Alternative developers for stand development

Film Photography & Darkroom discussion

Moderator: Keith Tapscott.

pirateoversixty
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Peoria, Illinois

Alternative developers for stand development

Post by pirateoversixty » Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:14 am

Most advocates of this procedure recommend PC-tea, and other do-it-yourself formulae.
Does anybody else use developers such as D-76/ID11, highly dilute Acufine, etc.
I know Rodinal is also highly popular, but I have never had consistant success with it, so tend to avoid it.
TIA
Jim


Jay DeFehr
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:40 pm

Standing developers

Post by Jay DeFehr » Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:21 pm

Jim,

D-76 et al don't work well for stand development, which is why so many who use this technique prefer other developers, some of which must be made from bulk chemicals. I know only one developer that consistently produces perfect, defect-free negs with stand development, but it is a DIY formula. If you're interested, let me know.

Jay

Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Alternative developers for stand development

Post by Ornello » Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:57 am

pirateoversixty wrote:Most advocates of this procedure recommend PC-tea, and other do-it-yourself formulae.
Does anybody else use developers such as D-76/ID11, highly dilute Acufine, etc.
I know Rodinal is also highly popular, but I have never had consistant success with it, so tend to avoid it.
TIA
Jim
Stand development does not produce ideal results with roll films, no matter what developer is used. It works well only with flat-lying sheets of film. The technique is very old and is basically obsolete.

Jay DeFehr
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:40 pm

standing around

Post by Jay DeFehr » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:44 pm

Ornello is wrong, sort of.

The technique works best with sheet film in vertical tubes and an appropriate developer. Flat plates are no longer produced (I don't think), so that technique is obsolete, and the developer that works best for stand development produces more grain with rollfilm than some might like, except with very fine grained films, like TMX, Acros, etc..

We can argue all day about the definition of ideal, but I speak from experience when I say that stand development is capable of excellent results with modern rollfilms. Ornello has read somewhere that the technique is obsolete, and believes it. There are always many paths to any destination, and stand development is only one of them, but it can be useful.

Jay

Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: standing around

Post by Ornello » Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:12 pm

Jay DeFehr wrote:Ornello is wrong, sort of.

The technique works best with sheet film in vertical tubes and an appropriate developer. Flat plates are no longer produced (I don't think), so that technique is obsolete, and the developer that works best for stand development produces more grain with rollfilm than some might like, except with very fine grained films, like TMX, Acros, etc..

We can argue all day about the definition of ideal, but I speak from experience when I say that stand development is capable of excellent results with modern rollfilms. Ornello has read somewhere that the technique is obsolete, and believes it. There are always many paths to any destination, and stand development is only one of them, but it can be useful.

Jay
'Flat-lying' means lying flat along the horizon, not vertically as in a reel.

Some development by-products are denser than devleopers, and thus they 'fall' inside the developer right along the surface of the film, at the film/developer interface. This causes streaking, because these by-products suppress development. When the film is lying flat (horizontally, as is easliy done with sheet film) the streaking problem does not occur.

Jay DeFehr
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:40 pm

stand development

Post by Jay DeFehr » Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:10 pm

Orny,

I know what horizontal means, and I know what causes bromide drag (that's the term you're looking for) in some developers when agiation is not adequate. That's not what we're talking about here. We're discussing developers that don't lead to bromide drag, and stand development in the vertical (that's up and down) orientation, which is the modern method, and which produces the most consistent results with reduced agitation techniques. The information you're posting is covered in every basic manual of photographic development, but few of those manuals get into more advanced material, such as reduced agitation techniques, and the developers best suited to them. Walking you through every elementary development concept is getting really boring; buy a book. I recommend Henry, Mees, James and Haist.

Jay

pirateoversixty
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Peoria, Illinois

Post by pirateoversixty » Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:04 pm

Thanks to you all for prompt responses. Jay, have found your answers to other peoples queries to always be quite straight - ahead, no bs. Would appreciate any guidance you can give. I do shoot medium format and and 35mm, Neopan 400 in both. (LF just doesn't suit my temperament). If your elixer would help me get the best from this film, I would appreciate it.
TIA
Jim

Jay DeFehr
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:40 pm

Stand developer

Post by Jay DeFehr » Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:55 pm

Hi Jim.

This is a formula that has given consistently good results with stand development, i.e., no streaks, mottling, etc. You might, however, find it too grainy for fast, 35mm films. I've used it with sheet films, and slow, fine-grained roll films.

GSD-1


water 750ml

sodium sulfite 5g

sodium carbonate 7.5g

glycin 1g

potassium bromide 1% 1ml

water to 1 liter

Agitate for 1 minute, and then let stand for remainder of development. Development times for the films I've used are in the 45-60min range, @ 68F.

If you like this developer, and want to use it often, a 10X concentrated stock solution in distilled water can be made and diluted 1:10 with water to make a working solution.

Good luck, and let me know how it works for you, if you decide to try it.

Jay

Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: stand development

Post by Ornello » Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:46 am

Jay DeFehr wrote:Orny,

I know what horizontal means, and I know what causes bromide drag (that's the term you're looking for) in some developers when agiation is not adequate. That's not what we're talking about here. We're discussing developers that don't lead to bromide drag, and stand development in the vertical (that's up and down) orientation, which is the modern method, and which produces the most consistent results with reduced agitation techniques. The information you're posting is covered in every basic manual of photographic development, but few of those manuals get into more advanced material, such as reduced agitation techniques, and the developers best suited to them. Walking you through every elementary development concept is getting really boring; buy a book. I recommend Henry, Mees, James and Haist.

Jay
All developers will produce streaking if not agitated properly. The problem is the bromide itself (released by the developer). It will usually deilute or acidify the developer, causing less development wherever it falls.

Jay DeFehr
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:40 pm

Wrong again

Post by Jay DeFehr » Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:22 pm

Ornello,

Is that the best you can do?
All developers will produce streaking if not agitated properly
In the case of GSD-1, proper agitation consists of 1 minute initial agitation.
It will usually deilute or acidify the developer, causing less development wherever it falls.
Here you're just showing your ignorance. How does bromide dilute a developer solution? It doesn't, and can't. You'd better get yourself a high school chemistry textbook before you move on to advanced photo chemistry. You're wasting all of our time, and making a fool of yourself.

Jay

Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Wrong again

Post by Ornello » Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:06 pm

Jay DeFehr wrote:Ornello,

Is that the best you can do?
All developers will produce streaking if not agitated properly
In the case of GSD-1, proper agitation consists of 1 minute initial agitation.
It will usually deilute or acidify the developer, causing less development wherever it falls.
Here you're just showing your ignorance. How does bromide dilute a developer solution? It doesn't, and can't. You'd better get yourself a high school chemistry textbook before you move on to advanced photo chemistry. You're wasting all of our time, and making a fool of yourself.

Jay
The surface where the film meets the developer is disturbed by the action of the developer upon the film, which produces by-products during development. These development by-products must be carried away from the surface, otherwise they cause unevenness and streaking.

None of this is in the least contoversial.

So-called "stand development" was possible in the days of glass plates, because these plates could be kept level and flat in the developer; thus the by-poducts would remain near where they formed. In other words, gravity would not affect them because they were on a level surface.

There is no advantage whatsoever to stand development to begin with. It was practical with glass plates, but it offers nothing of interest to roll-film users.

Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello » Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:00 pm

pirateoversixty wrote:Thanks to you all for prompt responses. Jay, have found your answers to other peoples queries to always be quite straight - ahead, no bs. Would appreciate any guidance you can give. I do shoot medium format and and 35mm, Neopan 400 in both. (LF just doesn't suit my temperament). If your elixer would help me get the best from this film, I would appreciate it.
TIA
Jim
Well, I don't have any idea why you brought up stand development. Did you hear about that somewhere? It is not ideal for roll films.

I love Neopan 400. I use Acutol and FX-39 on it.
Last edited by Ornello on Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

pirateoversixty
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Peoria, Illinois

Post by pirateoversixty » Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:03 pm

Ornello:

Perhaps you should expand your web searches. This is an oft brought up topic on APUG.

Jay:

Thankyou for the formula. I will give it consideration, but if you don't think it is the best combo, oh well. Right now I have a good supply of Neopan 400 on hand and limited funds to pull in some new supplies. Just bought samples of some Euro-papers to try, and shot the budget for film.
thanx again.

Ornello dux:

Generally do Neopan in Acufine diluted. Diafine sux with this film.
JIM

Jay DeFehr
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:40 pm

Post by Jay DeFehr » Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:15 pm

Hi Jim.

I don't know how this developer will work with Neopan 400, or how you'd like it. I don't like grain, myself, so I use other developers with fast 35mm films, but if you use Rodinal, and like its look with fast 35mm films, you'll probably like GSD-1 better. GSD-1 is similar to Rodinal, in that they're both single-agent developers, used in dilute solutions, but GSD-1 works at considerably lower pH than Rodinal does, and produces finer grain, higher acutance, and defect-free negs with stand development. I understand budgetary considerations, and the developers you have on hand are perfectly capable of excellent results with standard processing. Good luck.

Jay

Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello » Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:31 am

Jay DeFehr wrote:Hi Jim.

I don't know how this developer will work with Neopan 400, or how you'd like it. I don't like grain, myself, so I use other developers with fast 35mm films, but if you use Rodinal, and like its look with fast 35mm films, you'll probably like GSD-1 better. GSD-1 is similar to Rodinal, in that they're both single-agent developers, used in dilute solutions, but GSD-1 works at considerably lower pH than Rodinal does, and produces finer grain, higher acutance, and defect-free negs with stand development. I understand budgetary considerations, and the developers you have on hand are perfectly capable of excellent results with standard processing. Good luck.

Jay
Reducing the ph of any developer will reduce its rate of development, and consequently reduce the rate of agitation needed somewhat, but agitation of some sort is definitely needed with roll film in tanks. There is no getting around the need for agitation, period. You cannot dispense with agitation entirely.

Post Reply