Summary Of My Stand Development Findings

Thanks for that article fun of some very useful info. I have just started using Pyrocat HD after hearing much about it but before I used PMK and loved it. I always find these stained negs more of an inspiration to to try and print. I am currently only using 35mm and 120 but will certainly use your article as a guide moving forward.
 
Very interesting. Thank you.
May I make a few random comments?
I’m unfamiliar with your use of the word “geometry” in this context.
To my surprise, “Extreme” Minimum agitation has more agitation than “ordinary” minimal agitation.
It makes good sense that initial agitation reduces drag. We usually think of development as consuming the developer, but of course, it’s consuming developable silver halides too.

I have a Yankee tank. No strategy that I could devise would produce decent negatives from it.
May I suggest that there are other tanks that you might try, if you care to continue your excellent work? I’ve had decent results (by my standards) from both the 5x4 Stearman and the (now out of production) Combiplan. For your purposes, the new 10x8 Stearman tank (which I have not handled) might be ideal.
I’m dwelling on tanks here, because they make development possible without a darkroom and some photographers seem to be without one.

I don’t know if they are available outside the UK , but the vertical tanks made by Nova might prove interesting.
www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk

Nova Monochrome Print Processor, 8 x 10in.

3 slot, 8 x 10in. processing, non-heated
www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk

Thank you again.
 
David M said:
Very interesting. Thank you.
May I make a few random comments?
I’m unfamiliar with your use of the word “geometry” in this context.
To my surprise, “Extreme” Minimum agitation has more agitation than “ordinary” minimal agitation.
It makes good sense that initial agitation reduces drag. We usually think of development as consuming the developer, but of course, it’s consuming developable silver halides too.

I have a Yankee tank. No strategy that I could devise would produce decent negatives from it.
May I suggest that there are other tanks that you might try, if you care to continue your excellent work? I’ve had decent results (by my standards) from both the 5x4 Stearman and the (now out of production) Combiplan. For your purposes, the new 10x8 Stearman tank (which I have not handled) might be ideal.
I’m dwelling on tanks here, because they make development possible without a darkroom and some photographers seem to be without one.

I don’t know if they are available outside the UK , but the vertical tanks made by Nova might prove interesting.
www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk

Nova Monochrome Print Processor, 8 x 10in.

3 slot, 8 x 10in. processing, non-heated
www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk

Thank you again.
Click to expand...

"Geometry" in this context could also be said to be "topology" or shape. We've all had the situation where - even with a Pyro
developer compensating highlights, we cannot actually burn through them because we cannot control the
burn line. A simple example is snow on very fine branches. It's usually impossible to burn each and every branch to get to the detail that is likely there. The "geometry" (or shape or topology) of the required burn is essentially impossible. And who among us has not wrestled with burning a sky without showing a burn line at the treetops below?

The EMA process is not real doctrinaire'. The number of agitations during stand is something up to you. Again, in all stand techniques, agitation itself is a variable and can be fiddled with at will. I sent a note to Steve Sherman to see if he had any comments and to make sure I didn't misrepresent the description of EMA.

The Yankee tank should be fine for conventionally agitated development, and possibly even EMA. It clearly has bromide problems with Semistand or Stand. In part, I think it's because of the way you have to agitate horizontally which is rather strange. I am peripherally aware of the tanks you mention, but have no access to any of them. I think my next steps - should I ever choose to take them - would be to explore the homemade PVC tubes that all the cool kids are using. I guess you could say this effort has been large ... "tankless" .... I'll excuse myself now.
 
Last edited:
I've just updated the document, tidied up some spelling and errors of clarity. I've also added a link to David Kachel's very fine work on how film works.
 
Stephen Weston said:
Thanks for that article fun of some very useful info. I have just started using Pyrocat HD after hearing much about it but before I used PMK and loved it. I always find these stained negs more of an inspiration to to try and print. I am currently only using 35mm and 120 but will certainly use your article as a guide moving forward.
Click to expand...

In full disclosure, the techniques I tested could have been done with dilute HC-110 or - more commonly - Rodinal. PMK Likely would not work well. It has a high oxidation rate and really needs a lot of nearly continuous agitation, thereby exhausting pretty quickly.

No developer is magical but Pyrocat-HD seems to find a nice balance of film speed, grain, staining, some degree of compensation effects, and accutance.

It has been my experience that some films stain more readily than others. Agfapan APX 100 stains moderately. TXT stains heavily. FP4+ is somewhere in the middle.
 
Last edited:
The Yankee worked well as a clearing tank for Polaroids. Ah, those Good Old Days!
If I understand it rightly, the left hand of processing (if development is the right...) can overcome the snow on twigs problem by split-grade printing. I've not tried it, b ut I've read the claims.
It is one of the problems that can be solved more easily on screen.
 
David M said:
The Yankee worked well as a clearing tank for Polaroids. Ah, those Good Old Days!
If I understand it rightly, the left hand of processing (if development is the right...) can overcome the snow on twigs problem by split-grade printing. I've not tried it, b ut I've read the claims.
It is one of the problems that can be solved more easily on screen.
Click to expand...

Yes, split printing definitely helps, but there are some image "geometries" where nothing works well, and that's where stand techniques can help.

More generally, it is my hope to use these techniques to better manage higher mid-tone contrast in a scene with significant upper zone highlights. David Kache's monograph on local contrast (now cited in my document) goes into considerable detail about why local contrast matters and how to manage it - though he is not a stand proponent as best as I can tell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top