Stand Development with DD-X was a disappointment

[Molte]

I started this thread and Yes, I was sitting when I was doing Stand Development. I had some lunch and surfed a bit while waiting for all the timers in my shop.

Thank you, Milpool. You are exactly right. This thread was primarily about DD-X not developing.

Someone asked if I perhaps had mistakenly fixed the film first and then developed it. This would not have been possible for a number of reasons, the primary one being that I would have been without fixer, if I had started by pouring it out. I was doing five small 500ml tanks serially, starting one every 15 minutes with each their own timer. Two of them were Delta 100 and Delta 3200, respectively. After the wash, they were both totally blank. Even if I would not have exposed them, I would still expect to be able to read Ilford’s delta impressions at the edges of the 120 roll film. There was nothing.

This morning, in my sunny garden, I exposed a roll of 120 Foma 100. It is the cheapest film in my freezer. I exposed it as 50 and developed it for 10 minutes at 20C in DD-X 1+4, just to make sure there would be something on the film if there was anything. The negatives are overly punchy, needing a grade 1, if I ever were to make pictures of tulip tree flowers.

So it is not the DD-X that was the problem. That is good!

Could it be the 5 minute pre-wash in Copenhagen tap water? That sounds unlikely. It worked fine with the other non-Delta films. Did I forget the DD-X and just develop in water? No, because I distinctly remember using the same pitcher for the 1+9 mix as I used today. Did I do 1+90? No, it was 900+100ml – I am sure.

Should I, tomorrow morning, expose a Delta film and repeat today’s folly? I am tempted …. but maybe it is just one of those things. Life goes on.

As regards Stand Development, in the future I will do this in secret and refrain from reporting more about this here. Maybe one day, when I have conquered uneven development and sorted out the pros and cons, I will write another thread. I was surprised at the tone of some of the responses here. Niall Ferguson may be right.

 

[chuckroast]

<SNIP>

As regards Stand Development, in the future I will do this in secret and refrain from reporting more about this here. Maybe one day, when I have conquered uneven development and sorted out the pros and cons, I will write another thread. I was surprised at the tone of some of the responses here. Niall Ferguson may be right.

Please don't do this. A number of us waded through the dark waters of learning to do low agitation development and there is no reason for you to have to do the same. We can smooth the path. That's not to say you'll end up using it, but you can probably skip a lot of the pain and suffering phase by asking as you go.

My notes are here:


https://gitbucket.tundraware.com/tundra/Stand-Development

(And Niall Ferguson was right, or if not right, at least insightful to observe that harsh reaction often replaces thoughtful counterpoint.)

 

[Molte]

Yes, I have seen all of the Figital revolution youtube videos on Stand Development and I found inspiration there. I liked them, but I never understood his methods for determining exposure; sometimes shadows; sometimes highlights. I am old and 'expose for the shadows'. With Two-bath and Stand Development I was hoping not to have to worry about 'developing for the highlights'. I always use some kind of roll film with a number of different exposures, mostly 120 roll film. I have been quite happy with the Barry Thornton 2 bath, and will buy some more Sodium Sulphite.

I have a very basic book by Fred Picker and he says to determine the speed as Zone I above B&F. In his book, Bruce Barnbaum concurs, as do many others. I recently found one of Fred Picker's old newsletters where he was pondering if he should expose for the highlights instead. I put it away in the pile of things to read. Maybe I should find it, now that I am retired and have more time .....

 

[Molte]

Thank you ChuckRoast. I will read the Tundra files.

 

[grain elevator]

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:

18:33: "What speed do I need? In order to get it, I need to meter for the highlights"
Am I misunderstanding something or is this a facepalm situation?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

OP states he got no development. That’s not a stand vs no-stand issue. Something else went wrong in the process.

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.

 

[chuckroast]

I have a very basic book by Fred Picker and he says to determine the speed as Zone I above B&F. In his book, Bruce Barnbaum concurs, as do many others. I recently found one of Fred Picker's old newsletters where he was pondering if he should expose for the highlights instead. I put it away in the pile of things to read. Maybe I should find it, now that I am retired and have more time .....

You might find my trip down memory lane in this regard of interest ..

I have that same book. Picker was trying to summarize and simplify Zone System calibration and that's a pretty standard starting point. You find the "Personal ASA" that gives you 0.1 DU above FB+F, and the development time that keeps highlights from blowing out. You may have to go back and forth a few times to get that.

Zone System was born at a time when there was a lot of variability in the tools - shutters, thermometers, and light meters leap to mind. It was an attempt to systematically take all that into account to get consistent exposure and negative management. And it worked pretty well. So much so that we got derivatives like Beyond The Zone System - also useful in its time.

After doing tons of densitometer testing and careful metering and development I began to notice that while I was getting good repeatability in my pictures and I could manage short, normal, and long Subject Brightness Ranges, something was missing. This was especially true for long SBRs where I had to contract development to keep the highlights from completely blocking up. While the dynamic range was held on the negative, the middle tones were getting compressed and ending up kind of a lifeless gray. And it's the middle tones that are usually the ones that make an image really pop.

You'll see this in a lot of pictures in the woods shot against the background of a bright sky. The photographer dutifully exposes for the tree bark or other deep shadow, and then reduces development to keep the clouds looking fluffy. It works - both the shadows and clouds look fine - but the tree trunks look dull, muddy, and lifeless. I know, because I have personally done this about 23,000 times, it seems.

Then, I read David Kachel's remarkable monograph first on the primacy of local contrast, and then his other one on how film works and these blew me away. In my well intended Zone-y approach to keeping big dynamic range under control, I was clobbering the parts of the scene that needed local contrast the most.

And THAT is how I ended up on a 3+ year run down the rabbithole of semistand and EMA. I think of them as kind of icing on the Zone System cake. These techniques let me hold shadow detail, control highlights, and actually expand midtone contrast. But it's not easy, it's not for beginners, and there are many ways to screw it up - I know, I think I've found them all.

In fairness, Kachel doesn't much like (semi)stand and has his own way of dealing with this called SLIMT, which I have yet to try. There are also other ways to approach this problem like using divided development - again, I've not explored this deeply - I mean I've only been at this for 50 years

 

[pbromaghin]

I don't think it had anything to do with either stand development or DD-X. Absence of edge markings tells me he got mixed up and started with Fixer. Don't ask me how I know.

 

[chuckroast]

I don't think it had anything to do with either stand development or DD-X. Absence of edge markings tells me he got mixed up and started with Fixer. Don't ask me how I know.

That's the most likely explanation, yes.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

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 ...

The goal of stand development is control of highlights. I have repeatedly posted that the best way to do this is to use compensating developers, but with regular, gentle agitation. I recommend the Crawley FX-21 formula for anyone who is currently using stand development. The results will amaze you! I agitate once per minute, two inversions with rotation, with a nearly full tank. Times for films vary. I use 1+9 with T-Max 400 for 11 minutes. The formula follows:

Component	Amount in grammes​
Metol	2.1495​
Sodium Sulfite	30.0​
Hydroquinone	1.0995​
Phenidone	0.1245​
Sodium Metabisulfite	6.15​
Potassium Carbonate (monohydrated)	22.035​
Sodium Bicarbonate	3.9​
Sodium Citrate	3.9​
Potassium Iodide	0.0825​
Potassium Bromide	0.33​
Sodium Hydroxide	5.0​

 

[chuckroast]

The goal of stand development is control of highlights. I have repeatedly posted that the best way to do this is to use compensating developers, but with regular, gentle agitation. I recommend the Crawley FX-21 formula for anyone who is currently using stand development. The results will amaze you! I agitate once per minute, two inversions with rotation, with a nearly full tank. Times for films vary. I use 1+9 with T-Max 400 for 11 minutes. The formula follows:

Component	Amount in grammes​
Metol	2.1495​
Sodium Sulfite	30.0​
Hydroquinone	1.0995​
Phenidone	0.1245​
Sodium Metabisulfite	6.15​
Potassium Carbonate (monohydrated)	22.035​
Sodium Bicarbonate	3.9​
Sodium Citrate	3.9​
Potassium Iodide	0.0825​
Potassium Bromide	0.33​
Sodium Hydroxide	5.0​

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.

As I have noted in prior comments, I am increasingly moving toward EMA and away from true semistand, at least for subjects that start out with a decent SBR. At least with Pyrocat-HD, that amplification of the middle tone contrast gets to be a little much with semistand. (It's way over the top with superadditive developers.)

EMA provides somewhat shorter development times and increments mid tone contrast in subtle, but still very useful ways. It has the happy byproduct of also eliminating any concerns about bromide drag and its cousins.

For subjects with an overall low SBR, semistand still does the job nicely, though, really, all we're doing in that case is N+++ development (and other developer/agitation schemes would also suffice).

 

[Milpool]

I don’t think that would happen. If anything I expect pre-washing would have accelerated development (this is what I found when testing the effect of pre-washing on rate of development).

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.

 

[Milpool]

I have to agree that somehow the developer was never in the tank. I really can’t think of any other way to get absolutely no development.

I don't think it had anything to do with either stand development or DD-X. Absence of edge markings tells me he got mixed up and started with Fixer. Don't ask me how I know.

 

[snusmumriken]

The formula follows

That’s an unbelievably precise formula! Is that really what you use?

 

[pentaxuser]

Augustus, can I also ask how much the scales cost that will weigh to 4 decimal places if that is what is required or do you round up to the nearest 3 decimal places?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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).

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

For those of you who do not possess a scale that can measure so precisely, there is this rounded formula:
(Edit: I forgot Sodium Hydroxide 5g. Thank you, Caesar)

 

[Milpool]

Augustus, can I also ask how much the scales cost that will weigh to 4 decimal places if that is what is required or do you round up to the nearest 3 decimal places?

Thanks

pentaxuser

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

 

[runswithsizzers]

For those of you who do not possess a scale that can measure so precisely, there is this rounded formula:

View attachment 369402

Most of the rounded numbers indicate that a scale which is precise to 1/10th gram would be adequate. But the rounded weights shown for phenidone and metol indicate those need to be weighed with greater precision. Am I interpreting this correctly?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Most of the rounded numbers indicate that a scale which is precise to 1/10th gram would be adequate. But the rounded weights shown for phenidone and metol indicate those need to be weighed with greater precision. Am I interpreting this correctly?

Precision is always best for the sake of consistency, but I've used rounded up formulas for years without issue.

 

[chuckroast]

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).

Do you have such examples we might compare

 

[JerseyDoug]

<snip> I have a very basic book by Fred Picker and he says to determine the speed as Zone I above B&F. In his book, Bruce Barnbaum concurs, as do many others. I recently found one of Fred Picker's old newsletters where he was pondering if he should expose for the highlights instead. I put it away in the pile of things to read. Maybe I should find it, now that I am retired and have more time .....

Some time after he wrote The Zone VI Workshop Fred Picker reconsidered his recommendation for exposing individual frames of roll film. The traditional zone system assumes that the development time will be tailored to accommodate the number of zones captured by a particular exposure. That is not practical for a roll of film exposed in a variety of contrast situations. In one of the later issues of the Zone VI Newsletter Picker recommended placing the high subject values on Zone VIII, regardless of the subject contrast range, to maximize the exposure of the low subject values.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Do you have such examples we might compare

I might. A lot of test negs get binned. I'll have to take a look.

 

[cliveh]

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.

That is exactly why I never prewash film, as it must surely retard ingress of developer.

 

[Milpool]

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.

That is exactly why I never prewash film, as it must surely retard ingress of developer.