Rodinal stand development techniques

[giverin]

<p>Last month I had my first attempt at stand development with rodinal and APX 100. To be honest, I didn't really research it properly and I ended up using 1+100 for 50 minutes with no agitation at all. The negatives were not too bad but there was uneven developement at the top of the film (35mm).</p>

<p>I've just shot another roll of APX 100 and I want to try the technique again. I understand from posts here that proper stand development is 1+200 so I'm keen to give that a try. The question is.... how long to develop for and do I give it any agitation? I'm aware that when mixing up my rodinal, I should use 4ml or more to get an accurate mix. That will enable me to fill the tank to more than the 300ml I normally use, ensuring the the film is well and truly covered.</p>

<p>I use a condenser enlarger for my printing if thats of any help. So to recap.... how long and how much agitation.</p>

<p>Thanks. </p>

[christer_almqvist2]

<p>I used 2 ml Rodinal in 300 ml to develop HP5 for 75 mins. Initial agitation was about 30 secs, and I then inverted the tank once after half an hour or so. For me there is no advantage with stand processing... other than that you need not agitate.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>1:100 is fine for one hour, but you need to give it 5 minutes of agitation up front. It is required to get the highlights developed properly. For 1:200, you should be looking at about 2 to 2.5 hours of stand development after the initial 5 minutes.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I use 1-100 for an hour but I give it 1 full minute not 5 up front.. This is Neopan 400 shot at night under street lights F8-11 4-8 seconds.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jokerphotography/sets/72157623591523038/<br>

<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4039/4422383826_e38d7646c1_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="850" /></p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>Stand development is not that rocket science, and a few easy pointers get you in the right direction.</p>

<p>1) It's hard to have too much development, but easy to have too little. With rodinal find a "normal dev time" and start there. For every half dilution you use, multiply the time by two. Because the development works until exhaustion, it will stop (or slow) itself down at the right point.</p>

<p>2) A presoak goes a long way for the emulsion to be ready to absorb the developer. Some films work this step better than others. Older formulas (Foma) are softer than new ones (TMax), so the benefit varies.</p>

<p>3) Uneven development is easily cured by switching to semi-stand. Box speed, I usually stand for an hour and a 3 stop push I go for two (sometimes three) hours. I give it a quick shake every 30 mins. 35mm is usually more tolerant than 120.</p>

<p>Generally the more diluted yields finer grain. I've left film overnight at 1:300. The tonal compression can be amazing.</p>

 

[jay_de_fehr]

<p>I think it's important to agitate until the emulsion is saturated with solution, which is generally acknowledged to take about 20-30 seconds. I agitate for the first minute, just to be on the safe side. I don't think I'd see much evidence of development if I fixed my negs after 1 minute of agitation with the dilution I use for stand development (I use GSD-10, not Rodinal), but I wonder if I would see any after five minutes? That seems like a good way to ensure brilliant negatives, but I mostly use stand development for scenes of very high brightness ranges, so adding density to the highlights is not a strategy I would normally pursue with stand development, but it illustrates the versatility of stand development as a technique.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The uneven development you saw along one edge is the risk of stand development or any unconventional agitation technique. I saw similar uneven development with plastic tank/reel systems. My guess is the higher flanges and squarish reel guide sections contribute to the uneven development.</p>

<p>Switching to stainless reels eliminated most of the problem, altho' there may still be some uneven development along the very edges where the film contacts the reel guides.</p>

<p>You might want to avoid an extremely dilute solution with single reel tanks. A single reel 35mm stainless tank has very low capacity and there's a risk of failure with a 1:300 dilution. I've tried that a few times and got mixed results - sometimes good, sometimes not. A two-reel tank, filled to the top, even with a single roll, may be a better idea for very dilute solutions.</p>

<p>I usually use a 1:200 Rodinal solution for 2 hours. I agitate normally for the first 60 seconds then not again for two hours. I'll typically use a two-reel stainless tank/reel system filled, even for a single roll of film. Adding a pinch of borax seems to help minimize fog and grain (dilution seems to have little or no effect on grain with Rodinal, unlike developers like D-76 or ID-11). Mostly I use this for normally exposed Tri-X for long nighttime exposures. I rate the film normally but due to reciprocity failure results can vary depending on the length of exposure. Generally the results have been good with exposures up to 10 minutes, such as <a href="../photo/1748403"><strong>nighttime shots under a full moon</strong> </a> or streetlights.</p>

[jay_de_fehr]

<p>By way of example, the included image was made under severe lighting conditions- about 9 stops between the highlights and deepest shadows. To make matters worse, I was shooting handheld with a slow lens (Mamiya RB67, 90mm f3.8), and the only film I had on hand was ISO 100 (Arista EDU 100), so I pushed it up a stop, to EI 200, to keep shutter speeds manageable. This was a grab shot, and I had to work under the prevailing conditions and withing the limitations of my materials and equipment, so my only option was to try to develop optimally for the exposure conditions. I developed the film for an hour in my very old, tea-colored stock of GSD-10, diluted 1:10, for an hour, at 70F, agitating for the first minute, and then standing for the remainder. The scan is native, and not manipulated in any way. This negative will be fairly easy to print, I think, but I'm glad the highlights aren't more dense. </p><div></div>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Lex; thanks for bringing up my pet peeve of the film area to developer volume:</p>

<p>Re "You might want to avoid an extremely dilute solution with single reel tanks. A single reel 35mm stainless tank has very low capacity and there's a risk of failure with a 1:300 dilution. I've tried that a few times and got mixed results - sometimes good, sometimes not. A two-reel tank, filled to the top, even with a single roll, may be a better idea for very dilute solutions".</p>

<p>I often wonder if the one of the reasons folks get mixed results is due to this often not mentioned issue.</p>

<p>To all; Of course many times one might have the objective of purposely letting the brew/soup/developer exhaust with a scheme/receipe too.</p>

<p>What is funny is with sheet film one person in the ortho days might use a tray and the negative is horizontal; and another person used a sheet in a hanger in a vertical tank; and a stand scheme would vary alot more due to eddies, currents in the vertical case. In astro plates in the 1980's I messed around with some plates in both vertical and horizontal schemes.</p>

<p>In some 35mm stuff I have many times had sprocket hole blooming when little agitation is used. Here I have many differnent reels and tanks; even a reel one that holds just one 18 exposure (eighteen) of 35mm; ie an ancient 1/2 roll from the 1950's. With it the spacing is larger that a standard 36 exp stainless reel; not sure if it was made for old E2 processing were one added light whatever. One can get almost all of a 24exp roll on one; say 22 exp. It seems to have less edge and sprocket woes since the coils are far a part.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>This is the reason I use at least 600 ML of fluid for 35mm and 120 film. Also a pre-rinse in room temp water for 5 minutes and also I have the developer at room temp. No eddies.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"...a stand scheme would vary alot more due to eddies, currents in the vertical case..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's my theory as well, Kelly, but my knowledge of chemistry is lacking. I suspect that even with stand development there is some chemical interaction that produces at least some minute movement in the liquid. If the very dilute Rodinal did indeed become completely exhausted yet did not somehow circulate due to chemical interaction, it's likely the film would not develop well if at all.</p>

<p>I'm sure someone with a solid background in chemistry and physics could explain this, but it's beyond my expertise.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I got into the habbit of always using 500ml of solution with my two real tank even if I only did one roll. I may waste a bit of developer but it works very well.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I don't think using 5-6ml of Rodinal is wasting any. :-)</p>

[giverin]

<p>Thanks to everyone for their advice. I developed the roll this morning using 1+200 for 2 hours with a 1 minute agitation at the start. The negs look fine (to my unexperienced eye) with no sign of the uneven development I had before but I don't have a film scanner so I'll have to wait until I can print a few of them off later on this week before I know how successful it was. Thanks again.</p>

 

[larrydressler]

<p>Glad we could help.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>Petraio Prime: Your attitude contradicts the multitudes that perform this act every day. May I forever, waste my time.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Indeed, Peter. While we occasionally disagree on certain aspects of stand development I think we agree in spirit regarding the photographer's prerogative to choose his own methods to suit his individual aesthetics.</p>

<p>Tonight, I will hoist a beer in honor of William Mortensen, patron saint of technique-snubbers, ascetic monk-nose-tweakers, Group f/64 outcasts and all who embrace aesthetics and the actual creation of photographs over the memorization and regurgitation of dusty manuscripts.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>:)</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Hear Hear. To those of us who refuse to conform.</p>