Topic: Pushing and (semi) stand dev - how does this work then?

[Ordinal]

I've taken to shooting HP5+ at 1600 in these dim winter evenings, which I've not done seriously before (just once or twice) but I am quite happy with the results I have so far developing in LC29 1+19 for 14 minutes, fairly conventionally i.e. 30s agitation at the start then four inversions every minute after hat. There are two things which bother me though: (a) it is of course very grainy in the shadows, and there are lots of shadows given that the dynamic range is compressed, and (b) it will use up my developer pretty quickly if I mix new each time, and I understand re-using dev for pushing isn't a great idea.

So I was thinking of trying semi or full stand development. I've done this with LC29 at 1+100 for an hour before, agitating at the start and at 30 mins, and the results were pretty nice. But I don't know what to do with pushed film. I assume some change would be required... Longer? A higher concentration? Both? And would it be better to let it stand or agitate every now and then? Google is not helping me a lot here; the best recommendation I've seen is somebody who shot T-Max at 1600 and then semi-stood it for two hours in Rodinal 1+100, agitating at start, 30m and 60m.

I could buy some Rodinal I suppose but I have a lot of LC29 left at the moment.

[Ordinal]

Here's a pic by the way.


Oxford Circus papers by redspotted, on Flickr

Most of the others are a bit underexposed - I think the shop and street lights were confusing the meter on the BX20 I was using. Next time I'm going to try either shooting at 1/60 as standard, or meter +1 stop.

[Photo_Utopia]

Stand developing isn't an exact science, what you do is experiment and see how it works for you.
The theory is longer development times with highly diluted developer allow highlights to be held back as the developer exhausts leaving the shadows to 'catch up' in density. There are drawbacks as during development of the grains bromide is released and holds back development of certain areas particularly boundaries between extreme highlights and shadows causing halo effects.
Sometimes these bromide areas can give streaks or developer anomalies at sprocket holes etc.

It really is a matter of giving it a try, some developers work better than others for stand, two popular ones being HC110 and Rodinal the latter has a unique property of giving less grain with higher dilution, where standard developers like D76 give more at higher dilution...

Just experiment, your results so far look very good!

[mickld]

This guy is pushing Tri-x to 1600 with Rodnal, semi-stand. Semi in the sense that there is agitation, just a lot less than normal.

http://davidshootsfilm.com/2012/02/22/the-joy-of-using-rodinal-to-push-tri-x/

[Ezzie]

I've done semistand with Caffenol. In which case adding potassium bromide to the mix helps in avoiding uneven development due to bromide being released from the emulsion. When it works it's brilliant. If the developer has any compensating effects, these are enhanced, Caffenol being in the same league as Rodinal, meaning very slightly compensating. But I have had a fair amount of misses too. Keeping temperatures stable over maybe 50+ minutes can be an ordeal. And the dilution needs to be absolutely spot on.

This is Delta 400 @ EI800, Caffenol-C-L semistand, 60min @ 68F/20C. Agitation scheme: 12 initial inversions, then one at the top of minutes 2, 4, 8, 16 and 32. Water stop, regular fix. I've boosted contrast a little bit, but there is still plenty detail in the shadows, and yet blacks are black.

[Urban Hafner]

Will I have you here Eirik, let's get a bit off topic. I think it was you who pre-mixed the separate parts of Caffenol, right? Have you since gone back to mixing it for each roll and if so what are the disadvantages or pre-mixed the coffee, soda, and vitamin c?

[Ezzie]

Hello Urban

Yes indeed, I premixed the solutions. I have since dispensed with it, that is for all but the Sodium Carbonate which keeps for ever. The ascorbic acid and coffee don't keep well enough. The former oxidises, and loses it's potency within 6-7 weeks, the latter develops mold in matter of 2-3 weeks. I just didn't develop enough films to keep up.

The obvious advantage was it took a matter of minutes to get going. Now it takes an hour or two to get the solution down to 20C for developing.

[Francois]

I'm thinking that it might be a good idea for Caffenol to store pre-measured dry ingredients in empty film cans and just add water when you're ready to process...

[Urban Hafner]

Ah. Thanks Eirik. So I guess I'll have to hurry

Francois, the problem is the washing soda. It heats up the water considerably when you dissolve it. That makes a bad combination with stand-development.

[Magnus]

Don't know if I'm missing something, but I just start with colder water for my caffenol due to the sodium heat-up. 17 degrees Celsius is a good starting point for the recipe i use (16g/l sodium). When the Sodium is dissolved the temp is ~20 C.

[Urban Hafner]

You're not missing anything Magnus. I just find it easier not to deal with the exact temperatures. Personally I just adjust the development time depending on the temperatur that the developer happens to have.

[Ordinal]

Okay, experimentation update: I did a couple of rolls with 120mins and 1+100 LC29 (more accurately, 5ml LC29 + 495ml water, but who's counting?) The first I gently inverted for a minute to begin with and then 4 times at both 30mins and 60mins - semi-stand I suppose - the second two, I just inverted gently for a minute at the start and then left for the remainder of the time. This was in a tank with just the one roll of 35mm in it.

The stand ones where I did nothing past the first minute definitely came out the best. This is a demo picture that I took to test my adjustments to the rangefinder on my Zorki, taken indoors at f2 and 1/60:


What's on my shelf? by redspotted, on Flickr

In general there's far less grain than with the old 14 minute dev I did with 1+19 LC29. Others have large patches of shadow which are also much less grainy. Here's one from the actual street, before, with bad focus but it seems to have come out okay:


roll195_19 by redspotted, on Flickr

I'll definitely be doing this from now on - I can usually waste a couple of hours, I'm not rushing for some journalistic deadline here.