Some questions re: Stand Development w/ Blazinol (Rodinal).

<p>I've been doing stand dev with Blazinol (Canadian Rodinal) and while I've had good results thus far, I have some questions.. </p>

<p>firstly, I've been using 3.5ml per roll of 135, 1:100 dilution, 1 hour duration, agitate at the start for 30sec. NOw, i want to develop some small strips from a pinhole camera I made. about the equivalent of maybe 12 frames of 135. Should I reduce the amount of Blazinol proportionately? So perhaps 1.2 ml or so?<br>

Likewise I've been rolling my own film so not every roll is 36 frames.. I've done some test rolls that were 15 frames, 12 frames, etc. Would make sense to me that it would require less developer.</p>

<p>Secondly, as i understand it, Stand developing is so forgiving because it basically exhausts all the active developer over the course of the stand time. If so, how critical is the dilution and soup time? I've actually been putting 7ml in 500 so that it fits in the Paterson 4 tank. if you left it for longer than 1 hour, why would it matter if all the developer was exhausted?</p>

<p>And, lastly.. I'm trying to wrap my head around this.. Stand dev seems to allow almost everything to be souped in about an hour. Different film stocks, different push/pull amounts, different speeds. (Seems to be a common claim but here is a specific post about it:<br>

http://jbhildebrand.com/2011/tutorials/workflow-tutorial-2-stand-development-with-rodinal/<br>

So that would seem to indicate that you could wildly underexpose and/or overexpose on the same roll and the film will magicly know what you want done. The stand process seems to be the same whether you push a film by 4 stops or pull by 2. That seems counter intuitive to me.. </p>

<p>Anyway, this has all been amazingly fun thus far. I have been doing standard development with Xtol, D76 and DDX with no problems, I just wanted to wrap my head around what is happening inside the stand dev soup!</p>

 

<p>Stand development basically exhausts the developer during the course of development, mostly during the early phase, so potentially if a film is properly exposed the highlights aren't blown, and shadows have a chance to develop. Although you read a lot about being able to push/pull x number of stops and still get acceptable results, it is not a cure-all for poor exposure, and your best results occur with proper development. I believe because of the exhaustion of the developer, in conjunction with film latitude, you generally have greater opportunity to deal with over or under exposed negatives in a less restrictive environment. No magic here.</p>

<p>yes, but can still over-develop. Just past "enough" is "too much". 1 hour is a generalization and really depends on the film, temp and dilution. Yes, you will get printable negs but not always perfect negs. Take notes.</p>

<p>Going through some of my notes were 20 mins with PlusX and I remember 35 mins for HP5.</p>

<p>My own rule-of-thumb is as follows: 1/100 dilution, 1 hour; 1/200 dilution, 2 hours, 1/300 dilution, 3 hours. All at about 20 C but anywhere between 16 C - 24 C is OK. Agitate continuously for the first minute then leave it. With the 2 and 3 hour times, invert a couple of times at the end of the first and second hours.</p>

With over 45 years R09/Rodinal experience I can say that you need at least 5-5,5ml concentrate R09/Rodinal for an

average 120 roll film or equivalent in surface aera 135-36 film. You need minimum agitation because otherwise you can

have uneven development and you will get less sharp negatives. Above 1+200 dilution the process will stop after approx.

45 minutes because the high diluted R09/Rodinal has completly oxidized.

<p>Uneven development can be minimized/eliminated by technique. Where did you get the "45" number from. It's fairly easy to disprove that one....to the point of questioning why would you try to make such a statement?</p>

 

<p>http://www.fotografie-in-schwarz-weiss.de/sw-fotografie/wissen/90-filme-entwickeln-die-richtige-bewegung.html</p>

<p>A more or less "scientific" article about R09/Rodinal. It is not from me but proving slow agitation is necessary for max. acutance and minimum grain.<br>

In fact "stand" development without any agitation is searching for problems. You can prolong the oxidizing proces by putting the tank in the fridge. Some people are doing this for optimizing their "stand" development.</p>

<p>I've done the fridge thing, and it isn't worth the effort. You have to refrigerate your rinse water as well. Otherwise you will reticulate.</p>

<p>The problems happen at different rates with different film formulations and there always seems to be a work around. The reality is you can completely go stand develop and no one would know the difference.</p>

<p>The best stand developer I use is Billy Thornton's 2 bath. I stand develop both baths. They are so short (under 4 mins) that the traditional side effects do not happen and I max the acutance and minimize the grain.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The best stand developer I use is Billy Thornton's 2 bath. I stand develop both baths.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You are fully correct about this "Leica" type developer from B. Thornton. Most suitable for "stand" development maybe then R09/Rodinal (because it is more known and populair and the price is worldwide low).<br>

I am not a fan of "stand" development at all. I can control via my <em>Heiland TAS</em> inverse processing robot all times, speed, inversions how I want it so 1+100 and a slow inverse type development for R09/Rodinal in 20-25 minutes at 18-20C is not any problem. Not boring, not time consuming for me. In my gallery on Photo.net you can see a regular R09 1+50 development for Fomapan Creative 200 (T200) from 2005 made in Prague / Praha. Even the scan is from that date on an old type Epson 3170 flat bed scanner.</p>

<p>Although I use different "go-to" developers today, Rodinal would not be a bad choice in a world where their could be only one. With various techniques, there is not a single film I could not get the look I wanted / needed. Stand development is just one of the many methods this versatile developer excels in.</p>

<p>The TAS is a nice toy, but I have to settle for a rotary drum. This is one of the worst devices to use Rodinal, unless you want to go golfing with grain. It does take the sting out of long development times with reversals. Without it, I would probably still be standing with Rodinal.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have a Jobo CPA-2 with elevator too but this is mostly used for the C-41 color development and development on 24C like CG-512/R.L.S.<br>

Further the device is very handy for paper drum development in larger formats (40x50cm and up) if you do not have a large dark room place.</p>

<p>I can only agree with you that R09/Rodinal is not very suitable for rotary development but that is with all high acutance type developers the case.</p>

<p>Not a contribution but a developer % concentration question.</p>

<p>If 300ml of Rodinal developer at a concentration of 1:100 (a figure I have seen quoted many times) is used for stand development of a 36 exposure of 35mm film. Does that mean if I only shoot and process 18 shots (half the roll). Should I reduce the concentration of the developer to 1:600 (1/2:100) to prevent over development due to the higher concentration at 1:100 on the reduced film area to be developed?</p>

<p>I would not reduce. Technically you could, but you would be bringing a bunch of new variables to would alter your consistency.</p>

I use 1 plus 100 as working solution for 1 hour at 68 degrees.

 

At present, I mix 6 ml stock plus 600 ml water to develop 1 36 exposure 35 mm film.

 

Here is an interesting article:

 

http://jbhildebrand.com/2011/tutorials/workflow-tutorial-2-stand-development-with-rodinal/

<p>When I worked out my times, I used a density meter and a grey card. 1hr is a magic time pulled out of the air. It will give you printable results, just not optimum.</p>