I'm quite an experienced film shooter but I learn a lot from your channel. Thanks a lot for doing all this stuff and putting it out there. I don't have anyone near me who shoots film so it's always great to see this type of content to keep me learning from other perspectives and from other more experienced photographers like you. Give George a pat from me! Cheers!
That was a really great video. Rodinal and ID11 both use two developing agents (as do most developers) but they use very different developing agents. That may account for the difference in performance for stand development. I note the packing on Rodinal refers to stand development. Perhaps that was a hint. Still a very interesting video and much food for thought. I think it was a pity you used 35mm film. I used to have my E6 films developed by a lab in London called Push One. They generally only dealt with professionals but would deal with anyone if you managed to find them, a bit like the 'A' Team lol. They used a dip processing machine and hated 35mm film because the sprocket holes could carry over chemicals from one bath to the next, causing marks on the film. They used to give the hangers a tap as they came out of the first developer. Perhaps roll film or cut film may be less susceptible to bromide drag. However, I think the biggest difference will by the developing agents. Anyway, as I said before, a great video.
I do regularly stand with Rodinal (your #2 solution), as soon as I have doubts on the shooting conditions... Mainly with HP5+ and never had a problem. Thanks for your videos !
Hi Roger I've used Semi-Stand for since I got a Holga (about 2005) and then a Zero 2000 6x6 pinhole camera. The method I use is to invert for the first 30 seconds very gently. Stand 30 minutes, invert twice, stand 30 minutes, wash, fix and dry. Obviously I have used this method with 120 film predominately. For low tech cameras and shooting semi stand works well and I've always considered the bromide drag thing a bit of a myth, however I can see the issue with sprocket holes on 35mm (good analogy with washing the car lol). Great video as usual. Cheers
Thank you for sharing your experiment and your good mood. Both inspire. I watched many of your videos and liked the Pentacon Six (the big tele must have been a good restling excercise as even the 2.8/80mm Biometar with the body weight 1.360grams. Fyi: I do only HP5+ in Rodinal 1+100, 6ml+600ml,roll film and I am very happy with the results. The negs are usually close to perfect, but sometimes strange bromide drags appear that do not disturb me at all being result of a natural process. For me this is part of the organic analogue world.
Excellent, enjoyed the presentation. Andrew Sanderson in his book “Night Photography’ refers to the originator of the stand development William Mortensen and for dealing with contrast such as street lights offers the following, 1/4 of recommended development time inversions as normal and then stand for the whole time eg 20min dev, 5 normal and then 20 standing. If you venture out at night it might be worth a go!
Great video, this test needed doing, a lot of folk talk a lot about stand developing, but it usually turns out they have only heard about it from “a friend” and never actually done it. In 1968 I was working in a pro photolab in central London, and a few of the clients were “photojournalists”. They all wanted their films stand developed, in Rodinal (RO9) 68deg F. with agitation only for 1st 30 secs, then leave for an hour in a warm room and then just empty out and bung in the fixer. The negs were thin and low contrast. We had to print them on the hardest ( most contrasty) photo paper there was, Agfa Brovira grade 6. This was in the days before multigrade. The prints were very sharp, with crushed shadows, or “ soot and whitewash” as my boss called them. The clients liked them and it became a standard style in all the newspaper weekend supplements.
That's really interesting. I love these old story's Howard. I can't imagine papers worried too much about contrast as long as they had a story to write and a print to go with it
I started photography as a hobby in the 1950s, didn’t have any tanks we used dish developing, slowly seesawing the 120 films through the developer in the dark. The negatives always looked so good, no unevenness. Enjoyed the video.
They were glazed pottery dishes in those days, I used 3 5x7 inch ones. The film was put through emulsion side up. You could try how it works with some old film in the light.
Holding the ends of the film, one side is dipped in first and the developer will hold the film as you seesaw from hand to hand. Have a go with some old film in the light. Dish development is also very good for 5x4 film, more economical than tanks.
Watching for a good wee while and appreciate the work you have put into developing your video quality and video editing, great stuff. Thanks for the topic, very interesting and informative.
Nice one! A few years ago I was using my Holga a lot and ended up doing the same experiments. I settled on very similar times to you, with a total of three inversions. I felt like stand was a good match for the Holga since you have so little control over exposure.
Great tip! That's how I felt with the pinhole. When I shoot my Holga I have a perfect combo of HP5 and XTOL but the light outside has to be spot on for a good result. When I see the clouds and light look right then it's a Holga moment off I go!
You do all the things I am too frightened to try - very satisfying. Have you ever compared stand developing versus standard developing? Thanks for a great channel.
This was really interesting. I’ve always gone for five agitations at the start of the process and five in the middle of the process with Rodinal 1+100. I’ve only experienced bromide drag once. With a roll of Ilford Pan400 some years ago. I left that one for two hours with agitation after an hour. Interesting video. Thank you.
What are your impressions of using ilford pan 400? Is it similar to hp5 or more like a kentmere 400 or a kentmere pan 400? That film is not popular but have good price.
@@angelusrufus7479 I am no expert, and I have only a shot Pan400 a few times. But I think they are discontinued as Pan400 and Sold as Kentmere 400 now. My experience from the few rolls I’ve shot is that you have a very grainy 400 film, and that is rather pay a little bit extra for the Hp5 which I find to be a better fit for my use.
Thanks for the break-down. I've done stand with Rodinal for both 120 and 35mm film and have managed to get drag on the negs on one roll of each, but only the one time. I've got a love-hate relationship with stand developing. On the one hand it's great for conservation of developer at 100:1 and it takes temperature out of the equation, but on the other it drags out the process and can, on occasion, result in the odd drag. I look forward to your videos; keep 'em coming, and keep an eye out for George.
Thanks for sharing. I've been happy with the results in the past but always wary of the uneven development issues. I did a stand a while back as my folding camera on a shoot had a sticky shutter! Negs came out nice in the end. If I went for a timed dev I think they would have been all over the place.
Thanks for doing all the experiments ! I've never seen Bromide drag on my films, but then I'm probably not looking very hard. JonnoMoto says below Stand Development is the lazy way to do film devving, but that seems harsh as I still have to get the Rodinal out of the fridge door pocket and find the Fix. It's not easy at my age.
It's a great dev. I've always got a bottle, apart from now, ordered new one today. I don't use it on any scapes I work hard for but great for lots of other shoots.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss I enjoy your collection of developers. Do you make specific decisions on which developer you use for a certain project? if so, what are they and why? Love this channel. THE BEST PHOTOGRAPHY RUclips CHANNEL!
@@gelderlandproduction thanks Michael. I use mostly Xtol but recently shifted to ID11. They work well for me. If I'm using slow speed films such as panf50 for seascapes I like to dump that in perceptol for very fine grain. Rodinal if I want some grit to a film. Such as street photos, hp5 and Rodinal.
I was doing stand development one evening in the kitchen after cleaning up and starting the dishwasher. The negatives came out way more contrasty than usual. Then I found out that the vibrations of the dishwasher probably agitated the tank a little during the full hour. After that I put the tank away on the floor to prevent vibration for the next developments.
If you mix it right away there’s very little reason to invert off the bat. I find if you’re using a thicker developer that’s harder to fully dissolve like Kodak hc110, inversions don’t do much in stand developing
Roger, I have a suggestion for the next test: explore Ilford Delta 3200. Why is it interesting? Because it's marketed as 3200, but even the official data sheet admits that its ISO rating is only 1000. What gives? Why the 1+2/3 stop difference? How does the film actually behave? Maybe shoot a scene at 3200, 1600 and 1000, then develop normally (effectively overexposing - the curve in the datasheet reveals that it should have enormous latitude), and then maybe another set with pull processing. Basically try to explore the huge and confusing discrepancy between marketed effective ISO and official rated ISO of Delta 3200. If you're feeling fancy, essentially the same applies to Kodak's TMAX P3200. Cheers
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss You may be somewhat correct on that. More on that later. I tried to a bit more research and it seems like 3200 has similar proposition to HP5. Sort of like its more sensitive little brother. HP5 is known for its huge exposure latitude, and can easily be pulled 1 stop or pushed 2 stops (or 3 if you're feeling lucky). But is still marketed by it's standardized ISO rating. 3200 seems to be really similar in this regard - it has a ginormous latitude which allows it to be pushed to hell. It's base rating seems to be 1000, but can be pulled to 400, or easily pushed by 2-3 stops to 3200 and 6400. It seems that the apparent ability to be pushed so much made Ilford (or Kodak, I don't know who went first) pull (pun intended) some marketing strings and write it's "recommended" push speed on the box instead of the true ISO rating. Essentially like if you saw alternate-universe HP5+1600. It seems that to get the 1000 ISO, you need to be using t-grain dev. If you use something more old school, its rating seems to be only 800. (At least that's what I read about Kodak's P3200). So in short, if we were honest, the most sensitive film you can get on the market is not 3200, but only 1000, but apparently pushes so nicely by two stops that that's what went to the box printer. I'd still like to see you abuse it....(ehh...)
Hi! The solution to bromide drag @ stand development is semi-stand development 1 hour with 3 slow inversions after 30 min. I'm using Fomapan 100 or Rollei RPX 25 in medium format and large format with it, and it's fail safe. FP 100 is still the most affordable quality medium (and large) format film there is. Especially if you're buying directly from Foma's web shop. Sorry UK brexits, I believe a substantial VAT is added to your order... Have a nice photo Sunday!/Johan
Great, interesting video as always... Question: does the old trouble and strife get involved in your channel, perhaps helping with the editing or provide some other input?
Scanning can be deceptive because of the magic of auto-exposure (either with the DSLR or a flatbed or film scanner). Now try taking those three negatives into the darkroom and making a straight print from each one, all three *at the same exposure.* That'll tell you whether the increased shadow detail in the no-inversion strip is real, or just due to less density in the sky allowing the auto-exposure to keep the fence etc. darker (=lighter in the positive).
Yes I have to get them in the darkroom. It was nice for once to come out the darkroom for a video though and not everyone has ability to make prints so I scanned but I know what you mean totally.
My experience fully confirms the comment on the scanning part. Lately I find scanning to be the most crytical part of the whole process. Auto mode is so-so, while manual setting can greatly change the results and not necessarily to the better.
Great idea for comparison video too bad we really didn’t see different results on the first roll. I’ve had mixed results with both rodinal and Hc110. Im wondering if a very old expired film would make a difference on bromide drag. Thinking the emulsion may have broken down over the years and not be able to sustain adhesion to the film. I maybe another idea for a future video. Cheers, Stephen
I love stand development because I'm lazy and cheap. Kidding aside, I've had good luck like you with Rodinal 1:100 for 1 hour with agitation for one minute and 10 seconds after 30 minutes. What also works well for me is L-110, a Kodak HC-110 replacement with the same dilution and technique. My experience is that Rodinal is slightly grainer. I think the negatives look sharper because the sodium sulfite is a silver solvent, not agitating as much doesn't dissolve the edges of the silver grains as much as agitating 10 seconds for every minute for the conventional technique. I love stand development.
I am no expert but i finished reading te darkroom cookbook this weekend there is for example no Borax in Rodinal. D76 and ID-11 have Borax in them.. Darkroom cookbook page 223 for Rodinal , page 217 for D76. D76 consist of Metol, Sodiumsulfite hydroquineone Borax and water. Rodinal has Aminophenol hydrochloride, Potassium metabisufite and sodium hydroxide. There very different
@@azzalos I use a Paterson tank made for two 135 film. I usually develop one 120 film or two 135 films. I always make 700ml of developer. Since I posted a couple of months ago, I actually had bromide drag once. Don't know why...
@@CM-cb2km it might have been surge marks from agitation. I don’t use any after the first minute, it’s not necessary with rodinal (contains no bromide). I would also suggest only doing one roll per tank, so you get even coverage quickly.
Love George ....give him a big pat and belly rub from me ........Great Vid as usual ..........I think I will be going for the pin hole camera early next year .....I have found a guy in Canada making them that my buddy bought from .....I will post a link if I can find the web site .......be well ....
There is one charicteristic of stand development visible in your first set of negatives. The right hand edge of the first and third image are lighter than the left hand side which is slightly darker, except for the second film which was obviously loaded in the opposite direction. However regardless of which agitation technique that you used this characteristic seems to be normal with stand development. Because the films are developed on there side, one side is always slightly darker and the other lighter. It is suggested that when printing that type of neg that you crop the two edges slightly to reduce this effect on the print. Great video, keep them coming.
I was just going to ask the same thing. I've tried to stand develop 120 film many times, but I always get a lighter edge on one side of my negs. Not a problem to fix it later but I stopped using stand development because of that.
First off, you need to define your exact process when you’re talking about “stand development”, as it means different things to different people. With 35mm I use rodinal 1+100, 60 minutes, no agitation after 1st minute, on the bottom reel of a 2-reel Paterson tank, 500ml of developer. There most definitely is not “always” a lighter edge. I have not seen that in my negatives. What I have seen are “edge effects”. This is because the exposed portion is chemically active compared to shadows or unexposed film, and it it pulls in developer from surrounding areas of the emulsion causing a slight haloing effect. Many people consider this a feature, not a bug.
I’ve been using a timer app on my iphone for timing film development but it’s risky with chemicals etc. What are those timers you’re using? Just simple lcd kitchen timers? It’s hard to see the writing on them to know if there’s any special functions.
Well I got one on eBay for about £3 and then saw the other identical one in the pound shop! ha ha. Should have bought a few more. BUT. The batteries wear down quick so best to get a kitchen timer with on off switch!
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss ah I’ll get some and make sure they have a switch. Thanks, I love your channel, it’s my favourite and you got me back into the darkroom after nearly a 40 year gap.
I often do stand development when it comes to push 2 or more stops. i usually agitate the whole 1st minute and invert once every 30minutes. since i do so, i have no more problems with bromide drag and end up with nice negatives, even when i push fomapan 100 to 800 or Agfa APX 400 to 3200. i always use rodinal 1:100 for stand development
by the way: thank you for your nice content and PLEASE keep your endless curiosity, which i like very much. greetings from the Black Forest, southern Germany =)
Loaded in my 120 camera 135 Ilfort PanF+ film and shot few frames to test. I cut off film and developed in rodianl 1:100 stand. 300ml tank. Presoak and first agitation, few inversion after 30m. And the result....yes bromide drag. First time ever in my life. Maybe it's because of develop just small piece of film or low iso(50)?????
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss that doesn't look like a lighting change to my eye. I've looked again and it's across the entire edge of the negative in a defined band that tapers to the middle.
I experience bromide drag if I shoot with a normal film cart in a screw mount Leica AND stand develop... something about the combination of that development method and having exposed portions of the negative touching the sprockets (as classic Leicas do) seems to be a recipe for disaster. From now on if I plan to stand dev I try to re-load the roll into a FILCA before shooting it, to get proper spacing of the frame between the perforations. No more bromide drag after that
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss what tipped me off that the frame positioning might actually be part of the issue was the fact that the streaking was only coming into the frame from the side that was touching the sprocket holes, the other side of the frame was always clear. This consistently manifested itself as lines streaking up from the bottom of the frame. In the film gate, in the camera, the bottom of the frame is actually closer to the top of the camera (the lens projects the image onto the film plane upside down) and it’s at the upper end of the film plane where the film has a tendency to slide downwards and expose closer to the sprocket holes if using an “undersized” (according to 1930’s Leica standard, anyway) 35mm cart. So what I think is happening is there is increased developer activity around the edge of the sprocket holes when stand dev’ing, which is an area of the film where normally nothing would be exposed in pretty much any other camera, so normally there would be no developer activity in that area... and maybe just that slight bit of developer activity in that area is enough to kickstart the whole effect... but just a theory on my behalf. This stuff’s all a bit above my paygrade!
@@joeltunnah if I semi-stand develop, I typically use very high dilutions of HC-110 and depending on the film I will sometimes let it develop between 30-60 minutes, with only a brief agitation period halfway through. But the streaking effect is the same. It never occurs on the side of the film where the image is further away from the sprocket holes, so something about the presence of an exposure directly touching the holes (and thus already increased developer activity in that area) is somehow “kickstarting” that process
Interesting that RO9 didn't drag and the Old faithful did! Ive only ever stand developed using RO9, and going on these results is probably why I've never seen bromide drag. It'll be interesting to see the difference between a stand development vs a given time and ratio development from the Massive dev chart.
Rodinal doesn’t have bromide in it, that’s why. And with pulled development, your shadows don’t have enough time to catch up, so you get less shadow detail, and slower effective film speed. With stand, even in a compensating developer like rodinal, you get full film speed, or even a slight bump up.
I guess it can happen without standing. I guess it depends on the developer and tank process. Who knows what goes on inside the chemistry once you start? I'd love to see a simulated example of exactly what is going on with all the chemical reactions. Like one of those Big Bang programs.
I believe the best way to avoid bromide drag is to have an empty spool at the bottom of the tank. Never tried it. I didn't always have this issue with 120 but always with 135. Semi stand is a better compromise for me. It's the lazy mode of development and what I use when I discover a roll I can't remember what I rated it at or was really wildly guessing the exposure times.
@@josephasghar then it can’t be bromide drag. It could be streaking from going beyond 1 hour, too heavy dilution, or surge marks from agitation. Try at least 500ml with 5ml rodinal, 1 hour, no agitation beyond first minute.
George is the highlight of the program. =)
Thank you for putting the hard yards in. Looks like Rodinal is the way forward for this method.
I think so. And thanks for the idea.
I'm quite an experienced film shooter but I learn a lot from your channel. Thanks a lot for doing all this stuff and putting it out there. I don't have anyone near me who shoots film so it's always great to see this type of content to keep me learning from other perspectives and from other more experienced photographers like you. Give George a pat from me! Cheers!
Cheers Bennett
That was a really great video. Rodinal and ID11 both use two developing agents (as do most developers) but they use very different developing agents. That may account for the difference in performance for stand development. I note the packing on Rodinal refers to stand development. Perhaps that was a hint. Still a very interesting video and much food for thought. I think it was a pity you used 35mm film. I used to have my E6 films developed by a lab in London called Push One. They generally only dealt with professionals but would deal with anyone if you managed to find them, a bit like the 'A' Team lol. They used a dip processing machine and hated 35mm film because the sprocket holes could carry over chemicals from one bath to the next, causing marks on the film. They used to give the hangers a tap as they came out of the first developer. Perhaps roll film or cut film may be less susceptible to bromide drag. However, I think the biggest difference will by the developing agents. Anyway, as I said before, a great video.
I do regularly stand with Rodinal (your #2 solution), as soon as I have doubts on the shooting conditions... Mainly with HP5+ and never had a problem.
Thanks for your videos !
Hi Roger
I've used Semi-Stand for since I got a Holga (about 2005) and then a Zero 2000 6x6 pinhole camera. The method I use is to invert for the first 30 seconds very gently. Stand 30 minutes, invert twice, stand 30 minutes, wash, fix and dry. Obviously I have used this method with 120 film predominately. For low tech cameras and shooting semi stand works well and I've always considered the bromide drag thing a bit of a myth, however I can see the issue with sprocket holes on 35mm (good analogy with washing the car lol).
Great video as usual.
Cheers
Testing the pushing limits of caffenol C-L I got bromide drag on a sheet of 4x5. So is not a myth, but appears predominantly with solvent developers.
Thank you for sharing your experiment and your good mood. Both inspire. I watched many of your videos and liked the Pentacon Six (the big tele must have been a good restling excercise as even the 2.8/80mm Biometar with the body weight 1.360grams.
Fyi: I do only HP5+ in Rodinal 1+100, 6ml+600ml,roll film and I am very happy with the results. The negs are usually close to perfect, but sometimes strange bromide drags appear that do not disturb me at all being result of a natural process. For me this is part of the organic analogue world.
Excellent, enjoyed the presentation. Andrew Sanderson in his book “Night Photography’ refers to the originator of the stand development William Mortensen and for dealing with contrast such as street lights offers the following, 1/4 of recommended development time inversions as normal and then stand for the whole time eg 20min dev, 5 normal and then 20 standing. If you venture out at night it might be worth a go!
Thanks for the tip John.
George is the Boss. Great stuff. Looks like it’s a case of keeping some rodinal in store for the occasional stand dev. Walease Woger!
life of Brian LOL
Great video, this test needed doing, a lot of folk talk a lot about stand developing, but it usually turns out they have only heard about it from “a friend” and never actually done it. In 1968 I was working in a pro photolab in central London, and a few of the clients were “photojournalists”. They all wanted their films stand developed, in Rodinal (RO9) 68deg F. with agitation only for 1st 30 secs, then leave for an hour in a warm room and then just empty out and bung in the fixer. The negs were thin and low contrast. We had to print them on the hardest ( most contrasty) photo paper there was, Agfa Brovira grade 6. This was in the days before multigrade. The prints were very sharp, with crushed shadows, or “ soot and whitewash” as my boss called them. The clients liked them and it became a standard style in all the newspaper weekend supplements.
That's really interesting. I love these old story's Howard. I can't imagine papers worried too much about contrast as long as they had a story to write and a print to go with it
I started photography as a hobby in the 1950s, didn’t have any tanks we used
dish developing, slowly seesawing the 120 films through the developer in
the dark. The negatives always looked so good, no unevenness.
Enjoyed the video.
We're they special dishes or anything from the kitchen? Thanks for sharing
They were glazed pottery dishes in those days, I used 3 5x7 inch ones.
The film was put through emulsion side up. You could try how it
works with some old film in the light.
5x7? So how did you cover the whole role of 120 film?
Holding the ends of the film, one side is dipped in first and the developer will hold
the film as you seesaw from hand to hand. Have a go with some old film in the
light. Dish development is also very good for 5x4 film, more economical than
tanks.
Watching for a good wee while and appreciate the work you have put into developing your video quality and video editing, great stuff. Thanks for the topic, very interesting and informative.
Thanks for watching Michael.
Thank you for making these videos.
Nice one! A few years ago I was using my Holga a lot and ended up doing the same experiments. I settled on very similar times to you, with a total of three inversions. I felt like stand was a good match for the Holga since you have so little control over exposure.
Great tip! That's how I felt with the pinhole. When I shoot my Holga I have a perfect combo of HP5 and XTOL but the light outside has to be spot on for a good result. When I see the clouds and light look right then it's a Holga moment off I go!
You do all the things I am too frightened to try - very satisfying. Have you ever compared stand developing versus standard developing? Thanks for a great channel.
Hi Peter. I think I did a while back on my videos.
Another interesting session . I have not seen any drag using Rodinal either. Great video, thanks for sharing.
This was really interesting. I’ve always gone for five agitations at the start of the process and five in the middle of the process with Rodinal 1+100. I’ve only experienced bromide drag once. With a roll of Ilford Pan400 some years ago. I left that one for two hours with agitation after an hour. Interesting video. Thank you.
What are your impressions of using ilford pan 400? Is it similar to hp5 or more like a kentmere 400 or a kentmere pan 400? That film is not popular but have good price.
@@angelusrufus7479 I am no expert, and I have only a shot Pan400 a few times. But I think they are discontinued as Pan400 and Sold as Kentmere 400 now. My experience from the few rolls I’ve shot is that you have a very grainy 400 film, and that is rather pay a little bit extra for the Hp5 which I find to be a better fit for my use.
What you saw was streaking, not bromide drag. Anchell/Troop recommend limiting stand to one hour to avoid streaking.
Thanks for the break-down. I've done stand with Rodinal for both 120 and 35mm film and have managed to get drag on the negs on one roll of each, but only the one time. I've got a love-hate relationship with stand developing. On the one hand it's great for conservation of developer at 100:1 and it takes temperature out of the equation, but on the other it drags out the process and can, on occasion, result in the odd drag.
I look forward to your videos; keep 'em coming, and keep an eye out for George.
Thanks for sharing. I've been happy with the results in the past but always wary of the uneven development issues. I did a stand a while back as my folding camera on a shoot had a sticky shutter! Negs came out nice in the end. If I went for a timed dev I think they would have been all over the place.
Thanks for doing all the experiments ! I've never seen Bromide drag on my films, but then I'm probably not looking very hard. JonnoMoto says below Stand Development is the lazy way to do film devving, but that seems harsh as I still have to get the Rodinal out of the fridge door pocket and find the Fix. It's not easy at my age.
I love rodinal. It has become my only developer. very versatile fomula.
It's a great dev. I've always got a bottle, apart from now, ordered new one today. I don't use it on any scapes I work hard for but great for lots of other shoots.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss I enjoy your collection of developers. Do you make specific decisions on which developer you use for a certain project? if so, what are they and why? Love this channel.
THE BEST PHOTOGRAPHY RUclips CHANNEL!
@@gelderlandproduction thanks Michael. I use mostly Xtol but recently shifted to ID11. They work well for me. If I'm using slow speed films such as panf50 for seascapes I like to dump that in perceptol for very fine grain. Rodinal if I want some grit to a film. Such as street photos, hp5 and Rodinal.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Id be interested in a comparison of Delta 100 in Rodinal, ID-11 and X-Tol. :-) To see the differences in grain structure.
@@gelderlandproduction I think. Xtol would win.
Been using Stand/Rodinal for years. Never noticed bromide drag at all.
I was doing stand development one evening in the kitchen after cleaning up and starting the dishwasher. The negatives came out way more contrasty than usual. Then I found out that the vibrations of the dishwasher probably agitated the tank a little during the full hour. After that I put the tank away on the floor to prevent vibration for the next developments.
interesting vibrations can cause that. Funny though.
If you mix it right away there’s very little reason to invert off the bat. I find if you’re using a thicker developer that’s harder to fully dissolve like Kodak hc110, inversions don’t do much in stand developing
Roger,
I have a suggestion for the next test: explore Ilford Delta 3200.
Why is it interesting? Because it's marketed as 3200, but even the official data sheet admits that its ISO rating is only 1000. What gives? Why the 1+2/3 stop difference? How does the film actually behave? Maybe shoot a scene at 3200, 1600 and 1000, then develop normally (effectively overexposing - the curve in the datasheet reveals that it should have enormous latitude), and then maybe another set with pull processing. Basically try to explore the huge and confusing discrepancy between marketed effective ISO and official rated ISO of Delta 3200. If you're feeling fancy, essentially the same applies to Kodak's TMAX P3200.
Cheers
That would be really interesting in medium format, and how the pull could take some of the grain away.
Good shout. I actually thought it was 800 ISO film?
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss You may be somewhat correct on that. More on that later.
I tried to a bit more research and it seems like 3200 has similar proposition to HP5. Sort of like its more sensitive little brother. HP5 is known for its huge exposure latitude, and can easily be pulled 1 stop or pushed 2 stops (or 3 if you're feeling lucky). But is still marketed by it's standardized ISO rating.
3200 seems to be really similar in this regard - it has a ginormous latitude which allows it to be pushed to hell. It's base rating seems to be 1000, but can be pulled to 400, or easily pushed by 2-3 stops to 3200 and 6400. It seems that the apparent ability to be pushed so much made Ilford (or Kodak, I don't know who went first) pull (pun intended) some marketing strings and write it's "recommended" push speed on the box instead of the true ISO rating. Essentially like if you saw alternate-universe HP5+1600.
It seems that to get the 1000 ISO, you need to be using t-grain dev. If you use something more old school, its rating seems to be only 800. (At least that's what I read about Kodak's P3200).
So in short, if we were honest, the most sensitive film you can get on the market is not 3200, but only 1000, but apparently pushes so nicely by two stops that that's what went to the box printer.
I'd still like to see you abuse it....(ehh...)
Very interesting. Seems Rodinal without inversion is great.
Hi! The solution to bromide drag @ stand development is semi-stand development 1 hour with 3 slow inversions after 30 min. I'm using Fomapan 100 or Rollei RPX 25 in medium format and large format with it, and it's fail safe. FP 100 is still the most affordable quality medium (and large) format film there is. Especially if you're buying directly from Foma's web shop. Sorry UK brexits, I believe a substantial VAT is added to your order... Have a nice photo Sunday!/Johan
Another great Wednesday wonder! I’d be interested in the pre-wash test as well. :)
me too! I've always wondered that.
Great, interesting video as always... Question: does the old trouble and strife get involved in your channel, perhaps helping with the editing or provide some other input?
If I swear too much my wife makes me cut it out, other than that not really Richard.
Scanning can be deceptive because of the magic of auto-exposure (either with the DSLR or a flatbed or film scanner). Now try taking those three negatives into the darkroom and making a straight print from each one, all three *at the same exposure.* That'll tell you whether the increased shadow detail in the no-inversion strip is real, or just due to less density in the sky allowing the auto-exposure to keep the fence etc. darker (=lighter in the positive).
Yes I have to get them in the darkroom. It was nice for once to come out the darkroom for a video though and not everyone has ability to make prints so I scanned but I know what you mean totally.
My experience fully confirms the comment on the scanning part. Lately I find scanning to be the most crytical part of the whole process. Auto mode is so-so, while manual setting can greatly change the results and not necessarily to the better.
Great idea for comparison video too bad we really didn’t see different results on the first roll. I’ve had mixed results with both rodinal and Hc110. Im wondering if a very old expired film would make a difference on bromide drag. Thinking the emulsion may have broken down over the years and not be able to sustain adhesion to the film. I maybe another idea for a future video.
Cheers,
Stephen
Great point!To be honest I thought they would all be the same on the first roll, at least they all looked the same at a glance. I'll have to check.
Interesting lesson 👍
I love stand development because I'm lazy and cheap. Kidding aside, I've had good luck like you with Rodinal 1:100 for 1 hour with agitation for one minute and 10 seconds after 30 minutes. What also works well for me is L-110, a Kodak HC-110 replacement with the same dilution and technique. My experience is that Rodinal is slightly grainer. I think the negatives look sharper because the sodium sulfite is a silver solvent, not agitating as much doesn't dissolve the edges of the silver grains as much as agitating 10 seconds for every minute for the conventional technique. I love stand development.
Rodinal doesn’t dissolve the grains at all, it’s not a solvent developer like D76, DD-X, etc.
I am no expert but i finished reading te darkroom cookbook this weekend there is for example no Borax in Rodinal. D76 and ID-11 have Borax in them.. Darkroom cookbook page 223 for Rodinal , page 217 for D76. D76 consist of Metol, Sodiumsulfite hydroquineone Borax and water. Rodinal has Aminophenol hydrochloride, Potassium metabisufite and sodium hydroxide. There very different
How can you finish reading that book and keep it all in lol. It's a good read
Developing and will go to pub.
I have made over 100 semi stand developments with Rodinal 1+100 1h, I have never had bromide drag.
It can and does happen. Makes you wonder what is going on inside the tank when it happens.
How much Rodinal did you use and how many films in the tank?
@@azzalos I use a Paterson tank made for two 135 film. I usually develop one 120 film or two 135 films. I always make 700ml of developer. Since I posted a couple of months ago, I actually had bromide drag once. Don't know why...
@@CM-cb2km it might have been surge marks from agitation. I don’t use any after the first minute, it’s not necessary with rodinal (contains no bromide).
I would also suggest only doing one roll per tank, so you get even coverage quickly.
Love George ....give him a big pat and belly rub from me ........Great Vid as usual ..........I think I will be going for the pin hole camera early next year .....I have found a guy in Canada making them that my buddy bought from .....I will post a link if I can find the web site .......be well ....
Have fun. Pinhole is great joy.
thank you
There is one charicteristic of stand development visible in your first set of negatives. The right hand edge of the first and third image are lighter than the left hand side which is slightly darker, except for the second film which was obviously loaded in the opposite direction. However regardless of which agitation technique that you used this characteristic seems to be normal with stand development. Because the films are developed on there side, one side is always slightly darker and the other lighter. It is suggested that when printing that type of neg that you crop the two edges slightly to reduce this effect on the print.
Great video, keep them coming.
I was just going to ask the same thing. I've tried to stand develop 120 film many times, but I always get a lighter edge on one side of my negs. Not a problem to fix it later but I stopped using stand development because of that.
First off, you need to define your exact process when you’re talking about “stand development”, as it means different things to different people.
With 35mm I use rodinal 1+100, 60 minutes, no agitation after 1st minute, on the bottom reel of a 2-reel Paterson tank, 500ml of developer. There most definitely is not “always” a lighter edge. I have not seen that in my negatives.
What I have seen are “edge effects”. This is because the exposed portion is chemically active compared to shadows or unexposed film, and it it pulls in developer from surrounding areas of the emulsion causing a slight haloing effect. Many people consider this a feature, not a bug.
I’ve been using a timer app on my iphone for timing film development but it’s risky with chemicals etc. What are those timers you’re using? Just simple lcd kitchen timers? It’s hard to see the writing on them to know if there’s any special functions.
Well I got one on eBay for about £3 and then saw the other identical one in the pound shop! ha ha. Should have bought a few more. BUT. The batteries wear down quick so best to get a kitchen timer with on off switch!
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss ah I’ll get some and make sure they have a switch. Thanks, I love your channel, it’s my favourite and you got me back into the darkroom after nearly a 40 year gap.
@@peter-robinson hope. It goes well Peter!
I often do stand development when it comes to push 2 or more stops. i usually agitate the whole 1st minute and invert once every 30minutes. since i do so, i have no more problems with bromide drag and end up with nice negatives, even when i push fomapan 100 to 800 or Agfa APX 400 to 3200. i always use rodinal 1:100 for stand development
Interesting. So you push film for more speed and stand dev to control the contrast?
by the way: thank you for your nice content and PLEASE keep your endless curiosity, which i like very much.
greetings from the Black Forest, southern Germany =)
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss yes, exactly. rodinal acts as a nice balancer in stand development
Maybe "bromide" drag is because D-76 formulas contain Potassium Bromide and Rodinal doesn't.
Exactly.
Loaded in my 120 camera 135 Ilfort PanF+ film and shot few frames to test. I cut off film and developed in rodianl 1:100 stand. 300ml tank. Presoak and first agitation, few inversion after 30m. And the result....yes bromide drag. First time ever in my life. Maybe it's because of develop just small piece of film or low iso(50)?????
It's a mystery!
300ml is too little. 500ml is the recommended minimum with 5ml of rodinal. What you saw wasn’t bromide drag.
@@joeltunnah thanks
HC110 / Ilfotec HC around 1:90 works well for stand development from what I've read.
You can get bromide drag with HC110. Not with rodinal.
Wait a minute. At 9:23 when you quickly flick through them you can see one negative is darker on one side.
Thats right. I mentioned that and said possibly the clouds changed. I think!
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss that doesn't look like a lighting change to my eye. I've looked again and it's across the entire edge of the negative in a defined band that tapers to the middle.
What film did you use. I didn't hear you say.
Shanghai Gp3 Rodinal, Orwo UN54 ID-11
Hello George 💖
Hello 👋
hello george!
George waves back!
Hi George :-)
George says YO!
I experience bromide drag if I shoot with a normal film cart in a screw mount Leica AND stand develop... something about the combination of that development method and having exposed portions of the negative touching the sprockets (as classic Leicas do) seems to be a recipe for disaster. From now on if I plan to stand dev I try to re-load the roll into a FILCA before shooting it, to get proper spacing of the frame between the perforations. No more bromide drag after that
thats interesting.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss what tipped me off that the frame positioning might actually be part of the issue was the fact that the streaking was only coming into the frame from the side that was touching the sprocket holes, the other side of the frame was always clear. This consistently manifested itself as lines streaking up from the bottom of the frame. In the film gate, in the camera, the bottom of the frame is actually closer to the top of the camera (the lens projects the image onto the film plane upside down) and it’s at the upper end of the film plane where the film has a tendency to slide downwards and expose closer to the sprocket holes if using an “undersized” (according to 1930’s Leica standard, anyway) 35mm cart.
So what I think is happening is there is increased developer activity around the edge of the sprocket holes when stand dev’ing, which is an area of the film where normally nothing would be exposed in pretty much any other camera, so normally there would be no developer activity in that area... and maybe just that slight bit of developer activity in that area is enough to kickstart the whole effect... but just a theory on my behalf. This stuff’s all a bit above my paygrade!
@@MrRom92DAW what developer are you using? And for how long?
@@joeltunnah if I semi-stand develop, I typically use very high dilutions of HC-110 and depending on the film I will sometimes let it develop between 30-60 minutes, with only a brief agitation period halfway through. But the streaking effect is the same. It never occurs on the side of the film where the image is further away from the sprocket holes, so something about the presence of an exposure directly touching the holes (and thus already increased developer activity in that area) is somehow “kickstarting” that process
@@MrRom92DAW HC110 contains bromide, and is known to cause bromide drag. Try rodinal, which has none.
ID11 has is a solvent developer.
Interesting that RO9 didn't drag and the Old faithful did! Ive only ever stand developed using RO9, and going on these results is probably why I've never seen bromide drag.
It'll be interesting to see the difference between a stand development vs a given time and ratio development from the Massive dev chart.
I think mostly lack of contrast Iain. Maybe vs a pulled development.
Rodinal doesn’t have bromide in it, that’s why.
And with pulled development, your shadows don’t have enough time to catch up, so you get less shadow detail, and slower effective film speed.
With stand, even in a compensating developer like rodinal, you get full film speed, or even a slight bump up.
@@joeltunnah I didn't know this. Makes sense now you've explained this. Thank you :-)
@@IainHC1 you’re welcome.👍
Good video as usual..? Certainly save me bothing with stand developing when my darkroom is back up and running.
Anyone had bromide drag running along the length of the film rather than across it?
Not me.
George is beautiful :)
stand development means having plenty of time for a beer or two
and a snack
The bromide drag is not caused by stand development itself. I´ve left tanks for 8 hours @ 8ºC, even 5 days in the fridge and no bromide drag!
I guess it can happen without standing. I guess it depends on the developer and tank process. Who knows what goes on inside the chemistry once you start? I'd love to see a simulated example of exactly what is going on with all the chemical reactions. Like one of those Big Bang programs.
Personally I would not need these muppet scenes in your video. Your natural humour works greatly anyway. Love your videos.
I believe the best way to avoid bromide drag is to have an empty spool at the bottom of the tank. Never tried it. I didn't always have this issue with 120 but always with 135. Semi stand is a better compromise for me. It's the lazy mode of development and what I use when I discover a roll I can't remember what I rated it at or was really wildly guessing the exposure times.
I’ve always had bromide drag on 35mm film. Defo sprockets the problem.
I've seen it on 120 too!
With what developer? That’s an important detail.
@@joeltunnah only tried it with rodinal.
@@josephasghar then it can’t be bromide drag. It could be streaking from going beyond 1 hour, too heavy dilution, or surge marks from agitation.
Try at least 500ml with 5ml rodinal, 1 hour, no agitation beyond first minute.