diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 6c660a1..4ab65d3 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -7,6 +7,21 @@ If you do not already have a least one film/developer combination "dialed in", don't bother with any of this.* + +## Precis + +Low- or no agitation "stand" techniques have been around since +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 +initial) does not work reliably with modern films. Infrequent +agitation can be made to work reliably and produces useful results +... at least for me. + + +## Introduction + 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 @@ -321,13 +336,12 @@ 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 on stainless steel reels, but dunked - into open 4x5 tanks rather than the usual daylight tanks favored by - small format shooters. (I did not try 120 rollfilm.) As expected, - Normal development 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. +* 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 + expecting bromide drag problems because of the way the reels support + the film. Again, I think strong initial agitation helped here. I've also noticed a considerable difference of reel spacing from different manufacturers. If you are going to do 35mm or 120 this