Rodinal 1+100, 1+200, 1+300 in Multi Roll/Sheet Tanks?

[johnmarkpainter]

Is anyone doing Semi-Stand (minimal agitation) or true Stand Development with larger tanks or sheet film?

I have some 5 sheet 4x5 tanks and (4) 35mm or (3) 120 Reel Tanks.

 

It SEEMS that it will work as I have seen that people are doing one roll in a small tank.

Just wanted to ask before I needlessly waste Film.

 

Thanks,

John

[big toys are better]

I've almost always done semi-stand with diluted Rodinal, usually 1:100 or greater, and with anything from some 35mm but mostly with 120 & sheets up to 8x10. Tank size doesn't really matter much, just be sure you mix well for the first minute or two, and then knock off all of the bubbles. Pre-wetting with plain water will minimize the bubble issue and any uneveness due to developer filling, all of which is why I always do that wetting step first, but some don't bother.

[leicaglow]

RH: any suggestions for times based on various dilutions? I've been thinking of doing some 4x5 using tray development.

[johnmarkpainter]

Michael,

 

For stand development,you are better off with a tank as you won't be doing the 'shuffle' agitation.

1+100 minimal agitation I have heard 20 minutes as a starter.

For 1+200 I have usually seen 45 min to 1hr.

For 1+300, I have seen 3 hours.

 

I only ever did it myself once or twice so maybe some more experienced people can answer.

 

jmp

[leicaglow]

Thanks John. I just ran my first stand development. I couldn't believe how absolutely beautiful the tonal range is! WOW! For the record, here's what I did and how it turned out:

 

I had two rolls of 120 in the same tank. One HP5 and one Acros, shot with a Hasselblad. I put about 2.5ml of Rodinol in 650ml of water. (My Rodinol was looking a little on the "aged" side, so I bumped it just a tad). Agitated for 10, 180 degree tilts in a stainless tank and stainless reels. Tapped about 10 times to dislodge air. Let stand 5 minutes. Agitated 5 rotations and tapped. Put in a dark cabinet for 4 hours (oops, I couldn't get back to my darkroom in time, but I suspect 3 hours would have been fine). If they look good, I may go out and shoot some 4x5 Acros tomorrow.

 

Results: Acros appears to have a longer tonal range. They looked like some sort of fabulous Ansel Adams negative or something. The Acros looked a little fogged for some reason. The HP5 was clear, but the tonal range appeared just a bit shorter than the Acros.

 

They're drying right now. I cannot wait to print them. I'm also anxious to see how the grain looks. I've got four more rolls of 35mm film going right now. 2 Delta 100, 1 Acros, and 1 Tri-X. I'll try to report back on those with some scans. Thanks all!

[rodeo_joe1]

I'm not being contrary, but what is the purpose of doing this? I genuinely want to know the answer.

 

Stand, or any other form of compensating development is for very contrasty subjects, surely? If you use it for every situation then you'll get flat negatives (or a longer tonal range, if you like to put it that way) that'll just need printing on a harder grade of paper.

 

Compensating development also "flat tops" your highlights, and unless your subject brightness range is very extended it'll give you muddy highlights. The old T-max 100 souped in D-76 gave this compensated look without any trouble at all, by default, and people generally hated the look of it.

 

Another way of extending the tonal range is simply to overexpose and cut development. So truthfully, what advantage does stand development have, given that very dilute developers are a bit inconsistent and unpredictable in their results.

 

Remember you're relying on a very small quantity of alkali in Rodinal to activate the developer (about 300 parts per million of potassium hydroxide at a dilution of 1:100) and it wouldn't take much natural water acidity or hydrobromic acid to completely neutralise it! Plus Agfa's original recommendation was to use no less than 7ml of developer per 36 exposure 35mm film = 1 roll of 120 or 3 sheets of 5x4.

[leicaglow]

Let me take a stab at it (from just a "readers" standpoint - remember I'm a newbie at this). It truly is a compensating method, of sorts. Bromide will slow down development in bright areas so it won't become so dense as to make it unprintable or blown out, while the higher dilution and lesser agitation would enhance the adjacency affect between various densities. It's sort of a standoff between the effect of the bromide slowing development in bright areas (higher zone values) and unused developer smoothing the edge from darker, lower density areas, creating a broader range of tonal values.

 

So when you say, Joe, that it flat-tops your highlights, I guess I can't speak to that issue until I look a little more closely at the negatives today, but I'm not sure I would agree that overexposing and cutting development has exactly the same effect (I mean I understand its implication from a Zone System perspective around Zone VII, but perhaps not in the area of Zone III or so), but from what I've read, stand development is using a less linear approach to allow development to occur at different rates in various densities of the negative due to the bromide working at different speeds than the unused developer.

 

Your point about the alkali is well taken (though having worked for the US distributor of Agfa, we used to recommend 10ml per roll of film--making the argument worse<g>), but I just don't know enough about the process yet to be an authority on it yet<g>. Though I will say that having used just about 2.5ml for two rolls of 120 film, and having it turn out so beautifully, makes me wonder whether there wasn't more marketing at play, from Agfa, than good chemistry.

[profhlynnjones]

Hi Rodeo Joe,

 

I wasn't very good with bucking stock, too many unscheduled flights and hard landings, but now that was well over 50 years ago.

 

Seriously, as a guy who has more than 5 decades of reputation in all kinds of film processing, I have some serious questions in most cases regarding still or stand procesing. In many cases "Bromide Drag" and unwanted "Eberhardt Effect" also called "Mackie Lines" frequently occur especially in higher speed emulsions. However, many years ago, I did get to know William Mortenson and he occasionally did this. Bill would do shadowless figure photography in MF, originally with SXX and later with TX, under expose a couple of stops, and develop (D23) in the refrigerator for 4 or 5 days! He would agitate 3 or 4 times a day. Obviously you can only do this with metol developers, it is the only reducing agent that can get at lease some development in temperatures lower than 65F. The desired result was "gamma infinity" and outrageously high granularity which caused the prints to actually look like carved stone.

 

Back in the mid 1960's I would often expose 35mm TriX ast ASA 1,000, develop Rodinal at 1:150, process for 45 mins to 1 hour, agitate once every 4 or 5 minutes at 70F. I don't know that this would work well with modern TX for which I have no respect since the last changes by Kodak. It was pretty grainy but sharp.

 

My thoughts regarding still development are, that it would work best with thin emulsion high resolution films (yes, I have done tests). Personally, however, I think that Diafine works just as well, more simply and more reliably. Feel perfectly free to disagree with me!

 

35 years ago, I created a photographer user sensitometry system which you are welcome to, email me. You might as well know an effective film speed and contrast. If something happens and there is some delay, I'm scheduled for my 4th cancer surgery in a few days.

 

Lynn

[leicaglow]

Do you mind if I start sharing my experiences? I'm not trying to hog a thread, but I wanted to give some thoughts about what I'm learning and show some examples. All shots are with an Leica M4-P with 50mm Summicron or 90mm Tele-Elmarit. Let's start with a single roll of Acros I shot last weekend. In the same batch, I shot both Tri-X and Delta 100. I haven't touched anything but the Acros yet, so here's that film:

 

I had an odd effect where I believe that one end of the film was grainier than the other. Not sure what to make of that. These were developed on standard stainless reels in a stainless tank. I liked the grain, but I also liked some of the shots without the grain.<div></div>

[leicaglow]

Ooh, looks a little ugly uploaded. Not quite as contrasty in PhotoShop.<div></div>

[leicaglow]

BTW, I didn't find the high density areas to block up too much on that last shot. Pretty even tone.<div></div>

[leicaglow]

One more of similar shot. I think these landscapes are pretty decent testimonials to the tonal range of the stand development. I happen to shoot these as a backup to some 4x5 shots I was taking.<div></div>

[johnmarkpainter]

I honestly don't understand why it works but have liked it.

Thanks for sharing these shots. I've got a lot of 4x5 Film that I want to experiment with...we'll see how it goes.

 

jmp

[leicaglow]

John, After reading your original post, I have totally destroyed your thread. To make it up to you I'll try to do some stand development of some 4x5 tomorrow. I noticed quite a lot of discussion about large format stand development on APUG

 

That said, more info?<g> Tri-X was just horrible. Terribly grainy, blocked up, and very contrasty (not at all what I wanted). Here's a couple of shots. Delta 100 doesn't look too bad, but I screwed up that roll because I didn't have enough chemistry. A HUGE no-no in stand development where you have no agitation to cover your butt. 4 35mm rolls <> 2 120 rolls.<div></div>

[leicaglow]

One more Tri-X. The grain can be an interesting effect, as in this next one, but I can think of a lot of ways to get grain out of Tri-X without waiting 3 hours<g>.<div></div>

[johnmarkpainter]

Ah..you haven't destroyed the thread.

You are doing multiple rolls with stand development.

 

I have a bunch of tanks; (4) 35mm, (2) 120, (2) 35mm, (6) 4x5...

It will take experimentation to see what you can get away with.