Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
1+1+250
EI 250
Agitation constant first minute. 5 sec every 20 min. Total time usually an hour.
I use BTZS tubes filled to the brim with developer.
Stand Development with DD-X was a disappointment
-
A
- Thread starter Molte
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Canon 28mm f/3.5 LTM plus finder in case
- Started by Steve Goldstein
-
Want to Buy Durst Printo / or any Table Top Processor
- Started by juniejun
-
Want to Buy LF/WTB: Ilex No. 5 Shutter
- Started by Jurgen Estanislao
-
Want to Buy WTB Nikon F3 HP
- Started by Joe Jesus
-
For Sale Roll of Seal MT5 Dry Mount Tissue
- Started by Beevo
Forum statistics
1+1+250
EI 250
Agitation constant first minute. 5 sec every 20 min. Total time usually an hour.
I use BTZS tubes filled to the brim with developer.
I really dont know why you dont have even edge marks on your negatives with DDX, but the only answer I have for that is, your DDX was dead for some reason. Or you have put fixer first? A big maybe.
OTOH, I have done numerous semi stand developing with Rodinal at 1+100, meaning 1 min full agitation at the beginning and then 1 flip at 30 mins mark, as described on the bottle of Rodinal.
Results were always good, no bromide drag or anything. Negatives come nicely developed. I have even tested once, putting a EI1600 film with EI400 into the same tank, both films were developed nicely as the chemicals work until exhaustion.
OTOH, I have done numerous semi stand developing with Rodinal at 1+100, meaning 1 min full agitation at the beginning and then 1 flip at 30 mins mark, as described on the bottle of Rodinal.
Results were always good, no bromide drag or anything. Negatives come nicely developed. I have even tested once, putting a EI1600 film with EI400 into the same tank, both films were developed nicely as the chemicals work until exhaustion.
The only developer I have used for stand/semi-stand is Rodinal at 1+100 for 60 minutes. I didn't care for it with HP5+ and got some bromide drag, but it worked excellent with the first version of Fuji Acros. I haven't tried it with Across II. I should say that I haven't used it at all since I switched to Pyrocat-HDC along with Xtol-R(XT-3-R). It works for some folks and I do wonder sometimes if the folks that badmouth stand or semi-stand have actually ever tried it. Or are they just singing along with the choir???
-
- NB23
- Deleted
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
Yes, HP5 can be tricky with stand/semi-stand. With practice, it's doable. I just wish those bad mouthers would follow the old saying, if you have nothing good to say then...
By the way, I know what Xtol-R is, but what is XT-3-R?
Yes, HP5 can be tricky with stand/semi-stand. With practice, it's doable. I just wish those bad mouthers would follow the old saying, if you have nothing good to say then...
By the way, I know what Xtol-R is, but what is XT-3-R?
XT-3 is Adox version of XTOL, so I believe XT-3-R is XTOL-R in Adox language
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
Thank you.
I used this quiestionable technique many years ago, following the instructions I read from multiple practitioners (and let me point out that I'm no novice - I have been developing my own film since 1972) and I got lots of ruined/compromised negatives. Bromide drift almost always ruined negs.
When I started working with 8x10 film, I tested the technique some more, and exposed some sheets of film, photographing a flatly lit (but textured) grey wall, did the semi-stand thing in a tray and the results showed me what I suspected I'd see: horribly uneven development, streaks and marks on the film. It was completely useless.
So please don't make the assumption that those of us who find the technique unsuitable are simply not putting in the effort to get it right.
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
Just to be clear, did you do the semi-stand test in a tray, with the sheet film lying flat?
A yet so many people are able to get it right - from 35mm to 8x10. It's about technique, not the process itself. Yes, the process is touchy and has to be done 'just right', but you are calling something "quiestionable" [sic] that not only has many happy modern practitioners, but one that goes back over a century AND was common practice by camera store labs in the early/mid-20th century.
No one who does this seriously - certainly not me - thinks it's the only, or best way to do things for all subjects, it's just another tool in the box.
So, how is it that people like @Andrew O'Neill, myself and dozens of others are able to get very good results? I would gently suggest exactly that you've not yet put the effort in to make it work for you. And that's fine, it IS really touchy and there are many, many ways to get it wrong. For reference, it took me almost a year of regular testing to find a clean way to make high-dilution, low agitation work consistently.
So, I can certainly understand not putting in the required effort (and I am not being critical toward those who don't want to bother). I was just fascinated as to what might be possible and - for me - it was worth the slog. The only reason for my initial response here was the blanket "it doesn't work, it's garbage" sentiment you expressed. This always turns out to be a view held by people who gave up on fully sussing out the process.
At the same time, I don't have to jump off a bridge to know it's a bad idea.
There must be a reason that no film manufacturer has ever recommended stand development, they have people with far greater photo chemistry knowledge than just about anyone outside the industry.
Yes, HP5 can be tricky with stand/semi-stand. With practice, it's doable. I just wish those bad mouthers would follow the old saying, if you have nothing good to say then...
By the way, I know what Xtol-R is, but what is XT-3-R?
Funny, the few times I've tried it, it's been in 35mm and 120, and had no problems at all - I mean beyond the fact that I do not love HP5+, but that's another story.
Following my own advice here, I won't really know how I like HP5+ until/unless I put in the time to wring out how it best works. My current sample size is too small to draw any real conclusions. And that was my only point above. The people dismissing these techniques invariably have never really learned how to do them right.
P.S. I do enjoy your videos, but that might be due to confirmation bias
Let us put this bad argument to rest once and for all. Manufacturers (of all kinds) specify things for the average, high volume use to maximize sales and minimize exposure to getting sued.
Chevy never, ever recommended boring out their small block 327, blueprinting it, changing the carbs and headers to make it a horsepower monster, but as I recall, some crazy automotive semistand hackers did just that.
Chip manufacturers never recommended so overclocking CPUs, they required liquid cooling to keep from frying (well, at least not until recently, anyway). But somehow, those gamer semistand hackers did just that.
Things like (semi)stand, EMA, SLIMT, divided development, Zone N+- adjustments, BTZS, ad infinitum, ad nauseum ALL exist to try and optimize that last little bit that makes a great image. No, if you were shooting Plus-X 8x10 portraits in a studio with controlled lighting back in the day, you didn't need any of that stuff, and THAT is what Kodak's recommendations were for - the controlled, typical pro user.
If no one ever "broke the rules" and departed from manufacturing recommendations, human progress would come to a standstill
I still would love to drive a car with one of those tweaked up 327s ...
Good point, well made.
Yes I thought so as well but the plain fact is that I and many more like yourself have been on Photrio long enough to know that on some subjects discussions go nowhere and achieve nothing. There is little or no hope of ever reaching any kind of consensus on any aspect of certain subjects. Stand development in all or indeed any of its guises probably tops the league of such subjects
What does anyone new learn from raising such subjects? Probably nothing except not to bother doing so again or worse learns not to bother with this forum at all
I do sometimes wonder what our real retention rate is of newcomers. By real retention I mean how many do we turn into regular participating members
pentaxuser
The point wasn't to reach consensus. The point was to refute wild claims in the form of "X doesn't work because I can't make it work" when we have existence proofs to the contrary - many, in fact. I, for one, don't care how people work if they're getting results that delight them. Just because someone's cup of tea isn't mine doesn't mean it's garbage.
I can't drive a golf ball over 300 yards off a tee, so that means neither can anyone in the PGA ...
Perhaps there there should be a sub-forum for certain proscribed Subjects On Which No Agreement Is Ever Found.
Subjects On Which No Agreement Can Be Found would be interesting if it involved matters of aesthetics, subjective judgment, opinion, and so forth. That is, discussions of taste, preference, or style. A really fun one is "What makes something a work of art?" Much hilarity would ensue.
But, what we see in threads like this are people taking very firm "it doesn't work" positions when they've never done sufficient homework and in the face of abundant contrary evidence by other practitioners. That kind of disagreement is irrational. You can't explore a viewpoint that steadfastly refuses to acknowledge reality.
Notice that those of us making use of low agitation, high dilution, long development are quick to point out that it IS quirky and does require care to master. I would never recommend it for beginners, and I don't think you have to know how to do this to get great results - there are many paths there. I just object to the flat declaration that it doesn't work at all, which is demonstrably false.
Yes.
I don’t know about others here but I’ve done the work, not that I would ever use stand development to process my film. It was an interesting exercise nonetheless.
However that is not the point at all. OP, who has probably disappeared by now, was complaining that he got zero development from DD-X, which has nothing to do with the fact he used stand development.
However that is not the point at all. OP, who has probably disappeared by now, was complaining that he got zero development from DD-X, which has nothing to do with the fact he used stand development.
MattKing
Moderator
Posted from the land that gave us Monty Python and their wonderful "Ministry of Silly Walks".
I cannot speak to 8x10 but attempting to do this with 4x5 sheet film in trays did not work well - it definitely trended toward bromide drag.
I found that I got good, repeatable results by hanging the film horizontally in a 1/2 gal Kodak rubber tank, using Kodak #6 pinch hangers. No drag, no streaking. The working hypothesis is that the minimal contact of the hangers with the film all but eliminates places for the developer to get trapped and raising the film off the bottom of the tank allows gravity to pull away development byproducts.
While it's probably possible to do this with the large 3 1/2 gallon tanks designed for 8x10, I suspect this is why most people using that- and larger films use tubes. I think Steve Sherman has a video of how he makes his own tubes.
Posted from the land that gave us Monty Python and their wonderful "Ministry of Silly Walks".
I came here for an argument. No you didn't.
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
From my own experience, trays do not work well. My rule of thumb is if rest periods are longer than five minutes, the film should be oriented vertically.
Theres a photography channel named Figital Revolution that does stand developing with DDX at 1:9 for 45 minutes, here's his video where he outlines what he does for it:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |