Topic: Stand developing in Rodinal

[Nigel]

Can anyone point me in the direction of an article with stand developing times / dilutions for Rodinal? I fancy giving it a go. I assume it's no agitation at all?

[choppert]

I've been standing in HC-110 recently (titter!) and recently found an Ansel Adams article which mentioned 15s agitation every three minutes.

So probably more squat than stand?

[Andrea.]

Well, I agitate at the beginning and then perhaps, possibly give it a little nudge halfway through - if I remember.
I use stand development mostly for when I have pushed the film - 400 to 1600 - so that it reduces contrast. For this I use 1;100 for about 2 hours ish. But its cold here. Very cold actually. For here anyway.
I have tried homeopathic dilutions of about 1:500 ish and left it for a few hours without agitation [sheet film] but the contrast was a bit low and could have used another day development time.

[ldhayden]

Here is a really good link over at RFF.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=927796&postcount=47

[Nigel]

Thanks everyone I'm going to give that a go. 1:100 seems to be the consensus of the articles I could find. The time seems to vary between 1 and 2 hours.

Andrea - I've also taken your advice and ordered some rolls of Era 100 to give that a try. ?1.60 /each on ebay not bad!

Nigel

[choppert]

Where do you get your Rodinal from folks?

[Nigel]

Hi Chops - I got my last bottle from AG.

http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/agfa-rodinal-500ml-758-p.asp

[Pete_R]

They also do a smaller size if you just want to try it out. I bought some but haven't got around to it.

http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/agfa-rodinal-125ml-862-p.asp

[sapata]

Where do you get your Rodinal from folks?

I got it from silverprint

[Pete_R]

I've just shoved some XP2 out of the Gakkenflex into 1:100. I'll let you know the results in about an hour.

Later...

Negs are looking good which considering the Gakkenflex has no exposure control and it was a difficult subject is promising. I'll scan some later when they're dry.

Later still...

I like it. Can't believe even XP2 would have coped with this in my normal dev.

Even later still...

But as I found out, XP2 probably would have coped with it very well thank you very much. See further down the thread.

[choppert]

Quick answer needed guys...

Do I need to add anything to development times because of the STANDING (none agitating factor) ?

Just by taking extra dilution into account I get a development time of 40m.  I've, in my mind, added 25% because of the lack of agitation.

IS THIS NEEDED?

I've got until 9:35 - that's less than ten minutes - if it doesn't need extra time.

Chops

[Pete_R]

Not sure what you're doing Chops but it seems an hour is sorta normal for no agitation. I would leave it. It's not going to hurt it to give it a bit more. More likely to if you pull it too quick.

[choppert]

HC-110 diluted 1:126

Four times weaker than "normal".

6m normal development at 20 degrees.

I've taken into account the developer being cooler than  20 degrees - about 12 degrees in fact.  Therefore 10.5m at normal diltution.

Giving a combined development of 42 minutes (4*10.5).

There must be a factor which needs taking into account because I'm not refreshing the developer over the film every minute?

[Pete_R]

Hmm...

If it comes out at 40 minutes for normal agitation then I would think you're probably into a couple of hours without. Not sure there is a magic calculation you can do to find out - more a suck it an see job.

The point with stand development is it's difficult to over develop because the dev becomes exhausted where it's in contact with the film so it's not going to hurt to just leave it. Given the low temperatures and hearing what Andrea has said about it being cold, I would leave it a couple of hours at least. If you pull it now, I think you'll get very thin negs.

[sapata]

Hadn't had ever heard  before about stand developing, and since I've been using Rodinal as my main developer for over a year I've decided to have a go. I had a few dark slides loaded with 4x5 Delta 100 and decided to do a test and the results are pretty good in my opinion but I didn't see much difference. I had processed same film before 1:100 at recomended time and agitation,  for this test I did same film at 1:100 with 1 hour, agitate first 30 secs and nothing at all after that. At first glance the results are the same, maybe if I blow the negs I might see some difference in graininess. I'm quite tempting to try 1:200 at 2 hours... I guess it will make some noticeable difference (specially in my pocket !)

[Pete_R]

HC-110 diluted 1:126

Four times weaker than "normal".

6m normal development at 20 degrees.

I've taken into account the developer being cooler than  20 degrees - about 12 degrees in fact.  Therefore 10.5m at normal diltution.

Giving a combined development of 42 minutes (4*10.5).

There must be a factor which needs taking into account because I'm not refreshing the developer over the film every minute?

So what happened Chops?

[choppert]

Like all true artists I couldn't be arsed waiting and bed was calling!
I toyed with the idea of lifting the tank into the snow and leaving it overnight (?)

This had 92m development at 10C



[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

[Pete_R]

And what is wrong with that? Looks fine to me. And it seems to have handled what looks like a fairly contrasty scene.

[LT]

Hadn't had ever heard  before about stand developing, and since I've been using Rodinal as my main developer for over a year I've decided to have a go. I had a few dark slides loaded with 4x5 Delta 100 and decided to do a test and the results are pretty good in my opinion but I didn't see much difference. I had processed same film before 1:100 at recomended time and agitation,  for this test I did same film at 1:100 with 1 hour, agitate first 30 secs and nothing at all after that. At first glance the results are the same, maybe if I blow the negs I might see some difference in graininess. I'm quite tempting to try 1:200 at 2 hours... I guess it will make some noticeable difference (specially in my pocket !)

one of the main reasons for using stand develpment in my book anyways, is because of the compensation factor. Superb in overly contrasty scenes. But it comes into it's own with roll film. Sheet film already gives you the option of developing at different times etc to suit the frame so stand dev is unlikely to improve what is already available to you.  But, with roll film, it's hard to do this where the frames are all in different lighting conditions. So the stand dev allows each frame to develop to it's full potential without sacrificing the rest of the film with the most active parts of the film (highlights) quickly exhausting the developer activity while the least active (shadows) being allowed to develop longer.

It gets even better if you introduce a tanning action where the emulsion physically hardens the more it develops making it increasingly impervious to the developer action. This is what the pyrogallol and catechol based developers do. I reckon these are the best to use for toycameras or other roll film
cameras where there is limited exposure control.

I'd stick my neck out to say that you'd probably not really gain any perceivable benefit by using stand develpment with large format films over other development techniques unless you've got a huge sbr on the neg.   

[sapata]

Hadn't had ever heard  before about stand developing, and since I've been using Rodinal as my main developer for over a year I've decided to have a go. I had a few dark slides loaded with 4x5 Delta 100 and decided to do a test and the results are pretty good in my opinion but I didn't see much difference. I had processed same film before 1:100 at recomended time and agitation,  for this test I did same film at 1:100 with 1 hour, agitate first 30 secs and nothing at all after that. At first glance the results are the same, maybe if I blow the negs I might see some difference in graininess. I'm quite tempting to try 1:200 at 2 hours... I guess it will make some noticeable difference (specially in my pocket !)

one of the main reasons for using stand develpment in my book anyways, is because of the compensation factor. Superb in overly contrasty scenes. But it comes into it's own with roll film. Sheet film already gives you the option of developing at different times etc to suit the frame so stand dev is unlikely to improve what is already available to you.  But, with roll film, it's hard to do this where the frames are all in different lighting conditions. So the stand dev allows each frame to develop to it's full potential without sacrificing the rest of the film with the most active parts of the film (highlights) quickly exhausting the developer activity while the least active (shadows) being allowed to develop longer.

It gets even better if you introduce a tanning action where the emulsion physically hardens the more it develops making it increasingly impervious to the developer action. This is what the pyrogallol and catechol based developers do. I reckon these are the best to use for toycameras or other roll film
cameras where there is limited exposure control.

I'd stick my neck out to say that you'd probably not really gain any perceivable benefit by using stand develpment with large format films over other development techniques unless you've got a huge sbr on the neg.   

Thanks leon for your feedback !
This is only the second time I'm processing 4x5 film myself, I thought it was quite easy and economic doing stand developing  since I've only used around 10ml of Rodinal for the whole of the tank ! Not to mention that you set the alarm and relax... Any thoughts about doing 1:200 ??

[Blaxton]

My first use of stand developing Tri-X in Rodinal (10:1000) came out less good than I hope it will with more practice.  I agitated by inversion, gently, for almost one minute and then left it sit for an hour while I went to the photo store to buy fixer.  The grain is quite pronounced--not a big problem for me--but, much worse, the development is uneven.  One edge is much denser than the rest of the film.  On my next attempt I will agitate less to see if that gives more even development.

Here is one of the better frames.  Notice the washed out upper edge.  All the frames on both reels are the same.

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

[LT]

My first use of stand developing Tri-X in Rodinal (10:1000) came out less good than I hope it will with more practice.  I agitated by inversion, gently, for almost one minute and then left it sit for an hour while I went to the photo store to buy fixer.  The grain is quite pronounced--not a big problem for me--but, much worse, the development is uneven.  One edge is much denser than the rest of the film.  On my next attempt I will agitate less to see if that gives more even development.

Here is one of the better frames.  Notice the washed out upper edge.  All the frames on both reels are the same.

therein lies one of the major drawbacks of stand developing techniques. And the flaw can be quite unpredictable too with one film being fine & the next being ruined. Less agitation is likely to make it worse, not better. Do you pre-soak the film? If not, this can help induce a more even take up by the emulsion. Also lots of rapping to remove bubbles is crucial too.

I've never been able to get over such problems with pure stand methods, so I compromise with a semi-stand (a crouch?) option. 1 minute contant agitation then gaps of between 3 and 6 minutes between groups of 4 inversions. Seems to get the compensation effect & nice mackie lined edges whilst avoiding the streaky development and bromide drags. Mind you I don't use rodinal though.

[Blaxton]

therein lies one of the major drawbacks of stand developing techniques. And the flaw can be quite unpredictable too with one film being fine & the next being ruined. Less agitation is likely to make it worse, not better. Do you pre-soak the film? If not, this can help induce a more even take up by the emulsion. Also lots of rapping to remove bubbles is crucial too.

I've never been able to get over such problems with pure stand methods, so I compromise with a semi-stand (a crouch?) option. 1 minute contant agitation then gaps of between 3 and 6 minutes between groups of 4 inversions. Seems to get the compensation effect & nice mackie lined edges whilst avoiding the streaky development and bromide drags. Mind you I don't use rodinal though.

Thanks for the advice, Leon.  I'm not going to give up on Rodinal yet.  I did pre-soak and tap many times but I think that I will try more agitation--maybe something like your 'crouch' method.

[Pete_R]

Thanks for the advice, Leon.  I'm not going to give up on Rodinal yet.  I did pre-soak and tap many times but I think that I will try more agitation--maybe something like your 'crouch' method.

My one and only attempt so far was fine. I did pre-soak the film and I also followed the advice I found on a site somewhere that I've since lost the link to, that said the initial agitation should be by rotation rather than inversion. Don't know what difference it would make but that's what I did and it worked. Maybe worth trying.

[LT]

good point Peter.  Also, water quality has a role to play.  If your supply is less than pure, filtered water or distilled water might help.

[Nigel]

Here is a really interesting workflow from a guy exposing Tri-X (my love of the moment) at iso 25,600! (oh yes) and stand developing in rodinal. I don't think the example he's chosen to go with the write up is the best, there are a couple more on his flickr page.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=942835&postcount=128
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24706160@N06/3107269800/

[Andrea.]

See. Sea - FP4@400 Rodinal 1:100 - 2 hours. Kodak Retinnette 1a.
The sheeps came in the same camera but, don't look at the swans. They belong to Mrs Queen and I'm not sure they should be here. At all. Obviously, that's why they are out of focus.

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

[rdbkorn]

It gets even better if you introduce a tanning action where the emulsion physically hardens the more it develops making it increasingly impervious to the developer action. This is what the pyrogallol and catechol based developers do. I reckon these are the best to use for toycameras or other roll film
cameras where there is limited exposure control.

Leon,

If you'd be willing to share developers/times for your development of toycamera films, I'd be quite interested to try them.

Paul

[LT]

sure Paul - I mix this for myself:

Pyrocat High Definition Developer (Formulated by Sandy King)

Stock Solution A

Distilled Water 75 ml (hot)

Sodium Metabisulfite 1 g
Pyrocatechin 5 g
Phenidone 0.2 g (dissolved in a very small amount of Isopropyl Alcohol before adding to the solution)
Potassium Bromide 0.1 g
Distilled water to make 100 ml

Stock Solution B

Distilled Water 75 ml (cold - dissolving this Chemical will create heat so the water should be cold to start with)

Potassium Carbonate 75g (dissolve small amounts at a time)
Distilled Water to make 100 ml
(I find it REALLY difficult to get the B solution dissolved properly at this concentration, and it often stays milky and thick.  IF this happens, just top up with water to 200ml, it will dissolve fine, but make sure you use double the the amount when you mix up the working solution)

Use at 1 part A + 1 part B + 100 parts water at around 21 degrees.  I tend to lose around one or 2 thirds stop film speed for normal contrast development and can develop most films for the same times - helpful as I can develop delta 100/400/fp4/hp5  in the same tank.  My times/ temps/agitation is 21 degrees, partial stand = 1 minute full agitation, then 4 inversions every 3 minutes for 14 minutes.

There are other developers that are very similar and come ready mixed in solution (including he Pyrocat HD) - which include DiXactol, Precyscol, and Exactol-Lux.  Some are available from the photographers formulary (http://www.photoformulary.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=2&tabid=9&CategoryID=31&langID=0)
and also from Peter Hogan (http://www.monochromephotography.com/section255609_207612.html).  There is also a range of Pyrogallol based developers that have similar effects, but they are more toxic so I tend not to use them.

These developers aren't magic bullets, and, to be honest, if you are scanning negs, I think you;d probably get just as good results from ID-11, but they come into their own if you are silver-printing as the stain adds further benefit to taming highlights, whilst helping with tonal separation in the highlight areas.  A good resource to assist in understanding the process of Tanning and Staining Developers is Barry Thornton's book The Edge of Darkness: http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Darkness-High-Definition-Monochrome-Photograph/dp/0817438157/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262939017&sr=8-4

There is a lot of discussion around the internet as to the real benefit of tan and stain developers, but I say try it out and see.  if you are not seeing any benefit, then go back to your previous dev of choice, but I reckon you will notice a big difference.  Negs do generally look thinner, but dont be fooled, the densities added by the stain is very deceptive.

[tinm@n]

I use this method of developing almost exclusively.  I dilute at roughly 1+100.  For 120 I use about 600-700 ml of water with 5ml of Rodinal for each film.  For 35mm i use 4 ml and 400ml.  I agitiate for 30 secs then leave for an hour whilst listening to music.  Sometimes I forget and leave it for 2.5 but it always works and I am always pleased with the results.  The only time I tried another developer, Microphen, was my first failure in ages so I'm sticking with Rodinal.  Simple, cheap, reliable and produces great negs.  I use it on every film whether it supposed to work well or not.

[rdbkorn]

Thanks for all the information, Leon. I will mix up some pyrocat HD and give it a go. Cheers, Paul

[Nigel]

Tinm@n - thanks, that's the most straightforward and confident explanation I've heard I'm definitely going to give it a go.

[choppert]

Went out with the new Mamiya 7 yesterday in the snow.
Metered off the snow and then overexposed by a couple of stops.
Stand developed for 2 hours last night, and the negs look grey to me (sorry, can't scan them yet - only got 35mm scanner).

What should snow negs look like?  Shouldn't they be quite dark, if the snow is quite light (white)?

Developed another film this evening developing how the HC-110 bottle says - agitation etc


Chops

[LT]

Chops - dont judge them until you've get them into the darkroom.  I'm sure there are loads of experienced printers who can judge a neg based on first viewing, but I cant.  I am always surprised by negs that I think will be terrible to print, and turn out easy as pie.

[Pete_R]

I've just been doing a comparison between my usual developer (Aculux) and stand developed Rodinal.

When I used Rodinal for the first time recently, I was impressed. I didn't think I would have got the same results with my usual combo. But I wanted to see how much better Rodinal was. So I shot two rolls of XP2 using same camera/lens of the same subjects using same exposures. One I developed  in Aculux for 15 mins with normal agitation, the other in Rodinal for an hour with no agitation. One subject included the hazy sun to give me a wide SBR so I could see how much compensating effect Rodinal gave me, the other included a distant aerial, carefully focussed on, to check for sharpness. The first subject I shot at varying exposures to make sure I got the full range of densities of the film.

The results were not all that I expected.

Here's the aerial shots. The first one is Rodinal, second is Aculux (scanned at 4000dpi and shown 100%), third is the full frame.





For my money, the Rodinal is sharper, which is what I expected, but it's marginal and, because of the larger grain (also expected), I don't see as much detail in the Rodinal image as the Aculux. I don't think the slight increase in sharpness would normally be visible but the increased grain might be so my preference is the Aculux.

Next is three pairs of shots showing Rodinal (on the left) and Aculux shots, under, normal and over exposed.









The big surprise here is that the Rodinal shots have retained far less detail in the highlights that the Aculux. XP2 is pretty tolerant of over exposure but Rodinal seems to make it worse rather than better. The impression I get is Rodinal doesn't so much increase the contrast but creates a much sharper shoulder to the characteristic so highlights burn out sooner. It would need a more scientific experiment than this to find out exactly what's happening. Whether this is something unique to XP2, maybe due to it's unique characteristic, I don't know.

Upshot of all this is I'll be sticking to Aculux.

[Andrea.]

Forgive me for asking the obvious but why are you developing what is C41 film in B&W non-c41 chems. I know it works but its not the obvious route. Certain chems works better with some films and not others. Like Rodinal is great with Rollei Retro 100 but bot so 'good' with HP5 in 35mm. Unless you like grain! And even there, if you uprate 400 HP5 to 1600 and stand develop in rodinal 1:100 grain is nice - especially when wet printed.

[LT]

Upshot of all this is I'll be sticking to Aculux.

the right choice every time! I've never got the whole Rodinal worship thing, but it's horses for courses I guess. I think what you are experiencing (and are also well experienced in as an Aculux user) is how damn good Aculux is.  I prefer my tan and stains because of their uniqueness and how cheap/ economical they are, but if I had to use another, it would be aculux or perceptol.  I love perceptol,  but sometimes the speed loss and long dev times can be irritating, Aculux remedies this.  I just wish they would release the formula so I coudl mix some up for myself

[Pete_R]

Forgive me for asking the obvious but why are you developing what is C41 film in B&W non-c41 chems. I know it works but its not the obvious route.

Might not be the obvious route for everyone but it happened to be for me.

The short answer is I like XP2 and I don't like relying on someone else to do my developing.

The long answer is that I used to use more traditional films when I had a darkroom but when I got rid of the darkroom, I started using XP2 as I could get it processed anywhere. Eventually, I got fed up with having someone else do my developing, and often not doing it very well, so I dug out the dev tanks, bought a changing bag and started doing my own again. Because I no longer wet printed, scanability was important and I found the traditional film and developer combinations I went back to using didn't scan as well as the XP2. Also, I had got used to the unique XP2 characteristic which allows for a change in contrast by changing the rating of the film - something which was useful when I wasn't processing my own as I couldn't change the dev times to suit. So I tried doing XP2 in b&w developers. It worked and still works for me so I don't see any reason to change.

Certain chems works better with some films and not others. Like Rodinal is great with Rollei Retro 100 but bot so 'good' with HP5 in 35mm. Unless you like grain! And even there, if you uprate 400 HP5 to 1600 and stand develop in rodinal 1:100 grain is nice - especially when wet printed.

You're absolutely right that some developers work better with some films and I think I've just proven Rodinal is not a good choice for XP2, even though I've seen it recommended elsewhere. I did assume I'd at least get some compensating effect which I thought would be useful in some circumstances, but clearly it's not to be. But I think I've also proven XP2 can cope with anything I'm like to expose it to without special development so I'll stick with it.

[choppert]

Just to resurrect an old thread!

Earlier today I developed a 120 roll - 30s initial agitation (with the twiddler) and then left to stand un-disturbed for about 90 mins.
Looking at the dried negs I somehow look to have some streaking all along the bottom (or top) of the roll. 
Almost like the marks you get through the sprockets when over agitating a roll.
I'll try and post some digi-snaps of the negs a bit later.

Any ideas guys?

Thanks

[LT]

sounds like bromide drag to me - one of the potential flaws of stand developing.  Are you using tap water or a purified source?  might be worth getting some battery water and try to see if it happens again. 

[choppert]

Here's the snap, sorry it's a bit big!

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

[choppert]

sounds like bromide drag to me - one of the potential flaws of stand developing.  Are you using tap water or a purified source?  might be worth getting some battery water and try to see if it happens again. 

Good hard Nottingham tap water!

Battery water, what about Brita filtered water?

Would a quick agitation after an hour help?

[choppert]

Looking on the web, it sounds as though a good initial agitation may be the key?

One source suggests 60s initial agitation and then left to stand?

[LT]

jug filtered might improve things, but only proper purified water (distilled, deinonized or reverse osmosis) will remove the likelihood of problems.  I had to install a RO water purifier in my darkroom because of getting these kind of problems even with normal agitation development. Some people are lucky and never get problems at all. Some additional agitations might help - there's only one way to find out.

[LT]

Looking on the web, it sounds as though a good initial agitation may be the key?

One source suggests 60s initial agitation and then left to stand?

might help - so many variables.

[Mike (happyforest)]

I've got myself some rodinal to try and came across this when trying to work out what to do with it.

http://eriephoto.com/Rodinal.pdf

Don't know if  it is of any help.

I've haven't tried it yet.

Mike

[Francois]

I know stand development was originally intended for sheet film being processed in a tray. That way, you can't get any bromide drag.

[choppert]

Hi guys,

Had a great experience with stand developing yesterday.

Developed a roll of Tri-X yesterday in 1:126 HC-110.

Used filtered water and furiously agitated the film (think cocktail waiter!) for about 60 seconds before leaving it in a cool room (about 15C) for about 90 minutes.

The negatives practically leap off the film!     Nice dark blacks, lots of shadow and highlight detail - best film I've ever done.  The negs almost look like 400CN negs.

Will be trying that again.  Woohoo

[LT]

great news Matt - I'm pleased you got it sorted. now let's see the prints

[choppert]

great news Matt - I'm pleased you got it sorted. now let's see the prints

Well..... actually I've emailed you something to look at, if you don't mind.

info@ltp