Stand Development with DD-X was a disappointment

[cliveh]

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.

This is also temperature dependent on how much the emulsion swells.

 

[chuckroast]

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.

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.

 

[250swb]

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.

 

[chuckroast]

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.

Self-evidently false. I'd suggest that those of us taking the effort to understand when/if/how this works, are spending far more time on development details than folks just "following the rules". It's a guess, but I've probably invested upwards of 600-700 hours trying out variations on this theme over the past 3+ years. That's in addition to doing "normal" agitation type development. So, "lazy" we ain't.

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.

After well over a hundred or so (semi)stand and EMA development sessions, I have never seen it fail to produce an image at all. I've certainly found lots of creative ways to introduce bromide drag (I found the "right" way to do semistand and EMA by first finding all the wrong ways), but in no circumstances did it fail to produce any image whatsoever.

 

[Molte]

I 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.

 

[Milpool]

As far as I know there is no sound rule about it. It’s all over the map and whether or not it helps anything would depend on the emulsion, film size and a variety of other processing variables.

Adams recommended pre-washing using that reasoning about the emulsion being prepared/primed to accept the developer. I suspect quite a few people who do it were influenced by Adams. His argument doesn’t make sense to me, however he had plenty of direct contact with the folks at Kodak etc. so I can’t discount it.

Kodak rather vaguely says pre-washing the film might improve process uniformity, at least concerning sheet film.

If one is shuffling sheets of film in a tray, pre-washing is intended to prevent the sheets from sticking together when they are immersed in the developer.

Ron Mowrey’s opinion was that it couldn’t hurt and might help particularly if a tank is slow to fill. I don’t agree with the logic, but again we’re talking about an emulsion engineer so it would be silly to simply dismiss what he said.

Ilford tech sheets say don’t do it, but then if you ask them, you get a different answer.

Etc.

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.

 

[Milpool]

The vinegar could definitely stop the developer from working if there was enough of it to have lowered the pH of the DDX working solution far enough.

In any case it’s good you found the DDX concentrate to be in working order.

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.

 

[MattKing]

Ilford tech sheets say don’t do it

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.

 

[chuckroast]

Anyway, I am sorry to have created a stir.

You shouldn't be sorry. The whole topic of standing development has caused shouting festivals here and elsewhere long before your post (even though this wasn't your central concern). You didn't do anything naughty.

When people bring up something new, different, controversial, or otherwise "transgressive" (oh how I loathe that word), you typically get several communities of responses:

It's new to me, different than what I know, I'm curious, let me try it.

It's new to me, different than what I know, I don't care.

It's new to me, different than what I know, but "everyone knows" it won't work.

It's new to me, different than what I know, what I know is right, which means you must be wrong, so I won't bother trying it.

It's new to me, different than what I know, I can't get it to work, you're a bozo.

But my favorite - a real Internet howler is:

It's new to me, different than what I know, but I cannot refute it. So I demand you show me primary sources and citations, affirmed by peer review across 6 continents, 15 research establishments, and proven with quantum mechanical equations because I must, must, must not let you win this veeeeeeeeeeery important debate that I just manufactured.

Me? I'm the curious sort.

 

[cliveh]

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

Yes, people can be lazy with stand/semi-stand. You shouldn't be, though. In fact, you shouldn't be lazy even when developing conventionally. As far as judgement goes, I ran zone tests with semi-stand over 20 years ago. I have development times derived from the characteristic curves, including EI's for many subject luminance ranges.

 

[Milpool]

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.

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Ilford doesn't recommend a pre-rinse, but I do give it when I use some developers. I've not had any issues when I do.

 

[pentaxuser]

Molte based on what you have said in #81 which is helpful, can I ask what your best guest on the probable cause or causes for the totally blank film is?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

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.

Companies and corporations do not always speak with a singular voice.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

Yes, I kind of agree, but for some situations, like when I really want to emphasise texture through edge effects for example, semi-stand is handy. For general purpose work, it's the conventional way for me. I don't semi-stand for everything.

 

[JerseyDoug]

<snip> Yes, Doug, I think that was the point in that particular Fred Picker newsletter. I will have to find that newsletter.

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.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

Having experimented, without success, with other developers since XTOL became scarce , in these parts of the world, I am having more consistent results using good old Ilford ID11 with constant agitation as my go to developer.
I doubt that using mumbo jumbo developer recipes and staring at the film tank will improve the photograph .
I ask; what master of black and white photography used and succeeded using anything more than the basics such as D76/ID11 , HC110 etc?
Please consider this..

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rotary/rotary.

TB

 

[MattKing]

What I find strange is the tech sheets say “A pre-rinse is not recommended as it can lead to uneven processing”,

Some of them do, while others only say that in relation to the Rotary agitation advice.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

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

Yes. It works very well!

 

[Augustus Caesar]

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

Yes, I round off. You can buy a very accurate scale from Amazon or other retailers for $20.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

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).

Where is this?

 

[Augustus Caesar]

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.

The FX-21 formula is designed to do exactly that, as is FX-14 (Acutol, not currently available). It does this not solely using exhaustion, but by what Crawley called "chemical means".

 

[Augustus Caesar]

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

View attachment 369402

You left out the sodium hydroxide! 5.0 g

 

[Augustus Caesar]

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.

I doubt that. Prewetting the film should allow the developer to penetrate the emulsion faster. I pre-wet, and have done so for years.