- Joined
- Oct 9, 2010
- Messages
- 7,485
- Format
- 35mm RF
This is also temperature dependent on how much the emulsion swells.
People assume that, but I found it was the opposite.
The conventional wisdom is that if you prewash the film development will be slower to start than normal because it will take time for the developer to “displace” the water. I found instead that development is faster following a prewash. Of course this may or may not always be the case.
People assume that, but I found it was the opposite.
The conventional wisdom is that if you prewash the film development will be slower to start than normal because it will take time for the developer to “displace” the water. I found instead that development is faster following a prewash. Of course this may or may not always be the case.
Clearly there can be a lot of theory behind stand development, but the reasons most people use it are not for highlight control, or mid-tone control, but for the lack of control, as in it takes away any judgement of precise development times, or having to do stuff like agitate once a minute, and it makes for an easy lazy life.
The idea that the film could come out completely blank the first time for the OP when using DD-X and then come out ok second time with DD-X doesn't that suggest this whole thread has been based on user error? And in a wider context when stand development goes wrong, guess what, it's never user error but the developer or film combo that's blamed. Stand development is a fantastic process if you want to applaud yourself if it goes right, but you are also covered if it goes wrong because that will be the film soaking up water and getting fat or the developer failing and causing bromide drag. It's not a sound basis on which to spend time or money.
The original argument I'd heard made for prewetting was to swell the emulsion to be better prepared to accept the developer evenly. Honestly, this feels like folk tales to me and/or something necessary with old emulsions. I've never seen any difference doing the prewet or not.
However, I am loath to change any part of my process without good reason. So, since I've prewet from the time of the dinosaurs, I continue to do it out of habit. I do prewet at very nearly 20C in every case as my darkroom and chemistry naturally hover at that temp.
could not have used the fixer first. Twice I dumped 500ml of prewash liquid. I only have one container of diluted fixer-for-use (1000ml) and I am still using it. Also, stop, fix, wash and flo are located in a different area of the shop.
We are several people working in the shop and we have also been doing Cyanotype developed in 60ml vinegar per 1000ml water. The only explanation that I can think of, is that we somehow inadvertently polluted the diluted developer with vinegar. This, I assume, would be like a stop bath and probably kill the diluted weak developer before it was poured into the tanks for developing?
Anyway, I am sorry to have created a stir. Apologies. The main point is that there is nothing wrong with (my) DD-X.
On a separate note, I would assume that a prewash 'opens up' the film for developer rather than closing up the film. After all, fixer gets to the emulsion after short and long development times .....
Yes, Doug, I think that was the point in that particular Fred Picker newsletter. I will have to find that newsletter.
Ilford tech sheets say don’t do it
Anyway, I am sorry to have created a stir.
Clearly there can be a lot of theory behind stand development, but the reasons most people use it are not for highlight control, or mid-tone control, but for the lack of control, as in it takes away any judgement of precise development times, or having to do stuff like agitate once a minute, and it makes for an easy lazy life.
The idea that the film could come out completely blank the first time for the OP when using DD-X and then come out ok second time with DD-X doesn't that suggest this whole thread has been based on user error? And in a wider context when stand development goes wrong, guess what, it's never user error but the developer or film combo that's blamed. Stand development is a fantastic process if you want to applaud yourself if it goes right, but you are also covered if it goes wrong because that will be the film soaking up water and getting fat or the developer failing and causing bromide drag. It's not a sound basis on which to spend time or money.
In most cases, they actually say "we do not recommend".
Which can mean two different things:
1) do not do it; or
2) we don't recommend it.
The latter can and is often used when the person sees no reason for it to be beneficial.
What I find strange is the tech sheets say “A pre-rinse is not recommended as it can lead to uneven processing”, which seems like a clear warning not to do it, but when I asked them about it the response I received was more like your second example. Anyhow, who knows.
If you are photographing a lithographic print that has very fine lines between black and white, stand development can be useful in sharpening edge effects. But for general purpose development of scenes it is a waste of time.
Knowing the I would have a long boring time at the clinic this afternoon I brought the third (last) binder of my Zone VI Newsletters and found an early reference to the idea in Issue 66 and a more detailed discussion in Issue 80. I had forgotten that the second half of the scheme was to take a second picture with one and a half stops less exposure and develop it Normal + 1-1/2. The second negative would have the same MPD (maximum printable density) as the first but more contrast.<snip> Yes, Doug, I think that was the point in that particular Fred Picker newsletter. I will have to find that newsletter.
What I find strange is the tech sheets say “A pre-rinse is not recommended as it can lead to uneven processing”,
Yes. It works very well!That’s an unbelievably precise formula! Is that really what you use?
That would cost a fortune. Also note there is an important difference between a number of digits and accuracy. For example, for not very much money you can have a scale that reads to hundredths of a gram, but it will likely only be accurate to something like +/- a few tenths of a gram.
Realistically you don't need anything more than one decimal place for photographic formulas.
Now, back to debating the merits of crap processes
Crawley's FX-21 is an excellent developer, but it does not replace stand, semi-stand. A side by side comparison will show this. One sheet developed in the Crawley formula and the other in Pyrocat-HD (1+1+250).
Controlling the highlights is not the primary point of stand, though it is a benefit as well. As you point out, there are other, easier ways to do this if that's all you want to do.
But the primary point of stand is to expand mid tone local contrast whilst doing said highlight protection. This is achieved by long immersion in developer. The highlight protection comes from not agitating much during that long standing time, as well as the higher dilution.
For those of you who do not possess a scale that can measure so precisely, there is this rounded formula:
View attachment 369402
the OP mentioned he prewashed the film for 5 minutes. Is it possible that the emulsion had swelled to the point that the actual developer did not get deep into the emulsion to do its work? That would explain why the film markings were also not developed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?