diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 4ab65d3..18b2643 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ the beginning of photography. These techniques are controversial among very fine photographers. I set out to test this for myself. -**The Short Version**: True Stand development (no agitation after +**The Short Version**: True stand development (no agitation after initial) does not work reliably with modern films. Infrequent agitation can be made to work reliably and produces useful results ... at least for me. @@ -40,10 +40,10 @@ This monograph is *not* about Pyrocat-HD, although all the testing was done with it. Pyrocat-HD turned out to be a gateway drug to my -learning about "Stand" or "still" development. This is an an old +learning about "stand" or "still" development. This is an an old technique used by some of the masters like Atget. Today's modern masters like Sandy King and Steve Sherman are making use of variations -of Stand development to great advantage. But, in the words of Sandy +of stand development to great advantage. But, in the words of Sandy King, "It is fraught with danger". The technique is tricky and prone to failing rather horribly. So ... **don't try this with pictures that matter to you without making backup negatives.** I promise you're @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ ## Why Bother? -When Stand (or one of its variants) works, it gives you negatives of +When stand (or one of its variants) works, it gives you negatives of great apparent accutance, full box ASA speed and - this was most important to me - a way to increase mid-tone contrast without blowing out the highlights. It is mid-tone contrast that gives prints that @@ -93,18 +93,18 @@ have been able to burn through this *if* I could control the burn geometry properly. -This is where a form of Stand saved the day. By developing the negative -using Stand techniques, I was able to get full box film speed in the shadows, +This is where a form of stand saved the day. By developing the negative +using stand techniques, I was able to get full box film speed in the shadows, jack up the mid-tone contrast, and preserve the highlights from getting pushed up too far. -When reading about Stand development, you'll run into a lot of +When reading about stand development, you'll run into a lot of discussion of "edge effects". These occur as a byproduct of the way -Stand works chemically, especially when using Pyro staining +stand works chemically, especially when using Pyro staining developers. The edge effects show up as a line in a transition between a light and dark subject. In the extreme case, it can actually manifest itself as a "halo" behind the transition. (This is -one of the reasons you don't want to overdo Stand development.) This +one of the reasons you don't want to overdo stand development.) This edge effect is perceived by the human eye as higher sharpness. It's sort of an illusion, but it's a useful one. (For those of you who do digital post processing, this is approximately the chemical equivalent @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ a very simple and inexpensive 2-component developer you can easily mix yourself. -David Kachel - no fan of Stand processing but a superb contributor to +David Kachel - no fan of stand processing but a superb contributor to this craft - has a novel technique called "SLIMT". In a negative with really bright top zones, he adjusts for shadow and mid-tones as necessary, *and then mildly bleaches the negative* during the pre-soak @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ * Raising the H/D contrast curve for the mid-tones * Doing little to the highest tones -In effect, Stand techniques add two other things we can control about +In effect, stand techniques add two other things we can control about how we develop film. In addition to time and temperature, we now add developer dilution and frequency/duration of agitation as development controls. @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ As film develops, it produces chemical byproducts like bromides that we usually don't notice because ... we're agitating regularly. This serves to "wash away" these byproducts with fresh developer. But when -you Stand develop, these byproducts can come to rest on your negative +you stand develop, these byproducts can come to rest on your negative and interfere with the development. This results in streaks and marks on your negatives and can be entirely ruinous to the process. That's why the Great Yellow Father, Kodak, recommended so strongly against @@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ * Using specialty tubes made of PVC plumber's pipe to hold the negative during standing * Using minimal contact hangers to hold the film during standing -Formally and properly, Stand development should be done with the +Formally and properly, stand development should be done with the negatives laying flat in a tray or the equivalent. They should *stand laying down* not hanging vertically in a tank. My testing suggests that this is not absolutely necessary and at least one other approach @@ -234,11 +234,11 @@ Semistand and EMA were conceived to overcome the nasty development artifacts (artefacts if you live in the UK ;) like bromide drag. The -occasional short agitation during Stand development reduces the +occasional short agitation during stand development reduces the likelihood you'll see these gremlins appear in your negatives. Surprisingly, I discovered that even the single midpoint agitation of -a Semistand development can increase apparent contrast and - in the +a semistand development can increase apparent contrast and - in the case of Pyrocat-HD - level of stain (as well as Film Base Plus Fog). So each of these techniques has a place. @@ -271,11 +271,11 @@ * 4x5 films tested included Kodak TXT, Agfapan APX 100, and Ilford FP4+. Not every film was tested with every agitation method, but - across all film types, the tests covered Stand, Semistand, and - Extreme Minimal agitation. + across all film types, the tests covered stand, semistand, and + extreme minimal agitation. * I tested 120 Ilford FP4 as well as 35mm Tri-X and Agfapan APX 100. - Both formats were tested using Semistand in open half-gallon tanks + Both formats were tested using semistand in open half-gallon tanks with Nikor stainless developing reels. * Development was in open tanks and - in a few cases - a Yankee 4x5 @@ -316,30 +316,30 @@ tricky to agitate because there is no frame to keep it in place. Patience is your friend here. - How good is this? I was able to get a perfect negative with Stand + How good is this? I was able to get a perfect negative with stand development (no agitation during stand period) using these hangers. * Well... *almost* perfect. The negative shows just a slight hint of bromide drag. It is at the end of that negative that was at the bottom of the tank - exactly where gravity would land it. The exact - same scene exposed identically but processed with EMA and Semistand + same scene exposed identically but processed with EMA and semistand do not show this artifact. -* In short, *I was unable to consistently get Stand processing to +* In short, *I was unable to consistently get stand processing to produce artifact-free negatives*. So, even with better film suspension, at least one midpoint agitation is a really good idea. This is confirmed in discussions with other photographers doing this sort of thing, even in trays. (Almost) no one is getting decent - results with pure Stand. The issue here isn't that Stand doesn't - work. The issue is that Stand doesn't work **consistently**. + results with pure stand. The issue here isn't that stand doesn't + work. The issue is that stand doesn't work **consistently**. - As a practical matter, there is no reason to do Stand over Semistand + As a practical matter, there is no reason to do stand over semistand or EMA. Both of the latter techniques give good results. * I did some testing with 35mm and 120 on stainless steel reels, but dunked into open 4x5 tanks rather than the usual daylight tanks favored by small format shooters. As expected, Normal development - worked fine. To my surprise, Semistand was OK as well. I was + worked fine. To my surprise, semistand was OK as well. I was expecting bromide drag problems because of the way the reels support the film. Again, I think strong initial agitation helped here. @@ -356,28 +356,28 @@ smooth developer flow. Using this just begs for bromide drag problems. -* Stand and Semistand did best with the `1.5:1:200` dilution. EMA did +* Stand and semistand did best with the `1.5:1:200` dilution. EMA did best with the `1.5:1:150` dilutions. This makes sense, since EMA - times tend to be a lot shorter than true Stand development and more + times tend to be a lot shorter than true stand development and more dilute developers will take longer to act on the shadows. -* Both Stand and Semistand really need 45-60 minutes to fully do their +* Both stand and semistand really need 45-60 minutes to fully do their jobs. -* Both Stand and Semistand need a full 2 minutes of initial agitation +* Both stand and semistand need a full 2 minutes of initial agitation and it needs to be "vigorous". Again, I suspect - but cannot prove - that really kicking the development off hard at the beginning reduces the likelihood of bromide drag later. * EMA was fine with only 90 seconds of more normal initial agitation. -* The single agitation introduced at the midpoint in Semistand +* The single agitation introduced at the midpoint in semistand development seems to noticeably reduce the risk of bromide drag. -* The single agitation introduced by Semistand development seems to +* The single agitation introduced by semistand development seems to increase overall contrast and density as compared to a no-agitation - Stand period. It's not night and day, but given that doing this + stand period. It's not night and day, but given that doing this reduces the risk of bromide drag, it's probably the preferred long stand technique and this extra contrast has to be considered. @@ -387,8 +387,8 @@ agitations during the stand time. * You can do contrast control with EMA much like you do with Normal - development - increase- or decrease overall time. With Stand and - Semistand, it's a bit more difficult because you really want that + development - increase- or decrease overall time. With stand and + semistand, it's a bit more difficult because you really want that long development time to fill in the shadows and crank up the mid-tones. I've not tried it, but changing developer dilution is likely a better tactic for these development methods. @@ -427,8 +427,9 @@ it can be a really nice enhancement to your arsenal of tools. I **strongly** recommend that, if you're going to try this, take at -least two exposures of every scene you care about. Try one with stand -techniques, and have a backup you can process normally if needed. +least two exposures (on separate sheets or rolls) of every scene +you care about. Try one with stand techniques, and have a backup you +can process normally if needed. ## Copyright And Use