Limits of stand development

[kari v]

<p>I tried APX 400 in 1+4 Xtol for 30min at 20C. 1min presoak, agitation for the first minute, one inversion at 15min, water stop. Metered shots at 100, 200 and 400.</p>

<p>Reason: I got bored with my last rolls of APX.<br>

Works: just fine.</p>

<p>Makes me wonder, as I pretty much pulled this combo out of my hat, how far you can go "off chart" without totally ruining your film. Is there a time limit when the emulsion is guaranteed to start to peel off or something? I know the rationale behind using highly dilute developer but would 1+1 Xtol for two hours be too much (full stand, not like above)?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Films from major manufacturers are pretty tough and can withstand long soaks. The main risk is uneven development. Bromide drag is a risk with some developers. My only experiments with stand development have involved very dilute Rodinal (1+200 or 1+300) and so far, so good, no problems. No idea about Xtol, never tried it for stand development and only used it briefly back around 2003 before deciding to move back to more familiar soups.</p>

<p>Contemporary films from Kodak and Ilford can probably be soaked for a week or more without problem. In fact, I once left Kodak or Ilford negatives soaking in fixer for more than a week as a test (checking for evidence of degradation due to over fixing). No problems with emulsion peeling, bubbling or excessive softening.</p>

<p>Even older emulsions appeared to have been quite durable. <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=photographer+%22william+mortensen%22&btnG=Search">William Mortensen</a> was known to have used extended stand development, sometimes exceeding 24 hours, including refrigerating the film to slow the process!</p>

<p>Extended development in HC-110 has been used by some photographers. It involves moving the film from the developer to a water bath (gently) to encourage a compensating effect. Again, I've never heard of any films from major manufacturers being damaged by this process.</p>

[profhlynnjones]

<p>Hi Lex,</p>

<p>I first met Bill Mortenson in 1958 and he was pouring a colorless liquid from an iced tea pitcher from the refrigerator into a double 120 Nikor tank, he shook it for a time and stuck it back in the refrigerator.</p>

<p>At lunch when I asked him how long he said, "Just before the emulsion falls off"! Naturally I asked how long that would be and his matter of fact answer was, "Oh 3 or 4 days occasionally longer". I asked him if he ever agitated it and I think he said that if he thought about it and was close to the refrigerator he would give it a few shakes. If I remember correctly his film was Super XX, and developer I think was D23. Many years later I tried it with with Plus X and D76 and it worked OK but not the best. I re-tried it with D23 and I could see the possibilites with it. He did this, using shadowless lighted figure studies, and a couple of stops under exposed. He explained this as being at "gamma infinity" and heavily grained creating figures that looked like carved stone. </p>

<p>I got to spend a few days with him before I graduated and moved back to Texas and a few years before his death, not only a creative genius and knowledgeable chemist, but a real coo coo with a bizarre sense of humor. I wish I could have spent more time with him, however, I was a full time Brooks student and was holding 3 jobs, you students and former students remember how that was.</p>

<p>Lynn </p>

[kari v]

<p>Gamma infinity, right, ok, but his work does look great.<br>

Basic D-23 is metol and sodium sulfite... might as well make some space in the fridge. ;)</p>

[john_elder1]

<p>Metol stops working correctly when used at a temp below 65 degrees. There is a good reason why the manufacturer's instructions sugeest certain temperatures, usually 68 deg. I really wouldn't put film in the fridge for stand development</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Hi Kari, APX 400 has a fairly durable emulsion. Its biggest problem with regard to stand development is the grain becomes less than acceptable with stand development. I would stick with Xtol or HC-110 for experimenting with it (depending on how much APX you have available to you). Bromide drag is the next issue with this film. I would keep your development time under about 90 minutes. Finally, this film fogs pretty badly with stand development, but depending on your uses, this can give a very interesting effect with film scans. Xtol 1:1 is much too strong for two hours. You might try Xtol 1:5 for two hours. That should be pretty close. Xtol has preservatives that prevents the developer from exhausting, and will blow out the highlights of your negatives.</p>

[kari v]

<p>I think there's no way APX400 grain could get any worse subjectively speaking so I'm happy to try everything. ;)</p>

<p>Interestingly grain in Xtol 1+4 (semi) stand looks better than with standard times and dilutions (or stock). There's a lot of it but sharp and nicely distributed. Of course this was one try only so I don't know, there may be other factors.</p>

<p>But now I'll go out and shoot some APX100 which I really like. Winter is still trying to hold its grasp, it's beautiful sunny -7C day. I just repaired my Canon T70 and it's hungry after few months in the closet.</p>

[jim_appleyard]

<p>Lex made a really good point about film from a MAJOR manufacturer. Read this thread before doing this to a roll of important images.<br>

<a href="http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/59267-safe-leave-film-water-10-hours.html">http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/59267-safe-leave-film-water-10-hours.html</a></p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Unfortunately it comes down to one of the following: a) experimentation, b) not experimenting, but using your best hunch / guess, based on experience, c) imagination / espousing fact without actual experience or experimentation. The bottom line is you really need to try it. I can attest to is this: document every set of circumstances in a darkroom journal. This helps immensely in determining what to do, or what to try next. While I've not had film develop for over 4.5 hours with beneficial results that outweighed the negative results, that doesn't mean it's not possible. I process almost all my work with stand development however, and about a third of it stands for 3 hours.</p>

[riton_mhilli]

<p>I'm also too much interested in high dilutions of rodinal 1+200 1+300 and Hc110 1+100 and developing time of most used films for the purpose.Is there any fellow who can help Thanks</p>

[jay_de_fehr]

<p>Stand development should not entail any more guess work than any other agitation regimen. In fact, since stand development represents an absolute, even more so than continuous agitation does, where rotation speed can be a variable, stand development is exempt from variations in agitation technique. And since development times are typically much longer than those for other agitation regimens, timing is more precise for a given error. In other words, a timing error of 15 seconds is a greater error for a Total Development Time of 5 minutes, 30 seconds than it is for a TDT of 90 minutes, where it is practically insignificant. In lab work, limiting the number of variables and reducing margins of error produces more repeatable results and better data. This was born out in my testing of GSD-10, and the curves generated in that testing were smoother and more consistent than curves generated from testing with my Jobo ATL3. The only variable more difficult to control with the long development times typical of stand development is temperature. The tempering bath of my Jobo maintains temps to +/- 1/4F, but I've read of many ingenious solutions to the temperature regulation problem that don't rely on such expensive equipment.<br>

I learned a lot about stand development in my testing of GSD-10, and I learned to love simple formulae. A single agent developer is more predictable and far simpler to optimize than a superadditive one, which might in part, account for the long term popularity of Rodinal. Since Rodinal is the popular favorite of many stand development practitioners, it was my choice for a control developer in my testing, and I learned quite a lot about it in the process. The first thing I learned is that Rodinal diluted to 1:100 or greater exhausts fairly quickly, but since Rodinal produces virtually no fog, there is little measurable difference in negatives developed for 1 hour or for three hours. I also learned that working at very high dilutions to exhaustion can be unpredictable because in real images, as opposed to sensitometer-exposed test neg's, the total amount of silver halide to be reduced varies from one negative to the next, so a scheme worked out for developing images of building interiors might produce high key portraits that are thin and flat. Also, there is more than one way for a developer to stop working, but in all cases an equilibreum is reached by which the reduction of silver halide ceases. The classic example is when the reducing potential of the developer is exceded by the silver halide to be reduced, or exhaustion. Another mechanism for equalibreum is neutralization, in which the products of development reduce pH to levels beyond which the developer is active. A third mechanism for equalibreum is solution temperature. Reducing agents vary in their working temperature ranges, and once their lower threshold is reached, they stop working. The first two mechanisms, exhaustion and neutralization come in two flavors: local and global, or general. Local exhaustion or neutralization are responsible for the compensating/adjacency effects that produce all those coveted characteristics stand development is meant to encourage, such as increased film speed/highlight moderation, increased acutance, etc. The low temperature threshold is strictly global, and extending development time by reducing temperature has no other benefit but extending development time.<br>

I learned about the benefits of neutralization as opposed to exhaustion when formulating the original Hypercat, which was based on a superadditive combination of catechol, ascorbic acid and phenidone. Superadditive developers regenerate during development, unlike single agent developers, so exhaustion is difficult to predict or control, so I chose a poorly buffered alkali: sodium hydroxide. Catechol requires a high pH environment, so when the poorly buffered alkali is neutralized by developer products, the SA effect is defeated, and local neutralization acts much like local exhaustion, and produces the same effects.<br>

Rodinal is a poorly buffered, single agent developer, so the effects of exhaustion and neutralization combine, making dilution critical. Developing to exhaustion is not very predictable or repeatable. I don't trust published times for stand development, and recommend testing to find development times. If you test with in-camera exposures, or actual images, expose for zone 8-9, or favor high key subjects as a safety factor. If you guess your normal development time should be around one hour, bracket your tests like f stops: 35:00, 45:00, 56:00, 80:00, 110:00. If you want to find the equalibreum point, extend development time intervals (160:00, 220:00, etc.) until highlight density no longer increases. It won't be possible to pinpoint the equalibreum without a densitometer, but you should be able to identify the last interval at which highlight density increases, and call that the equalibreum point. The object is to identify the dilution at which highlight density is around zone 11 at the equalibreum point, and then limit development times to just short of that point. In this way one can take advantage of local equalibrea without sacrificing repeatability/predictability. Nothing good happens beyond the equalibreum point.<br>

My $.02 on the limits of stand development.</p>

<p> </p>

[profhlynnjones]

<p>You are right John, but Bill said that there was still some activity up to about 45 to 50 degrees. I never disagreed with him.</p>

<p>Also to you and Kari, he didn't often use this technique, only for his special purposes.</p>

<p>Lynn </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Thanks, Jay. You've elucidated what I've only observed through trial and error, while guessing at the reasons for why it seemed to work.</p>

[jay_de_fehr]

<p>Lex,</p>

<p>I admire your fortitude; I didn't think anyone reads my too-long posts. I need to work on brevity, summary and clarity.</p>

[jay_de_fehr]

<p>Lex,</p>

<p>I admire your fortitude; I didn't think anyone reads my too-long posts. I need to work on brevity, summary and clarity.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p><em>"Rodinal is a poorly buffered, single agent developer, so the effects of exhaustion and neutralization combine, making dilution critical. Developing to exhaustion is not very predictable or repeatable."</em></p>

<p>Jay, I don't agree with this. I just developed a dozen rolls of various 120 films using the same Rodinal dilutions and times I always use. The results were perfect. For me, it is both predictable and repeatable.</p>

<p><em> "I don't trust published times for stand development, and recommend testing to find development times."</em></p>

<p>I don't either, that's why I encourage testing for your system (light meter, shutter speeds, camera conditions, etc.). However, the time of development becomes less important than the dilution you use. I also wouldn't say Rodinal is poorly buffered, considering it exhausts in a fairly linear, and predictable fashion.</p>

 

[jay_de_fehr]

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>I meant in no way to criticize your development technique. Because your results are predictable and repeatable doesn't necessarily mean we disagree. More likely, it means your development dilutions are within the equalibreum point of your developer, and that's just the point of testing.<br>

On your second point, I'm afraid we disagree. Rodinal uses sodium hydroxide, or one of its cousins as its alkali, and it is not buffered, poorly or otherwise. This is not a bad thing, as I tried to describe above, it's just one characteristic, and an intentional one, of the developer.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Jay, Don't worry, I didn't take it as criticism. I was just making sure I explained what my experience has been. I didn't say Rodinal was buffered (or poorly buffered), just to be clear--because I was not<g>.</p>