diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..87d791d --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,353 @@ +# A Breathless And Brief Introduction To Stand Development + + +**WARNING**: *What follows is for the advanced darkroom practioner. + It is not for beginners and people should be well + acquainted with safety and good darkroom practices. + If you do not already have a least one film/developer + combinaton "dialed in", don't bother with any of this.* + +I've been a black and white silver photographer for over four decades. +In that time, I've worked with a large number of films and developers, +eventually settling down on a few combinations that worked well for +me. In every case, I managed time and temperature and agitated the +film according to the developer manufacturer's instructions. + +Recently, I became aware of a newish staining developer called "Pyrocat-HD", +invented by Sandy King. This developer has a great many claimed +virtues among them: + +* Semi compensating in the highlights with VC papers +* Tight grain comparable to PMK Pyro +* Much lower sensitivity to oxidation effects than PMK Pyro +* Much less fussy about agitation than PMK Pyro +* Produces negatives that work well for both traditional silver and alternative printing processes + +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 +technique used by some of the masters like Aget. 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 +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 +going to mess some of them up. + +## Why Bother? + +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 +"snap" we're always looking for. + +For example, I recently shot a scene in which the darkest shadows were +on Zone III, and the brightest highlights (snow) were well into Zone +VIII. Depending on how you do exposure control, this is either normal +development or slight N-. The problem is that the dominant geometry +in the scene was a bunch of boards that - at best - showed a Subject +Brightness Range of about 3 stops. This was the most important part of +the scene but, I was stuck with two bad choices: + +- Normal, or worse still, contracted development would shove all these + tones together to produce low local contrast in the mid-tones. + i.e., A picture that held the entire tonal range, but boring because + the primary image geometry had low local contrast. + +- But if I did N+ development to improve middle tone contrast there + was good chance the snow highlights would blow out to Zone IX or X. + Because Pyrocat-HD is a semi-compensating developer, I likely would + 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, +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 +discussion of "edge effects". These occur as a byproduct of the way +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 +edge effect is perceived by the human eye as higher accutance or +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 of an unsharp mask.) + +## So How Does It Work? + +Stand techniques depend on a basic property of how film develops - +*The highlights develop much faster than the shadows.* One Kodak +engineer was heard to say that "Development ends after 3 minutes, the +rest of the time is spent increasing contrast." This is just another +way of saying the same thing. + +As the highlights develop, they exhaust the developer around them much +faster than the shadow areas do. In other words, the brighter the +object - say white snow - the quicker it will exhaust the nearby +developer. The darker the object - say a shadow - the slower it will +exhaust. Mid-Tones live, well, somewhere in the middle. + +For those of you with a technical bent, I highly recommend a careful +reading of this explanation of film behavior by David Kachel: + +[How Film Works](http://davidkachel.com/wpNewDK/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/HowFilmWorks.pdf) + +Normally, we don't notice this because *we agitate regularly* thereby +replenishing the supply for fresh developer everywhere, most +especially the highlights that have "run out of" useful developer. + +Stand development exploits this by ... *not agitating at all or very +little*. Highlights are allowed to exhaust because they develop +quickly and don't really need more developer. But by letting the film +sit in a really dilute developer solution for a looooooong time +without agitation, the shadows continue to develop and so do the mid +tones. This means we are: + +* Fully developing the shadows (getting full box speed ASA) +* 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 +how we develop film. In addition to time and temperature, we now add +developer dilution and frequency/duration of agitation as development +controls. + +It's worth mentioning that this is super tricky to get right. In +the words of a retired Kodak film engineer, "Kodak did not consider +still development in formulating its films. It is not a recommended +practice." That's right, it's not. And you're not supposed to +tune your stock Ford engine to produce more horsepower either. It +is not recommended by the manufacturer ;) + +## What's The Downside? + +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 +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 +this approach. This mess is often referred to as "bromide drag". + +All manner of techniques exist to avoid these problems, with varying degrees +of success. Among them include: + +* Developing and standing negatives in open trays +* Using speciality 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 negs +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 will work. + +It's also worth noting that the photographers who pioneered this +approach a hundred plus years ago were using very different films and +plates. Modern thin films do have more a propensity for bromide drag +than their grandfather films did. + +Still, this can be conquered and - at least in my view - should be in the +arsenal of tools for any advanced monochrome silver photographer. + +## Terminology + +There are many references to this sort of development in the literature +and the terminology isn't used consistently. For our purposes we'll +define things as follows: + +* **Normal Development** - Using developer at recommended dilutions and + agitating regularly once or twice a minute. + +* **Stand Development** - Using highly dilute developer, agitating + vigorously for the first 1-2 minutes and then just letting the film + sit untouched in the developer for 45-60 minutes or even more. + +* **Semistand Development** - Using highly dilute developer, agitating + vigorously for the first 1-2 minutes, and then once again for 10-15 + seconds at the development halfway point. So, for a 60 min stand, + we'd agitate at the 30 min mark. + +* **Extreme Minimal Agitation (EMA)** (Attributed to Steve + Sherman). Using highly dilute developer, agitating vigorously for + the first 1-2 minutes, and then again for 10-15 seconds at 2 or 3 + evenly spaced intervals for the remaining time. Say we initially + agitate for 2 minutes and want a total development time 30 minutes. + We could split up the remaining 28 minutes into three intervals and + do 10-15 second agitations at 9 minutes, 16 minutes, and 23 minutes. + +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 +likelihood you'll see these gremlins appear in your negatives. + +Much to my surprise, as I tested, I discovered that even the single +midpoint agitation of a semistand development can signficantly +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. + +## How Did I Test? + +I exposed and developed a variety of films using all four of the +development techniques above. As I did so (and failed more often than +not) I began to do my down "dialing it" of what worked and what did +not. + +* For all cases, I used Pyrocat-HD as the developer at a nominal + 68F/20C. + + I should mention that I designed and built my own + temperature-sensitive timer to keep temperature considerations out + of mind in the darkroom. You can find the details here: + + [Devtimer](https://gitbucket.tundraware.com/tundra/devtimer) + + This is certainly not a requirement and you can do ordinary + time/temperatuire corrections as usual in your own work. + +* Pyrocat-HD is a developer mixed from two stock solutions. Dilution + is expressed as `Part A : PartB : Water`. For Normal development, + dilution was `1:1:100`. For the various stand tests, dilution + was either `1.5:1:150` or `1.5:1:200`. + +* Developer and fixer were mixed with distilled water. + +* Films tested included Kodak TXT, Agfapan APX 100, and Ilford FP4+ in 4x5 + sheets. I also used 35mm Tri-X and Agfapan APX 100 for testing. + +* Development was in open tanks and - in a few cases - a Yankee 4x5 + tank with insert. + +* A variety of different film suspension systems were tried including + Kodak "framed" film hangars, a Yankee 4x5 tank, and a "frameless" + Kodak film hanger. + +* Film was presoaked for 5 minutes in running water to wash off the + anti-halation layer and prepare the emulsion to accept developer. + It's not clear this is entirely necessary with open tanks but it + does no harm. + + +## What I Have Discovered + +First of all, these are **my** findings, built on my workflow and darkroom +technique. These are intended to be guideposts, not definitive rules. They +are intended to be a starting point for you to explore, not some final +word in how to do this stuff. Every statement below should be read +to say "In my case ..." + +* Stand development is *really* fussy about how the film is held in + the developer. Framed hangers and the Yankee tank insert all showed + bromide drag effects in varying and unpredicatable ways. My theory - + which I cannot prove - is that turbulent effects and developer + trapping is taking place along- and under the hangar frames/insert + supports and promoting bromide drag. + +* Semistand development is at lower risk of this, but still shows + some evidence of bromide drag with framed hangers and tank inserts. + +* For this reason, all my sheet film is now hung using old frameless + Kodak hangers. They have minimal points of contact with the film. + A likely viable alternative here would be a dental X-ray film clip. + In either case, having more than one sheet in the tank will be + 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 + development (no agitation during stand period) using these hangers. + +* 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 dilute developers will take longer to act on the shadows. + +* 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 + 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 + development seems to noticeably reduce the risk of bromide + drag. + +* The single agitation introduced by Semistand development seems to + noteiceably increase overall contrast and density as compared to a + no-agitation 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. + +* Given a normal dilution of `1:1:100` and an EMA dilution of `1:1.5:150`, + I found that a good first order guess for EMA development time was + to double my Normal development time with 2 equally spaced + 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 + 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. + +* You can overdo this. If you have a scene that already has good + mid-tone local contrast, these techniques can give you a cartoon-like + local contrast expansion. + +* All the stand techniques gave me full box speed ASA for every film + I tried. + +* You have to be merciless to "expose for the shadows" properly. If + you underexpose, nothing can save you. You cannot develop content + that isn't present in the negative. If you overexpose, you will get + the entire tonal range of the image sliding up the H/D curve in ugly + ways with stand techniques. In this regard, exposure control and + ASA management is much more demanding than most conventional + film-developer Normal development methods. + + +## Is It Worth It? + +Yes, in certain cases. Stand is slow and finicky. But, it really +shines when you want to emphasize mid-tone local contrast, but have a +competing highlight that would get blown out (or hard to print) if you +just did N+ Development. + +More generally, these techniques are great when you need to get +maximum shadow detail, but reign in highlight placement. + +Stand techniques also work nicely when you want to get best apparent +sharpness on subjects that show a lot of bright-to-dark transition +lines - for example, articulated rock faces. + +Think of stand as another arrow in your quiver. You won't always use it, but +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. + +## Copyright And Use + +All content here is Copyright (c) 2021 TundraWare Inc., Des Plaines, IL USA + +Permission is hereby granted for non-commercial redistribution by any +means so long as you agree to these conditions: + +* You agree to hold TundraWare Inc. harmless for any damage these + techniques may cause. + +* You agree to reproduce this monograph in full with full attribution + of authorship. + +* You agree to include the URL of this monograph in your copy.