Stand Development with DD-X was a disappointment

[Andrew O'Neill]

Where is this?

Where is what?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

You left out the sodium hydroxide! 5.0 g

I did. Thanks!

 

[Augustus Caesar]

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.

On the contrary, it promotes even development.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Where is what?

The comparison.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

The comparison.

I did it many years ago. Those negatives were incinerated in Japan along with many others that I culled before moving back to Canada. They were not of an artistic nature anyway (although I'm sure I binned many that were). I'm willing to give it another go, though. I've got all the ingredients. I remember mixing it up and being pissed off at how many chemicals needed Many of them I could not get. Luckily, I had a friend working in a research lab (he went on to develop Japanese Viagra LOL), who provided me with small quantities. After I retire, my wife and I are planning to live over there again for a while. I may be limited to what I can get my hands on again...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

...and it was with HP5 and FP4.

 

[250swb]

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.

I'm sorry but stand and semi-stand development are worlds apart. I often use semi stand development when I'm using particular developers, usually 510 Pyro, because of an intellectual understanding of how the developer works. Semi stand developing requires you to be there to agitate the tank, not go off and do something else for an hour or put the tank in the fridge overnight and hope it works. Forget the word stand and call it 'agitation with gaps longer than a minute development' and it makes for a clunky title but a clearer meaning.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm sorry but stand and semi-stand development are worlds apart. I often use semi stand development when I'm using particular developers, usually 510 Pyro, because of an intellectual understanding of how the developer works. Semi stand developing requires you to be there to agitate the tank, not go off and do something else for an hour or put the tank in the fridge overnight and hope it works. Forget the word stand and call it 'agitation with gaps longer than a minute development' and it makes for a clunky title but a clearer meaning.

No need to apologise. I am well aware of both stand and semi-stand and how they work. I've been using them both (mainly semi-stand) for over 20 years. In my tests, there was very little difference in the effects (mainly sharpness) between the two, however, full on stand distorted the characteristic curve too much for my liking. I also use 510-Pyro, but prefer Pyrocat-HD.

 

[snusmumriken]

I wish someone would show us characteristic curves for conventional, semi-stand and stand development. Also comparative images. Maybe in a new thread?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I wish someone would show us characteristic curves for conventional, semi-stand and stand development. Also comparative images. Maybe in a new thread?

Stand/semi-stand with Pyrocat-HD video. (I show curves at the 1:30 mark)

 

[Milpool]

I have some curves and data for these things but in my experience it doesn't help. For example I once posted some comparative curves for the perennial "Rodinal stand" on another forum when someone asked the same question you asked. It did not go well LOL.

It takes a lot of time and careful work to properly compare process results. In my experience most of the "tests" people do are useless.

I wish someone would show us characteristic curves for conventional, semi-stand and stand development. Also comparative images. Maybe in a new thread?

 

[John Wiegerink]

Andy,
That video was the one that convinced me that "Stand" was just not worth the time and effort over "semi-stand". Also, when I used Rodinal 1+100 with Acros it was "Semi-stand", one minute agitation and one more at 30 minutes for one hour. I guess I'm now a Semi-stand kinda guy. That's from getting older I guess cuz I can't stand very long before I have to sit down.

 

[chuckroast]

Andy,
That video was the one that convinced me that "Stand" was just not worth the time and effort over "semi-stand". Also, when I used Rodinal 1+100 with Acros it was "Semi-stand", one minute agitation and one more at 30 minutes for one hour. I guess I'm now a Semi-stand kinda guy. That's from getting older I guess cuz I can't stand very long before I have to sit down.

I found that true stand - no agitation after initial - was somewhat prone to bromide drag. Semistand - one initial, and one midpoint agitation - pretty much eliminated drag so long as I kept the film off the bottom of the tank and used minimal support to suspend it.

Stand/semi-stand with Pyrocat-HD video. (I show curves at the 1:30 mark)

Just for clarity, a question of terminology. How are you using the terms "stand" and "semistand"?

I've always understood stand to mean one initial agitation only, and semistand to be one initial agitation and one midpoint agitation. One initial agitation followed by multiple intervals of agitation and standing is known to me as "Extreme Minimal Agitation".

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I found that true stand - no agitation after initial - was somewhat prone to bromide drag. Semistand - one initial, and one midpoint agitation - pretty much eliminated drag so long as I kept the film off the bottom of the tank and used minimal support to suspend it.




Just for clarity, a question of terminology. How are you using the terms "stand" and "semistand"?

I've always understood stand to mean one initial agitation only, and semistand to be one initial agitation and one midpoint agitation. One initial agitation followed by multiple intervals of agitation and standing is known to me as "Extreme Minimal Agitation".

For me, stand is constant agitation for 30 sec at the start. Halfway through, I pull the film out of the tube, reinserting it upside down. Semi-stand for me is constant for 30sec at the start, then 5 sec a third and two thirds in... sometimes I do three agitation regimes. Usually just two. I have done only agitation at the start for stand, but that resulted in horrible bromide drag.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Andy,
That video was the one that convinced me that "Stand" was just not worth the time and effort over "semi-stand". Also, when I used Rodinal 1+100 with Acros it was "Semi-stand", one minute agitation and one more at 30 minutes for one hour. I guess I'm now a Semi-stand kinda guy. That's from getting older I guess cuz I can't stand very long before I have to sit down.

if I sit, I fall asleep. The beep from my timer every 30 seconds keeps me from complete La La Land!

 

[chuckroast]

For me, stand is constant agitation for 30 sec at the start. Halfway through, I pull the film out of the tube, reinserting it upside down. Semi-stand for me is constant for 30sec at the start, then 5 sec a third and two thirds in... sometimes I do three agitation regimes. Usually just two. I have done only agitation at the start for stand, but that resulted in horrible bromide drag.

Ah, ok, we're using the terms differently. Hence my confusion... Thanks.

 

[NB23]

On the contrary, it promotes even development.

Not true.

Film has this coating for even wetting.
Once it’s washed out, what happens is that you’re left with a basically a sponge. Developer has to take the place if water and this can happen a different rate depending on how it’s added to the tank, agitation… and unevenness at the breginning will drag itself all the way to the end.

 

[250swb]

For me, stand is constant agitation for 30 sec at the start. Halfway through, I pull the film out of the tube, reinserting it upside down. Semi-stand for me is constant for 30sec at the start, then 5 sec a third and two thirds in... sometimes I do three agitation regimes. Usually just two. I have done only agitation at the start for stand, but that resulted in horrible bromide drag.

I don't think semi-stand has to be a set regime at all. We know you can't do the Zone System on roll film (unless all the exposures are the same), but given a reliable base regime semi-stand at least allows for more or less agitation if the contrast range is variable on the roll and you want to bias it one way or another in development, or even if you look back on the roll and want to prioritise one exposure in particular. Admittedly if the development times are relatively short there is less leeway to do this, but leaving a longer or shorter interval in agitation towards the end of the time can extend dormant developer or refresh developer on the film to adjust the tonal range.

 

[chuckroast]

I don't think semi-stand has to be a set regime at all. We know you can't do the Zone System on roll film (unless all the exposures are the same), but given a reliable base regime semi-stand at least allows for more or less agitation if the contrast range is variable on the roll and you want to bias it one way or another in development, or even if you look back on the roll and want to prioritise one exposure in particular. Admittedly if the development times are relatively short there is less leeway to do this, but leaving a longer or shorter interval in agitation towards the end of the time can extend dormant developer or refresh developer on the film to adjust the tonal range.

It's just a terminology thing. Steve Sherman and Sandy King suggested that one midpoint agitation be called "semistand" and multiple agitation-stand cycles be called "extreme minimal agitation", so that's what I've always used. EMA has no single prescribed agitation cycle.

 

[Molte]

I could not resist trying one more time with Delta films and DD-X. So I did some semi-stand and sat down and did some work while the film was being developed. At half-time I stood up and emptied out the diluted developer into a container and then poured the same diluted developer back into the tank, inverted a few times and then I sat down again for the second half of the development.

I developed one 120 Delta 100 with a 5-minute pre-soak (in de-mineralized) followed by DD-X 1+9 for 2 times 23 minutes for a total of 46 minutes. I photographed 6 images of a grey card and 6 images (exposed at ISO 100) on the sunny streets outside. If ISO is determined by zone I being app. 0.10 above B&F, then I got 50+, which is half of box speed. Zone IV is app 0.96, I should have done Zone VIII and IX instead of the street Photos. The negatives from the street look very, very contrasty. I may have overexposed, but if so, I did it very consistently.

Then I developed one 120 Delta 100 with a 5-minute pre-soak (in de-mineralized) water followed by DD-X 1+4 for 2 times 30 minutes for a total of one hour (!). I photographed 6 images of a grey card and 6 images (exposed at ISO 100) on the sunny streets outside. If ISO is determined by zone I being app. 0.10 above B&F, then I got 50+, which is app, half of box speed. Again, the negatives from the street look very, very contrasty, but not much more than the first film.

I really hope that I got all my notes correct ...........

Maybe I am too rusty for all this stuff; I still don’t understand how others are getting ISO 200 from ISO 100 films. When i started this thread, I thought i had gotten box speed+ with Rodinal 1:100, but I will have to revisit my data when I get back from traveling. Yesterday, I acquired a Sekonic spot-meter. This may also improve on future measurements.

I think somebody wrote something about a Kodak engineer who said that everything gets developed during the first 3 minutes and everything thereafter is all abut increasing the contrast. Maybe one day I should try using 10+10 minutes with DD-X 1+9 ....... without pre-soaking.

For now, I will go back to half of box speed and Barry Thornton's 2-bath. (A=6.5g Metol + 80g Sodium Sulfite; no borax and B=12g Borax - both in a 1000ml bottle)

James Kates wrote an interesting article on two-bath. It includes D LogE curves for his results with Tmax 400: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/twobath/

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thornton's 2-Bath is excellent.. I use it for P30.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Not true.

Film has this coating for even wetting.
Once it’s washed out, what happens is that you’re left with a basically a sponge. Developer has to take the place if water and this can happen a different rate depending on how it’s added to the tank, agitation… and unevenness at the breginning will drag itself all the way to the end.

Yes, true. The film is saturated with water after pre-wetting. I let it soak for at least 3 minutes. The tank (Paterson) is then emptied and allowed to drain thoroughly by sitting upside-down for a good minute. When the developer is poured in, it is immediately and uniformly absorbed and gets to work at all points, because there is no surface tension to cause gaps, bubbles, or voids. I used to have occasional air bells before I started using pre-wetting. Now, never.

 

[chuckroast]

Maybe I am too rusty for all this stuff; I still don’t understand how others are getting ISO 200 from ISO 100 films.

They're not really. Either they are placing their zones differently than usual or their meters are off a whole stop or their shutters are. This all comes down to what you claim sufficient shadow detail is and how accurate your equipment is.

For example, if my shutter is a full stop slow (not uncommon on older leaf shutters at higher speeds), it means I'll have to set it to the next higher speed to get correct exposure. That will seem like the "ASA" of the film is higher. But in reality, I've just found out what I need to use with my equipment - the personal exposure index - not the native ASA of the film.

I think somebody wrote something about a Kodak engineer who said that everything gets developed during the first 3 minutes and everything thereafter is all abut increasing the contrast. Maybe one day I should try using 10+10 minutes with DD-X 1+9 ....... without pre-soaking.

Yes, I quoted that from a private correspondence or something I saw - it might have been in a Kachel article. That's why semistand/EMA needs the dilution and agitations tuned carefully. When you leave the developer in solution a long time, you have to make sure the developer isn't overly strong and/or you're not agitating too long/too often or you'll blow the contrast (gamma) up too high. I don't know anything about DDX but I do know that superadditive developers seems to have a bigger problem with excessive contrast when doing (semi)stand/EMA. That's why I stick to Pyrocat and D-23 for this

 

[snusmumriken]

I could not resist trying one more time with Delta films and DD-X. So I did some semi-stand and sat down and did some work while the film was being developed. At half-time I stood up and emptied out the diluted developer into a container and then poured the same diluted developer back into the tank, inverted a few times and then I sat down again for the second half of the development.

I developed one 120 Delta 100 with a 5-minute pre-soak (in de-mineralized) followed by DD-X 1+9 for 2 times 23 minutes for a total of 46 minutes. I photographed 6 images of a grey card and 6 images (exposed at ISO 100) on the sunny streets outside. If ISO is determined by zone I being app. 0.10 above B&F, then I got 50+, which is half of box speed. Zone IV is app 0.96, I should have done Zone VIII and IX instead of the street Photos. The negatives from the street look very, very contrasty. I may have overexposed, but if so, I did it very consistently.

Then I developed one 120 Delta 100 with a 5-minute pre-soak (in de-mineralized) water followed by DD-X 1+4 for 2 times 30 minutes for a total of one hour (!). I photographed 6 images of a grey card and 6 images (exposed at ISO 100) on the sunny streets outside. If ISO is determined by zone I being app. 0.10 above B&F, then I got 50+, which is app, half of box speed. Again, the negatives from the street look very, very contrasty, but not much more than the first film.

I really hope that I got all my notes correct ...........

Maybe I am too rusty for all this stuff; I still don’t understand how others are getting ISO 200 from ISO 100 films. When i started this thread, I thought i had gotten box speed+ with Rodinal 1:100, but I will have to revisit my data when I get back from traveling. Yesterday, I acquired a Sekonic spot-meter. This may also improve on future measurements.

I think somebody wrote something about a Kodak engineer who said that everything gets developed during the first 3 minutes and everything thereafter is all abut increasing the contrast. Maybe one day I should try using 10+10 minutes with DD-X 1+9 ....... without pre-soaking.

For now, I will go back to half of box speed and Barry Thornton's 2-bath. (A=6.5g Metol + 80g Sodium Sulfite; no borax and B=12g Borax - both in a 1000ml bottle)

James Kates wrote an interesting article on two-bath. It includes D LogE curves for his results with Tmax 400: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/twobath/

At least you are getting images now. That’s a big improvement over your thread-starter.

 

[Milpool]

Hi Molte,

I can't remember if I mentioned this earlier, but DD-X at a 1+9 dilution is not very dilute - it's just half as strong as the recommended dilution, so by analogy think D-76 (ID-11) at 1+1 versus 1+0. Typically when people resort to stand/semi-stand/extreme minimal whatever, developers are relatively highly diluted. With normal agitation DD-X 1+9 will probably develop Delta 100 normally in roughly 12 minutes (and including a pre-wash will accelerate this further), so if you're going to give much longer development times (even with no agitation) you need a significantly more dilute DD-X. It's also worth noting DD-X might not be the best candidate for that type of processing. The "theory" (usually incorrect but that's another matter) of long development times with reduced agitation is typically for developers that begin with a non-solvent formulation (low concentrations of developing agent(s) and sulfite, relatively high alkalinity with weak buffering).

On the subject of speeds, when people refer to alleged speed increases/decreases they should really refer to them as Exposure Indexes. Nobody is getting anywhere near ISO 200 from an ISO 100 film.

Regarding two-solution/divided development, below are some curves. Some of it is for Stoeckler's two-bath (which was one of the first of these) but the D-23 version(s) including Thornton are only trivially different. Some general results:

-Full emulsion speed (ISO or "box") is reached
-pH and concentration of second bath is largely irrelevant in the context of macro-sensitometry, borax being as effective as metaborate. Carbonate can increase emulsion speed very slightly but also increases fog
-Since the first bath is a fully functioning developer, development time in the first bath is how you control contrast
-Divided development tends to straighten the characteristic curve, and shortens the toe/shoulder

I could not resist trying one more time with Delta films and DD-X. So I did some semi-stand and sat down and did some work while the film was being developed. At half-time I stood up and emptied out the diluted developer into a container and then poured the same diluted developer back into the tank, inverted a few times and then I sat down again for the second half of the development.

I developed one 120 Delta 100 with a 5-minute pre-soak (in de-mineralized) followed by DD-X 1+9 for 2 times 23 minutes for a total of 46 minutes. I photographed 6 images of a grey card and 6 images (exposed at ISO 100) on the sunny streets outside. If ISO is determined by zone I being app. 0.10 above B&F, then I got 50+, which is half of box speed. Zone IV is app 0.96, I should have done Zone VIII and IX instead of the street Photos. The negatives from the street look very, very contrasty. I may have overexposed, but if so, I did it very consistently.

Then I developed one 120 Delta 100 with a 5-minute pre-soak (in de-mineralized) water followed by DD-X 1+4 for 2 times 30 minutes for a total of one hour (!). I photographed 6 images of a grey card and 6 images (exposed at ISO 100) on the sunny streets outside. If ISO is determined by zone I being app. 0.10 above B&F, then I got 50+, which is app, half of box speed. Again, the negatives from the street look very, very contrasty, but not much more than the first film.

I really hope that I got all my notes correct ...........

Maybe I am too rusty for all this stuff; I still don’t understand how others are getting ISO 200 from ISO 100 films. When i started this thread, I thought i had gotten box speed+ with Rodinal 1:100, but I will have to revisit my data when I get back from traveling. Yesterday, I acquired a Sekonic spot-meter. This may also improve on future measurements.

I think somebody wrote something about a Kodak engineer who said that everything gets developed during the first 3 minutes and everything thereafter is all abut increasing the contrast. Maybe one day I should try using 10+10 minutes with DD-X 1+9 ....... without pre-soaking.

For now, I will go back to half of box speed and Barry Thornton's 2-bath. (A=6.5g Metol + 80g Sodium Sulfite; no borax and B=12g Borax - both in a 1000ml bottle)

James Kates wrote an interesting article on two-bath. It includes D LogE curves for his results with Tmax 400: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/twobath/