Stand development - Uneven

Ok chaps,

it is not my week. Tried stand development. FP4+ exposed at 125. Rodinal
1:150 for 1 hour, no agitation. Patterson tank and reals. 600ml dev (500ml
needed to cover spool). Could be just a fluke as I normally don't have
problems but:

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/gallery/Oddments

All bar the butterfly. Seemed to effect the end of the film worst as some
other shots seem fine:

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/gallery/july-2007

I think is plain bad luck.

Interestingly, on the darker part of the house a clear 'unsharp mask' effect
can be seen in the sky next to the building.

Thoughts - again!

I'll look out a stainless steel tank and spools I think just to see what
happens!

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Peter Chant wrote:
Ok chaps,

it is not my week. Tried stand development. FP4+ exposed at 125. Rodinal
1:150 for 1 hour, no agitation. Patterson tank and reals. 600ml dev (500ml
needed to cover spool). Could be just a fluke as I normally don't have
problems but:
[...]

Stand development with Rodinal 1:150 is appropriate for relatively
high-contrast scenes (or N-2,N-1).

I'll look out a stainless steel tank and spools I think just to see what
happens!

Yes, do that. Seriously, Patterson reels are just terrible.

On Jul 16, 8:12 am, Peter Chant wrote:
Ok chaps,

it is not my week. Tried stand development. FP4+ exposed at 125. Rodinal
1:150 for 1 hour, no agitation. Patterson tank and reals. 600ml dev (500ml
needed to cover spool). Could be just a fluke as I normally don't have
problems but:

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/gallery/Oddments

All bar the butterfly. Seemed to effect the end of the film worst as some
other shots seem fine:

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/gallery/july-2007

I think is plain bad luck.

Interestingly, on the darker part of the house a clear 'unsharp mask' effect
can be seen in the sky next to the building.

Thoughts - again!

I'll look out a stainless steel tank and spools I think just to see what
happens!

Pete

--http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Who told you not to agitate? Who told you to use Rodinal?

I use Paterson tanks and get EXCELLENT results.

Dumbass....

"Peter Chant" wrote in message
...
Ok chaps,

it is not my week. Tried stand development. FP4+ exposed
at 125. Rodinal
1:150 for 1 hour, no agitation. Patterson tank and reals.
600ml dev (500ml
needed to cover spool). Could be just a fluke as I
normally don't have
problems but:

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/gallery/Oddments

All bar the butterfly. Seemed to effect the end of the
film worst as some
other shots seem fine:

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/gallery/july-2007

I think is plain bad luck.

Interestingly, on the darker part of the house a clear
'unsharp mask' effect
can be seen in the sky next to the building.

Thoughts - again!

I'll look out a stainless steel tank and spools I think
just to see what
happens!

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

I've never been much of a fan of stand or stagnant
development. The idea is that the reaction products of
development are allowed to become concentrated in the
vicinity of the image. The idea is that this will restrain
the image development in proportion to its density. Also,
since there is a concentration of reaction products at the
border of a high and low density area the reaction products
tend to restrain development in the low density region just
adjacent to the high density one while relatively fresh
developer diffusing into the emulsion from the low density
region tends to accelerate development on the high density
side. The effect is to strongly exagerate "acutance" or the
conrast of the low to high density areas in a very narrow
line surrounding the border. The width of the line being
controlled mostly by the rate of diffusion in the emulsion.
This assumes the reaction products of the developer are
restrainers and not accelerators of development. This is
true for Rodinal but may not be for many Metol-Hydroquinone
developers.
The assumption that the reaction products of development
stay in a small area concentrated around the development
centers is not always true. If the film or plate is exactly
horizontal the effect can work pretty well. However, when
film is vertical, as it usually is in a tank, the slight
variation in density of the reaction products can cause some
movement of the heavier materials before they can diffuse
out into the body of the developer. This can cause
directional streaking below high density areas due to the
flow of restraining chemicals there. There is still some
flow when the film is flat but it tends to move radially
along the surface. There is also an effect known as
"port-holing" due to the relative concentration of reaction
products near the center of large high density areas. This
results in lower density there.
While stagnant development is supposed to result in high
acutance and a "compensating" effect, that is, the
production of a shoulder or lower contrast for highlights,
it often just produces very non-uniform negatives. While
many claim to get good negatives from this method and tout
it, I am very sceptacle.
In photographic areas requiring very uniform results,
like sensitometry and motion picture photography, heroic
efforts are made to insure uniform and vigorous agitation.
The two often don't go together: for instance, the sprocket
holes of 35mm film and the spaces between the film windings
on a reel can cause exagerated turbulance in their immediate
vicinity causing increased development there. This sort of
uneveness is quite common and is familiar to those who
process roll and 35mm in tanks. The answer is not to over
agitate. In general the recommendation to invert an
invertible tank about once a second for either 5 seconds
every 30 seconds (Kodak recommendation) or for 10 seconds
once a minute (Ilford recommendation) will result in
reasonably uniform development although one can still find
some non-uniformity. More uniform development requires
constant agitation using some special techniques such as the
spray systems used for motion picture development or brush
development, sometimes used for sensitometric work. Another
method of improving uniformity is the use of bursts of gas
bubbles in sheet film tanks.
All these efforts would not be necessary if stagnant
development was satisfactory in general applicaton. Its not.
Its a special technique essentially for a special effect.
IMO it should be avoided if one want's consistently good
negatives.

Rodinal is an OK developer which works for nearly any
film (and is also a good albeit expensive paper developer at
about 1:30). However, Rodinal is probably not the optimum
developer for any film due to its tendency toward
graininess. This is less so with some modern films like
T-Max, which have hard enough emulsions to resist the
tendency of developed grains to migrate and clump, a result
of high pH in the developer. Also, grain is not so important
in large-format negatives. Where the grain can be tollerated
Rodinal is a convenient all-purpose developer with good tone
rendition.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

UC wrote:

Who told you not to agitate? Who told you to use Rodinal?

I use Paterson tanks and get EXCELLENT results.

Hah! That's from a guy who hasn't taken a picture in thirty-five years
and when he did, it had uneven development.

Richard Knoppow wrote:

I've never been much of a fan of stand or stagnant
development.

With respect, Sir Richard, have you tried it? Can you show anything you
have done with stand development that was unacceptable?

On 7/24/2007 5:08 PM jjs spake thus:br
Richard Knoppow wrote:

I've never been much of a fan of stand or stagnant
development.

With respect, Sir Richard, have you tried it? Can you show anything you
have done with stand development that was unacceptable?

Well, even if Richard never personally tried stand development, I'd
trust what he has to say on the subject simply based on his encyclopedic
knowledge of the subject and familiarity with tons of source material.

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 7/24/2007 5:08 PM jjs spake thus:br
Richard Knoppow wrote:

I've never been much of a fan of stand or stagnant development.

With respect, Sir Richard, have you tried it? Can you show anything
you have done with stand development that was unacceptable?

Well, even if Richard never personally tried stand development, I'd
trust what he has to say on the subject simply based on his encyclopedic
knowledge of the subject and familiarity with tons of source material.

Richard knows I'm a serious fan of his. Your little appeal is pathetic.

My post was intended to bring out just the post you just wrote. I rather
doubt Sir Richard would write about something he has not tried often.
Your posit is full of ****. An appeal to authority, ("even if Richard
.... tried it") is utter bull****.

The PROOF is in practice.

I use stand development when I want N-1 with Agfa 100 B&W. Woe be the
day I run out of it. Seriously. Maybe then my world will collapse, but I
stand by it. It works very, very well.

Tech: two rolls of 120 Agfa 100 in a two-roll tank, stainless steel
reels in a stainless Nikkor tank. Rodinal 1:200 at whatever room
temperature for 60 minutes (40 works, too). No streaks. No problems.
I'll look for some examples and put 'em up if you are in dire need of
reality.

On 7/24/2007 5:33 PM jjs spake thus:br
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 7/24/2007 5:08 PM jjs spake thus:br
Richard Knoppow wrote:

I've never been much of a fan of stand or stagnant development.

With respect, Sir Richard, have you tried it? Can you show anything
you have done with stand development that was unacceptable?

Well, even if Richard never personally tried stand development, I'd
trust what he has to say on the subject simply based on his encyclopedic
knowledge of the subject and familiarity with tons of source material.

Richard knows I'm a serious fan of his. Your little appeal is pathetic.

My post was intended to bring out just the post you just wrote. I rather
doubt Sir Richard would write about something he has not tried often.
Your posit is full of ****. An appeal to authority, ("even if Richard
... tried it") is utter bull****.

The PROOF is in practice.

I use stand development when I want N-1 with Agfa 100 B&W. Woe be the
day I run out of it. Seriously. Maybe then my world will collapse, but I
stand by it. It works very, very well.

Tech: two rolls of 120 Agfa 100 in a two-roll tank, stainless steel
reels in a stainless Nikkor tank. Rodinal 1:200 at whatever room
temperature for 60 minutes (40 works, too). No streaks. No problems.
I'll look for some examples and put 'em up if you are in dire need of
reality.

Well, **** you too, JJS.

Just because it worked for you (and I'll take your word for that)
doesn't mean that there are snares and pitfalls there for the unwary.

On Jul 16, 9:43 am, jj stop.right.there.net wrote:
Peter Chant wrote:
Ok chaps,

it is not my week. Tried stand development. FP4+ exposed at 125. Rodinal
1:150 for 1 hour, no agitation. Patterson tank and reals. 600ml dev (500ml
needed to cover spool). Could be just a fluke as I normally don't have
problems but:
[...]

Stand development with Rodinal 1:150 is appropriate for relatively
high-contrast scenes (or N-2,N-1).

I'll look out a stainless steel tank and spools I think just to see what
happens!

Yes, do that. Seriously, Patterson reels are just terrible.


It's 'Paterson', dumbass, and thay are wonderful.