[Pioneer]

Relatively new at developing but gave this a shot today. Would appreciate thoughts and comments. Any experience with this technique?



Pentax 645Nii w/45mm f2.8 lens hood, no filtering - 1/125 seconds @ f9.5
Overcast morning - sun to far right front - Handheld
Arista Edu Ultra 400 120 - not expired
5 min Pre-wash - Agitate one minute - Stand developed for 59 minutes in Rodinal 1+100 - Tapwater Rinse 3 times - Arista Premium Fixer for 5 minutes - Ilford Wash - hang dry
Scanned @ 1200 dpi w/Epson 500 using Epson Scanning Software
Photoshop Elements 9 - cropped to borders, sharpened on auto, no other PP.
Have not tried printing yet.

[tuco]

Stand development is a good technique for developing different films at the same time. But you'd probably not want to mix in T-max films with cubic grain films due to the different fixing times. When using water for a stop bath, I wash, by fill and drain, for 2 minutes. That is the procedure for many staining developers that don't want an acid stop bath.

I have experienced, as well as many other have noted too, with 120 roll film you can experience uneven development with stand and that agitation profile. Some frames will be okay but others not. Every advocate that says I've been doing it wrong has never done 120 roll or sheet film so far.

[Pioneer]

Interesting. Thanks Tuco, I will give this a try with some 35mm as well, probably some Rollei Pan 25. My first go was with this 120 just because I had it lying around and it was ready to develop. On this roll I didn't note any uneven development but I did notice that the contrast seemed to be lower than I would have expected. I am just kind of happy that it turned out at all.

So far I have pretty much stuck to standard developing techniques so this was a different direction for me. I think the Arista Edu Ultra is actually a Foma product so I don't believe it is the same type of emulsion as Ilford Delta 100 or T-Max 100, but I guess I could be wrong.

Developing yourself is reasonably inexpensive but this technique is the least expensive I've tried so far. Based on my calculations the cost of the Adinol (Rodinal) and the Arista Premium Fixer used to develop this roll came to 76 cents. Replacement cost for that roll of film is $2.89 so total cost for those medium format shots was $3.65 for 16 frames. Not too bad really.

Once I start I tend to shoot a lot of 120 black & white so I might try a slightly different agitation technique with it next time. Are there any suggestions? I am thinking of agitating for 20 seconds every 20 minutes. It probably doesn't matter as long there is some occasional mixing to avoid uneven developing.

So much film, so little time.

[tuco]

...
I did notice that the contrast seemed to be lower than I would have expected. I am just kind of happy that it turned out at all.
...

If you want a more dense negative, agitate it a little more. Try adding some inversions at the 1/2 hour mark or a more aggressive agitation at the beginning. You really won't see the unevenness until you scan it.

I use only one-shot developers. Far as I'm concerned, it is the only way to go. Having developers that need time compensation after X-number of rolls or weaken with age just puts more variables into the the development process when you could otherwise do it without them using long life, one-shot developers.

Edit: I just looked at my calculation for PMK Pyro I use often. It came out to $0.28 USD of developer cost per roll of film based on the cost at the time I worked it out. The price has risen slightly since then though. And it has an advertised 10-year shelf life.

---

Last edited by tuco; 12-05-2011 at 01:41 PM.

[Pioneer]

I scanned all of these at 1200 dpi on my little Epson V500 and did not see any problem with uneven development. That scanner is not the best but it was inexpensive and it generally works ok when I want to share my analog stuff on-line.

As for the density on this roll, I'll wait and see how the prints turn out. They usually turn out better than the scans do anyway.

BTW, thanks for your suggestion. I'll try some agitation at the 30 minute mark next time and see how that works out. I have some 35mm B&W to develop. I'll run that through this afternoon and see what it looks like.

[rbryant]

Great work, Pioneer. I tried Rodinal semi-stand on Ilford Delta 400, and it was a disaster. Some folks recommend NOT using Rodinal on fast film, and I can see why. But your shot is not nearly as grainy as mine. Have you tried any of the Efke or Adox CHS in Rodinal doing stand development?

[Pioneer]

Have you tried any of the Efke or Adox CHS in Rodinal doing stand development?

Interesting that you should ask. I recently picked up som Adox CMS 20 that I thought I would try and I have some Rollei Pan 25 that is in the LX right now that I want to run. I'll let you know when I get this done. This entire thing got started when I shot some Efke 25 last week and then sent it out to a lab because I didn't have the chemicals I thought I needed.

BTW - The Ilford Pan F Plus 50 and Legacy Pro 100 (not Arista) I just finished went on the light table and it looks decent. I'll try to get some of it scanned and posted tomorrow.

[Pioneer]

Here are a couple Ilford Pan F Plus 50 negs that were stand developed for 60 minutes in 1+100 Rodinal. I agitated for the first minute and then did 5 inversions at the 30 minute mark.

[ChrisPlatt]

I understand the appeal of stand development, but given the spectacular failures often experienced
(presumably by beginners) I have never been interested enough to take a chance on trying it.

With regard to results what is the benefit of stand development over conventional?
In other words, in what way will my negatives look better?

TIA,
Chris

[tuco]

I understand the appeal of stand development, but given the spectacular failures often experienced
(presumably by beginners) I have never been interested enough to take a chance on trying it.

With regard to results what is the benefit of stand development over conventional?
In other words, in what way will my negatives look better?

TIA,
Chris

It is development to completion. And at a high dilution with stand, Rodinal becomes a compensating developer which helps tame highlights with usually good separation. Staining and tanning developers are also compensating developers but by a different means.

100ACR, Rodinal 1+100 Stand

[tuco]

Here are a couple Ilford Pan F Plus 50 negs that were stand developed for 60 minutes in 1+100 Rodinal. I agitated for the first minute and then did 5 inversions at the 30 minute mark.

Did the added inversions result in more dense negatives you wanted?

[Pioneer]

Did the added inversions result in more dense negatives you wanted?

I believe so but I won't really know until I try printing the negatives. They turned out pretty good on scan but the proof will be in the print.

Gorgeous shot of the Pontiac by the way. My Mom drove one just like it when I was young. Well...maybe not quite that shiny

[tuco]

I believe so but I won't really know until I try printing the negatives. They turned out pretty good on scan but the proof will be in the print.

Gorgeous shot of the Pontiac by the way. My Mom drove one just like it when I was young. Well...maybe not quite that shiny

I can say a more vigorous agitation will definitely do a number on it. While experimenting trying to resolve my uneven development, I departed from the typical easy, slow, twisting agitation once and tried using a "regular" agitation profile with stand. Man, the negatives were really cooked.

[Pioneer]

That is very timely Tuco. I have two rolls of 35mm in a tank and ready to go, I am just waiting for my roll of 120 to finish in the other tank. (Can't walk and chew gum or I get confused ) Too late for the 120, I repeated the slow agitation profile, but I can certainly play with the other two rolls. I'll know by this evening how it works. I'll post something when I get them scanned.

[stevebrot]

It is development to completion. And at a high dilution with stand, Rodinal becomes a compensating developer which helps tame highlights with usually good separation. Staining and tanning developers are also compensating developers but by a different means.

100ACR, Rodinal 1+100 Stand

What he said...

I don't use Rodinal, but have had good luck using HC-110 at high dilutions semi-stand using Arista.EDU Ultra. The film has a tendency to build highlight density extremely quickly using standard developers at normal dilutions and is difficult to manage as a result. Semi-stand allows it to achieve a real nice tonal range with no appreciable loss of speed or increase of grain. (Example from full-range negative HERE.)

The main issue with using stand or semi-stand development is the risk of developer depletion before developing to completion. (Say that 5 times without stumbling.) One must be sure of adequate volume to support the amount of film present. With 35mm, this usually means using a two-roll tank filled to process a single roll.


Steve