video, you get easily bromide drag lines if you use stand and 35mm film. With 120 it works really well. You can mix any BW films to same tank with stand development. 1:100 dilution seems to work best for me and I do one calm tank rotation in half of the development time.
@@DavidHancock Oh it makes me sad, because I like those GRAINY photos... What can I do to create that effect with 35mm 400 ISO film (not D or T grains)? Your method is not good for it?
I've seen one UA-camr who resolved the halation by keeping the tank in a bucket with water, so that the tank won't warm up and won't change the temperature of the chemicals.
Another comment David, I worked for a well known european Reportage photographer In 1968, who insisted that all his film was stand developed in RO9, which is now known as Rodinal. I forget the dilution, it was probably 1:120, and the process was 20degrees celcius, agitate continuously for first minute then rap on table to clear air bubbles, then leave for 1 hour. The film was always Tri-X pan. The resulting negs were thin and flat, but printed well on Agfa grade 6 paper. He wanted the halo effect, known in my day as “Mackie Lines” or more formally as “adjacency effect”. I never experienced bromide drag, it could have been because I used steel spirals in steel tanks?
I must admit I’ve never done any stand developing, but I’ve only pushed or pulled a film when I’ve had no viable alternative. I’ve just realised my film photography is the only thing in my life I’ve "done by the book." It makes me slightly boring I admit. You are the only person I can think of on UA-cam who is extremely proficient at the technical and making great images. As always a great video, I just wish it had been a bit longer so we had longer to fully take in your images, you had some real stunners there.
Thank you! There will be a lot more images in the 20+ weeks as we go through the upcoming Negative Flaws series (a sidebar series to buy me time to record the next batch of Ask David videos, of which there are a lot; this series will look at user error, developer error, camera error, and film QC issues that lead to problems on images.) Most of the photos in those videos will show problems with film and developing, but a few are still decent images.
Those hills were giving me some weird goose bumps until the bridge at the end nailed it for me (and then I realized those were The Blue Angels). Stuff i frequently see from the train passing through.
Most of the photos were taken here in northern California. The bridge at the end with the boats is, shoot, I forget the name of it, but the photo was taken in Benicia looking north.
Nice one David. 👍🏻 I’ve done stand dev with the same Rodinol dilution but it was more of a semi-stand technique. 50 minutes with 30 seconds of agitation at the start and three inversions over the remaining period. You’re spot on about the bromide drag and and halos, they are far less of an issue when you do semi-stand. I’ve used the same times for HC110 as well except the dilution was 1:145, I prefer the way the HC110 handles grain. I’ve found the film clears a lot better if the film is pre wet for one minute with water the same temp as the dev. I got into stand dev because I shoot a Holga quite frequently and since that camera has so little control over exposure I thought stand dev was well suited to it.
Nice! Thank you! That's a good concentration for HC110. I forget what I used for L110, but yes, the grain was much better to my eye and I found the results a bit more pleasing.
5:06 have you mixed sodas? Like coke and sprite? How would those two not mix instantly? You are transferring the mixture into the Paterson canister? How would it stay separated in that? Maybe you’ve done testing on that, but I can’t fathom two liquids not mixing
Well, different pops are the same base material -- fizzy water -- with some sugar and color and flavor added. For liquids that don't mix, I'd point to vinegar or water and any kind of oil -- motor oil, olive oil, etc.) Many types of liquids won't mix well.
@@DavidHancock i dont know ^^i use a 27" imac, colors seem ok. probably its my eyes that trick me, i often have the impression of light bw foilage beeing slightly green hehe
@@DavidHancock ok now i had to know it, took a screenshot put it in photoshop, this is definitely a color image, like a color scan that has the color of the background light in it. The trees on the right have a color value of R:51 B:49 G:42 ... its yellow/green :) There is no pure grey tone in this image, at least i couldnt find one :) ibb.co/Cs2QHgG
Could be that it's a factor of the video encoding, then. Typically with B&W I convert them to grayscale in Photoshop as part of the editing process. But when I make videos, and when I upload them (and when UA-cam compresses them) they aren't grayscale.
@@DavidHancock jup. i was just guessing cause it happend to me that i thought its converted but it was still a color photo of a bw negative :) OR its a youtube algorythm that detected foilage and made it slightly greeneer to enhance the footage :)
So it’s not a “lazy man’s silver bullet” like I thought until now. David, Great video. Can you explain what’s thin versus thick? I read that a lot but forgot to ask.
Oh, good question. I'll add that to the next Ask David series and do one that shows how to tell if a negative is properly exposed and developed or not.
From my research “Bromide drag” is impossible with Rodinal, as it doesn’t contain any. It is possible with HC-110 and a few others that are used by some people for stand development. So assuming you were using rodinal, those lines are either due to insufficient developer (I’ve consistently read 5ml+500ml minimum recommended), or over-agitation. Also, agitation increases grain with Rodinal, so the midway point agitation is not good, and not necessary.
That's a good point and one that I missed. It may well be salts or another compound precipitating out of solution. I don't invert when stand developing and still occasionally have this issue.
Great video as always. You mentioned you mixed up different ISO films in a one tank for stand development. Does it also mean one of the films could be for example 1 stop underexposed. I'm wondering how stand development would work for pushing film.
Thank you and yes. I have done that and had all of the rolls turn out (if not well then at least) usable. If you're going to do this with pushed film stocks, it may be worth a semi-stand process where you do an inversion cycle every 20 minutes. Is that case, do a test roll and see how it turns out and if the results are good then that could work. I would not semi-stand pulled or normally exposed film as the results can become very thick.
@@DavidHancock thank you for the answer. I did semi-stand (1h with agitation in the beginning and in the middle) with Fomapan 400 exposed at box speed and it was good.
A very late comment. Last weekend I accidentally shot an AGFA APX100 at 400 ISO. The only recipe I could find was 1% Rodinal for 2 hrs. To my surprise it came out fine!
Would quite simply laying the Paterson tank on its side instead of upright help to prevent sprocket hole bromide drag? Since it would just drag into other sprocket holes?
The latter and the heavier, more-concentrated developer would settle on and slide over the film and cause horizontal developer streaks as well as sprocket hole bromide drag. You can probably guess how I found that out. 😃
For chemistry, I mix it with filtered water. I have a Brita pitcher I use just for chemistry water and that, I think, is fine. Distilled water is expensive unless you make it yourself, and honestly you need to make a lot of it to make it worthwhile. I use distilled water for much film as a final rinse because that helps a lot with final image quality.
Thank you! I stopped using a scanner a long time ago. I have a negative copying setup for my DSLR. Slides and black and white film I photograph with my DSLR and then I edit the images in raw. Color photos I have scanned at the lab and I think they have a Noritsu.
I just stand developed two rolls of Tri-X and had thin negatives. Two things I probably did wrong. Temperature and time. Try to keep a lukewarm temp of around 20 with a bath reaching the level in the tank. And let it sit for at least two hours with a 100:1 Rodinal dilution.
David Hancock Tri-X being relatively fast will need longer. Problem was I misremembered and didn’t double check. I gave them a little over an hour at about 15 - 17 celsius. I think I’ll try T-max 100 in Rodinal next. What was the stock you used? Couldn’t quite pick it up.
Throughout the video? I used a bunch of different stocks. PanF+, which yielded, I think, the best results; Double-X 5222, which was also good; Rollei IR, Lomo Orca 110, HP5+, Delta 3200, TMax 400, TMax 100, ShangHai GP3, New 55 Atomiic-X, Lomo Earl Gray, Agfa Cinerex, and Adox Scala (the re-issue). If you follow my All About Film series, you'll notice that none of those have been released yet. So there will be a lot more in the coming years about stand developing in the way of footnotes on videos.
nice Video, very informative. I have recently experimented with stand development with hp5 and found i can rate it at anything between 100 and 1600 for good results on a single Roll, although 100 was quite dense with my semi-stand development technique (1:100, 90 minutes, 1 inversion at 45min). Luckily i have not experienced bromide drag yet. What causes this? how do you avoid it? Thanks in advance
This is interesting to me, to be able to shoot a roll at a range of ISO and then just stand develop the roll. Your results been pretty good? I might try this on 120
I would call my results mixed. That's because the good results are GOOD. The poor results are REALLY POOR. If you think of floor and ceiling meaning lowest and highest quality, stand developing has a ceiling that's the same as other methods but a floor that much lower, and there's not much to do to know which end of the spectrum the results will be on because even with good practices there are variables outside of the photographers controls (negative density differences in the images, chemistry separation that leads to bromide drag, uneven developer mixing, or settling, etc.) It's easy, it's cheap, and having to not worry much about film sensitivity is nice, but the results are less predictable than they are with a standard developing process. I may continue to stand develop in the future, especially with high-contrast films like PanF+ and Adox CMS20 because the stand process lowers contrast and a flat negative is easier to digitize or print with high-contrast film stocks. At that, I'd only do it for 4X5 and 120. But for anything 35mm, it will be a standard regimen, always.
I've been trying 510 Pyro with Delta 100 because I saw so many videos of people raving about the quality and how you and expose for the shadows and you won't loose the highlights. Prior to that I had been developing in Ilfosol 3 and loved the results but was was looking for something that would have a longer shelf life. Bottom line I may not be doing something right but I'm not really excited about the results I'm getting. I follow the dilutions and development times that came with the 510 Pyro and use TF-4 fix but the results to me look a little muddy. Useable but not great.
I've been using Photographers Formulary PMK, too, and it's (I believe) a similar formula to the Pyro developers. It's awesome and holds up well for stand developing, too. I'm trying to dial-in the PMK stand concentration, but the tests I did last week show a lot of promise.
Yes, I like the idea of what it promises in regards to exposing for the shadows and not loosing the highlights but compared to what I was getting with Ilford's Ilfosol 3 I'm just not really impressed. Maybe it's just that the Pyro is less contrasty. Or it's just me. I'm developing Simi-stand in a Paterson tank at 68F. I was really looking for nice results and longer storage time for the developer. I still have a lot to go through so I guess I'll just play around with the times and may be the themps a little. @@DavidHancock
Great video. Recently did semi stand developing, found bromide drag and it was incredibly grainy (not sure if that part was down to the rodinal - what do you think?). Thanks for the video.
Thank you! Graininess is a part of stand developing sometimes. It depends on the film, exposed ISO, chemistry temp, film age, and some other variables. Bromide drag we'll talk about in detail on September 17.
Is there any way I could get the same type of result and esthetic without using stand? I mean more reliably, without the risks of bromide drag etc. Would they be similar if I inverted only once every 5 minutes for 10s? And would that eliminate the bromide drag risk? And if so, how long would I have to develop for? I shoot HP5 at 1600 and with stand development it really seems great but I am afraid of destroying rolls with bromide drag. Thanks in advance if you reply 🙂
There's a technique called semi-stand which involves periodic inversions, say every 15 or 20 minutes. I haven't used it too much but I understand it is a bit better at reducing bromide drag. Everything else, such as dilution, would remain the same.
@@DavidHancock thanks. I want to find a good compromise and middle path that'll work consistently for me. The results I get with stand developing my HP5 at 1600 are too impressive to dismiss and go back to normal now :) Thank you for your work!
I've switched over to stand development about a year for my LF and it's been fantastic. I would suggest using pyrocat and avoid the standard developers. You are correct when you say you need to agitate several times during your development. You need to agitate 3X during the developing process. I would suggest you check out Steve Sherman's Power of Process. He has perfected this technique and his results are superior to what you normally would get and they ARE predictable. Check it out.
I recently purchased a F3 in large part due to your review of the camera. I plan on using pyro and minimal agitation for 35 mm. It will be interesting to see what I get from the smaller format. @@DavidHancock
I stand develop HP5 and Delta 400 with Rodinal. 21 degrees, 80 mins with two intermediate inversions. The results are terrible! Grey, ,muddy, drab negs with mountains of grain. The fixer is 2 years old -could that be the problem?
I think it's something everyone who develops their own B&W film has to try at least once. I've used D76, Ilfosol 3 and Caffenol, but I don't think any of those are suitable. Rodinal (or its modern equivalents) is a lot harder to get where I am, because sea or air transport are required and that brings hazmat issues and costs. OTOH its forgiving nature with regard to exposure is something to think about.
Oh yeah. Shortly after succeeding with Caffenol on a regular basis, I started looking into the availability of thiosulphate to free myself from commercial fixer as well. No go; it's easier just to buy Ilford Rapid Fix and run with that. Hell, even finding bromide compounds to make the more advanced versions of Caffenol is difficult, and I'm just going with the Folger's/Washing Powder/Vitamin C basics.
I am a fan of your videos, but I have to comment about Rodinal. Used at high dilutions it is a great compensating developer, but that is the only advantage, sure you can save money if you use less, but unless you keep your opened bottle of Rodinal in a concertina type canister and exclude all of the air above the liquid every time you use it, you will find that Rodinal turns black and unusable long before you have used it all up. With film prices what they are now, the cost of developer is a tiny fraction of the cost of a roll of film.
Oh yeah, Rodinal's infinite shelf life is either no longer true or a myth. The R09 that I opened earlier this year reeks of ammonia (even though it's still just as active as it was then) and every R09 bottle I've opened has turned brown in a matter of weeks.
Considering the time, money and effort it can take to take photos and the cost of film, this video makes a powerful argument to not endanger that investment in an unreliable, hit-or-miss stand development processing technique. It doesn't save time at all. So is the argument for stand development down to (1) is saves money on developer, and (2) it's easy and does require that you learn how to process film normally? Well, it doesn't save money if it blows off some or all of your images and the cost of taking them. The relative cost of developer is trivial. It may be easy to point of being brainless, but if that's your goal in film processing, I suggest that an auto digital camera is your better choice.
I tend to agree. There are a few cases where stand developing makes sense. For a specific aesthetic, to test the ISO of an old film stock, and in cases where develop really is valuable (Rodinal isn't readily available in all countries and spreading it out can be a good idea then.) But in general, I tend to prefer the look and results from inversion day tank developing.
Although this video was overwhelmingly negative in tone, stand developing isn’t new, isn’t experimental, and isn’t “hit or miss” any more than any other development technique. Atget stand developed every photo of his back in the 1920s. It was the preferred method for many photographers. And the main reason for doing it (to me) is the ability to shoot multiple speeds on the same roll of film, and the fact that temperature doesn’t matter within reason.
This method in combination with Delta 100 has become my absolute favourite. It works really great with halfframe photos, as well.
Nice and thank you!
Well, if I were to develop film, I definitely would sit down. That's too long to stand.
LOL. I expected no less from you on this one.
Ffs 👍
Sometimes, when I am lazy, i use stand development. It works great but like mentioned in video, you get easily bromide drag lines if you use stand and 35mm film. With 120 it works really well. You can mix any BW films to same tank with stand development. 1:100 dilution seems to work best for me and I do one calm tank rotation in half of the development time.
120 and sheet film are way better for stand developing than 35mm.
@@DavidHancock Oh it makes me sad, because I like those GRAINY photos... What can I do to create that effect with 35mm 400 ISO film (not D or T grains)? Your method is not good for it?
I've seen one UA-camr who resolved the halation by keeping the tank in a bucket with water, so that the tank won't warm up and won't change the temperature of the chemicals.
Another comment David, I worked for a well known european Reportage photographer In 1968, who insisted that all his film was stand developed in RO9, which is now known as Rodinal. I forget the dilution, it was probably 1:120, and the process was 20degrees celcius, agitate continuously for first minute then rap on table to clear air bubbles, then leave for 1 hour. The film was always Tri-X pan. The resulting negs were thin and flat, but printed well on Agfa grade 6 paper. He wanted the halo effect, known in my day as “Mackie Lines” or more formally as “adjacency effect”. I never experienced bromide drag, it could have been because I used steel spirals in steel tanks?
Was he shooting 35mm or larger formats? Bromide drag is far more likely on 35mm due to the sprocket holes.
I must admit I’ve never done any stand developing, but I’ve only pushed or pulled a film when I’ve had no viable alternative. I’ve just realised my film photography is the only thing in my life I’ve "done by the book." It makes me slightly boring I admit. You are the only person I can think of on UA-cam who is extremely proficient at the technical and making great images. As always a great video, I just wish it had been a bit longer so we had longer to fully take in your images, you had some real stunners there.
Thank you!
There will be a lot more images in the 20+ weeks as we go through the upcoming Negative Flaws series (a sidebar series to buy me time to record the next batch of Ask David videos, of which there are a lot; this series will look at user error, developer error, camera error, and film QC issues that lead to problems on images.) Most of the photos in those videos will show problems with film and developing, but a few are still decent images.
Those hills were giving me some weird goose bumps until the bridge at the end nailed it for me (and then I realized those were The Blue Angels). Stuff i frequently see from the train passing through.
Most of the photos were taken here in northern California. The bridge at the end with the boats is, shoot, I forget the name of it, but the photo was taken in Benicia looking north.
Nice one David. 👍🏻 I’ve done stand dev with the same Rodinol dilution but it was more of a semi-stand technique. 50 minutes with 30 seconds of agitation at the start and three inversions over the remaining period. You’re spot on about the bromide drag and and halos, they are far less of an issue when you do semi-stand. I’ve used the same times for HC110 as well except the dilution was 1:145, I prefer the way the HC110 handles grain. I’ve found the film clears a lot better if the film is pre wet for one minute with water the same temp as the dev. I got into stand dev because I shoot a Holga quite frequently and since that camera has so little control over exposure I thought stand dev was well suited to it.
Nice! Thank you! That's a good concentration for HC110. I forget what I used for L110, but yes, the grain was much better to my eye and I found the results a bit more pleasing.
5:06 have you mixed sodas? Like coke and sprite? How would those two not mix instantly? You are transferring the mixture into the Paterson canister? How would it stay separated in that? Maybe you’ve done testing on that, but I can’t fathom two liquids not mixing
Well, different pops are the same base material -- fizzy water -- with some sugar and color and flavor added. For liquids that don't mix, I'd point to vinegar or water and any kind of oil -- motor oil, olive oil, etc.) Many types of liquids won't mix well.
01:54 its interesting how the background trees seem to have a sepia or even green/yellow tint and the foreground seems pure b/w
I wonder if that's your monitor? The tones look consistent across the image for me.
@@DavidHancock i dont know ^^i use a 27" imac, colors seem ok. probably its my eyes that trick me, i often have the impression of light bw foilage beeing slightly green hehe
@@DavidHancock ok now i had to know it, took a screenshot put it in photoshop, this is definitely a color image, like a color scan that has the color of the background light in it.
The trees on the right have a color value of R:51 B:49 G:42 ... its yellow/green :) There is no pure grey tone in this image, at least i couldnt find one :)
ibb.co/Cs2QHgG
Could be that it's a factor of the video encoding, then. Typically with B&W I convert them to grayscale in Photoshop as part of the editing process. But when I make videos, and when I upload them (and when UA-cam compresses them) they aren't grayscale.
@@DavidHancock jup. i was just guessing cause it happend to me that i thought its converted but it was still a color photo of a bw negative :)
OR its a youtube algorythm that detected foilage and made it slightly greeneer to enhance the footage :)
So it’s not a “lazy man’s silver bullet” like I thought until now.
David, Great video. Can you explain what’s thin versus thick? I read that a lot but forgot to ask.
Oh, good question. I'll add that to the next Ask David series and do one that shows how to tell if a negative is properly exposed and developed or not.
David Hancock Thanks!
From my research “Bromide drag” is impossible with Rodinal, as it doesn’t contain any. It is possible with HC-110 and a few others that are used by some people for stand development.
So assuming you were using rodinal, those lines are either due to insufficient developer (I’ve consistently read 5ml+500ml minimum recommended), or over-agitation.
Also, agitation increases grain with Rodinal, so the midway point agitation is not good, and not necessary.
That's a good point and one that I missed. It may well be salts or another compound precipitating out of solution. I don't invert when stand developing and still occasionally have this issue.
Great video as always. You mentioned you mixed up different ISO films in a one tank for stand development. Does it also mean one of the films could be for example 1 stop underexposed. I'm wondering how stand development would work for pushing film.
Thank you and yes. I have done that and had all of the rolls turn out (if not well then at least) usable. If you're going to do this with pushed film stocks, it may be worth a semi-stand process where you do an inversion cycle every 20 minutes. Is that case, do a test roll and see how it turns out and if the results are good then that could work. I would not semi-stand pulled or normally exposed film as the results can become very thick.
@@DavidHancock thank you for the answer. I did semi-stand (1h with agitation in the beginning and in the middle) with Fomapan 400 exposed at box speed and it was good.
A very late comment. Last weekend I accidentally shot an AGFA APX100 at 400 ISO. The only recipe I could find was 1% Rodinal for 2 hrs. To my surprise it came out fine!
Nice! Rodinal at 1% is a good stand developing go-to.
Would quite simply laying the Paterson tank on its side instead of upright help to prevent sprocket hole bromide drag? Since it would just drag into other sprocket holes?
The latter and the heavier, more-concentrated developer would settle on and slide over the film and cause horizontal developer streaks as well as sprocket hole bromide drag. You can probably guess how I found that out. 😃
2:36 in very interesting stuff david cheers mate for sharing your techniques on stand development I have to try this one day with my LC29
Thank you!
Do you recommend a pre rinse with distilled water. If so why?
For chemistry, I mix it with filtered water. I have a Brita pitcher I use just for chemistry water and that, I think, is fine. Distilled water is expensive unless you make it yourself, and honestly you need to make a lot of it to make it worthwhile. I use distilled water for much film as a final rinse because that helps a lot with final image quality.
Hi David, what scanner did you used to scan your Negatives...& by the way they are amazing shots you have taken...
Thank you!
I stopped using a scanner a long time ago. I have a negative copying setup for my DSLR. Slides and black and white film I photograph with my DSLR and then I edit the images in raw. Color photos I have scanned at the lab and I think they have a Noritsu.
I just stand developed two rolls of Tri-X and had thin negatives.
Two things I probably did wrong.
Temperature and time. Try to keep a lukewarm temp of around 20 with a bath reaching the level in the tank.
And let it sit for at least two hours with a 100:1 Rodinal dilution.
Interesting. That sounds like it should have worked. That was my dilution but twice the time.
David Hancock Tri-X being relatively fast will need longer.
Problem was I misremembered and didn’t double check.
I gave them a little over an hour at about 15 - 17 celsius.
I think I’ll try T-max 100 in Rodinal next.
What was the stock you used? Couldn’t quite pick it up.
Throughout the video? I used a bunch of different stocks. PanF+, which yielded, I think, the best results; Double-X 5222, which was also good; Rollei IR, Lomo Orca 110, HP5+, Delta 3200, TMax 400, TMax 100, ShangHai GP3, New 55 Atomiic-X, Lomo Earl Gray, Agfa Cinerex, and Adox Scala (the re-issue). If you follow my All About Film series, you'll notice that none of those have been released yet. So there will be a lot more in the coming years about stand developing in the way of footnotes on videos.
nice Video, very informative. I have recently experimented with stand development with hp5 and found i can rate it at anything between 100 and 1600 for good results on a single Roll, although 100 was quite dense with my semi-stand development technique (1:100, 90 minutes, 1 inversion at 45min). Luckily i have not experienced bromide drag yet. What causes this? how do you avoid it?
Thanks in advance
Thank you!
Good question about bromide drag. We'll revisit that subject in detail on September 17.
This is interesting to me, to be able to shoot a roll at a range of ISO and then just stand develop the roll. Your results been pretty good? I might try this on 120
I would call my results mixed. That's because the good results are GOOD. The poor results are REALLY POOR. If you think of floor and ceiling meaning lowest and highest quality, stand developing has a ceiling that's the same as other methods but a floor that much lower, and there's not much to do to know which end of the spectrum the results will be on because even with good practices there are variables outside of the photographers controls (negative density differences in the images, chemistry separation that leads to bromide drag, uneven developer mixing, or settling, etc.)
It's easy, it's cheap, and having to not worry much about film sensitivity is nice, but the results are less predictable than they are with a standard developing process.
I may continue to stand develop in the future, especially with high-contrast films like PanF+ and Adox CMS20 because the stand process lowers contrast and a flat negative is easier to digitize or print with high-contrast film stocks. At that, I'd only do it for 4X5 and 120. But for anything 35mm, it will be a standard regimen, always.
I've been trying 510 Pyro with Delta 100 because I saw so many videos of people raving about the quality and how you and expose for the shadows and you won't loose the highlights. Prior to that I had been developing in Ilfosol 3 and loved the results but was was looking for something that would have a longer shelf life. Bottom line I may not be doing something right but I'm not really excited about the results I'm getting. I follow the dilutions and development times that came with the 510 Pyro and use TF-4 fix but the results to me look a little muddy. Useable but not great.
I've been using Photographers Formulary PMK, too, and it's (I believe) a similar formula to the Pyro developers. It's awesome and holds up well for stand developing, too. I'm trying to dial-in the PMK stand concentration, but the tests I did last week show a lot of promise.
Yes, I like the idea of what it promises in regards to exposing for the shadows and not loosing the highlights but compared to what I was getting with Ilford's Ilfosol 3 I'm just not really impressed. Maybe it's just that the Pyro is less contrasty. Or it's just me. I'm developing Simi-stand in a Paterson tank at 68F. I was really looking for nice results and longer storage time for the developer. I still have a lot to go through so I guess I'll just play around with the times and may be the themps a little.
@@DavidHancock
Thanks, for good advices
Thank you!
Great explanation as always!
Thank you!
Great video. Recently did semi stand developing, found bromide drag and it was incredibly grainy (not sure if that part was down to the rodinal - what do you think?). Thanks for the video.
Thank you!
Graininess is a part of stand developing sometimes. It depends on the film, exposed ISO, chemistry temp, film age, and some other variables.
Bromide drag we'll talk about in detail on September 17.
Is there any way I could get the same type of result and esthetic without using stand? I mean more reliably, without the risks of bromide drag etc. Would they be similar if I inverted only once every 5 minutes for 10s? And would that eliminate the bromide drag risk? And if so, how long would I have to develop for? I shoot HP5 at 1600 and with stand development it really seems great but I am afraid of destroying rolls with bromide drag. Thanks in advance if you reply 🙂
There's a technique called semi-stand which involves periodic inversions, say every 15 or 20 minutes. I haven't used it too much but I understand it is a bit better at reducing bromide drag. Everything else, such as dilution, would remain the same.
@@DavidHancock thanks. I want to find a good compromise and middle path that'll work consistently for me. The results I get with stand developing my HP5 at 1600 are too impressive to dismiss and go back to normal now :)
Thank you for your work!
I was told that that two agitations halfway through would deal with bromide smears. But I haven't tried Stand Dev myself.
They do. I've taken to doing a couple of agitations every 20 minutes.
I've switched over to stand development about a year for my LF and it's been fantastic. I would suggest using pyrocat and avoid the standard developers. You are correct when you say you need to agitate several times during your development. You need to agitate 3X during the developing process. I would suggest you check out Steve Sherman's Power of Process. He has perfected this technique and his results are superior to what you normally would get and they ARE predictable. Check it out.
Thank you, I will! I plan to use stand for LF in the future.
I recently purchased a F3 in large part due to your review of the camera. I plan on using pyro and minimal agitation for 35 mm. It will be interesting to see what I get from the smaller format. @@DavidHancock
I stand develop HP5 and Delta 400 with Rodinal. 21 degrees, 80 mins with two intermediate inversions. The results are terrible! Grey, ,muddy, drab negs with mountains of grain. The fixer is 2 years old -could that be the problem?
Old fixer will do that for sure. I tend to pitch fix after six months or 60 rolls.
Interesting!
Thank you!
@@DavidHancock Thank you David for making these videos! Can't wait to give it a try.
I think it's something everyone who develops their own B&W film has to try at least once. I've used D76, Ilfosol 3 and Caffenol, but I don't think any of those are suitable. Rodinal (or its modern equivalents) is a lot harder to get where I am, because sea or air transport are required and that brings hazmat issues and costs. OTOH its forgiving nature with regard to exposure is something to think about.
I think it's even hard to get the raw materials for Rodinal where you're at, too.
Oh yeah. Shortly after succeeding with Caffenol on a regular basis, I started looking into the availability of thiosulphate to free myself from commercial fixer as well. No go; it's easier just to buy Ilford Rapid Fix and run with that. Hell, even finding bromide compounds to make the more advanced versions of Caffenol is difficult, and I'm just going with the Folger's/Washing Powder/Vitamin C basics.
Looks good!
Thank you!
I am a fan of your videos, but I have to comment about Rodinal. Used at high dilutions it is a great compensating developer, but that is the only advantage, sure you can save money if you use less, but unless you keep your opened bottle of Rodinal in a concertina type canister and exclude all of the air above the liquid every time you use it, you will find that Rodinal turns black and unusable long before you have used it all up. With film prices what they are now, the cost of developer is a tiny fraction of the cost of a roll of film.
Oh yeah, Rodinal's infinite shelf life is either no longer true or a myth. The R09 that I opened earlier this year reeks of ammonia (even though it's still just as active as it was then) and every R09 bottle I've opened has turned brown in a matter of weeks.
Jojo?
Jobo is a good system but also very expensive.
So how the fuck do you stand develop?
Various processes are described in the video's first two minutes, starting at about 35 seconds.
@@DavidHancock Show how to do it moron. That's what a video guide is. Your title is misleading.
Considering the time, money and effort it can take to take photos and the cost of film, this video makes a powerful argument to not endanger that investment in an unreliable, hit-or-miss stand development processing technique. It doesn't save time at all. So is the argument for stand development down to (1) is saves money on developer, and (2) it's easy and does require that you learn how to process film normally? Well, it doesn't save money if it blows off some or all of your images and the cost of taking them. The relative cost of developer is trivial. It may be easy to point of being brainless, but if that's your goal in film processing, I suggest that an auto digital camera is your better choice.
I tend to agree. There are a few cases where stand developing makes sense. For a specific aesthetic, to test the ISO of an old film stock, and in cases where develop really is valuable (Rodinal isn't readily available in all countries and spreading it out can be a good idea then.) But in general, I tend to prefer the look and results from inversion day tank developing.
Although this video was overwhelmingly negative in tone, stand developing isn’t new, isn’t experimental, and isn’t “hit or miss” any more than any other development technique. Atget stand developed every photo of his back in the 1920s. It was the preferred method for many photographers.
And the main reason for doing it (to me) is the ability to shoot multiple speeds on the same roll of film, and the fact that temperature doesn’t matter within reason.