From: Breukel, C. (HKG) (C.Breukel@lumc.nl)
Date: 01/30/03-06:37:24 AM Z
Scott,
Thanks for your detailed post, but could you perhaps share the speeds of the
different films you have used in your setup (out of curiousity, and maybe a
starting point for own experimentations..)
thanks,
Cor
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Wainer [mailto:smwbmp@starpower.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:46 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Stand Development
>
>
> Sandy King wrote:
>
> > One of the main reasons I developed Pyrocat was to experiment with
> > stand development so your comments are very interesting. But my work
> > with stand development has been a really mixed bag. With roll film I
> > have had really good success and have managed to make negatives that
> > have really extraordinary apparent sharpness because of the
> adjacency
> > effect. However, developing this way is always something of a crap
> > shoot because of 12 frames one or two or almost sure to be ruined by
> > some type of uneven development. And sheet film haw been even more
> > problematic.
> >
> > So, I would be very interested in hearing more of your specific
> > working procedures with stand development.
>
>
> Hi again Sandy,
>
> Currently my experience with Pyrocat is limited to 35 mm processed in
> daylight tanks and 4x5's using Kodak hangers doing the ol'
> dip-n-dunk. I
> just ordered a Mamiya 645, so I will be testing 120's when the camera
> arrives.
>
> As you might remember I was testing for EI ratings and normal
> development
> times a while ago and having a devil of a time with density
> readings. You
> and others recommended testing procedures outlined in the
> BTZS book; I never
> did get a copy of it - local sources can't get it - so i'll
> have to get it
> through the website. I decided on another way to test, I
> found an 9 zone
> scene and shot 3 rolls of each type of film (35mm) as follows:
>
> frames 1-7 : normal exposure
> frames 8-14 : +1/2 stop
> frames 15-21 : +1 stop
> frames 22-28 : -1/2 stop
> frames 29-35 : -1 stop
>
> I estimated development time for each type of film and developed
> accordingly. If a roll looked thin or over-developed I increased or
> decreased time accordingly for the next roll. When all rolls
> were developed
> I compared them on a lightbox, found the negs with the best
> exposures from
> each roll, and printed those exposures; all the while keeping detailed
> notes. The exposures/development times that provided the best
> shadow detail,
> mid-tone tonalities, and highlight seperations became my standards.
>
> Where stand and semi-stand development (as I use them) comes
> in is when I
> have a very contrasty scene (8+ zones) like sunlit snow
> against shaded wet,
> black river rocks. For this I subjectively choose stand or semi-stand
> depending upon the film type (currently Tech Pan, HEI, Pan
> F+, Delta 100,
> Delta 400, Delta 3200, Arista 125, Arista 400, and SFX) and
> the look I want
> in the final image. Each 36 exp roll (80sqin) uses 6 ml of
> each A & B stock
> solution. For semi-stand I dilute Pyrocat 1:1:400 in
> distilled water for
> twice normal development at 70F; agitate for the first 30
> seconds and 10
> seconds every 4 minutes. For stand I dilute 1:1:800 in
> distilled water for
> 90 minutes at 70F; agitate for the first 30 seconds - no
> agitation for the
> remainder of the time. I have not found any development problems (eg,
> bromide-type drag ect...) with any of the above films; Tech
> Pan is very
> sensitive though - it likes to get really, really contrasty -
> here I usually
> do stand at 30-45 minutes (or less). I did notice that with
> stand/semi-stand
> the use of freshly made A & B solutions makes all the
> difference; I mix new
> developer if it is over a week old.
>
> I don't use stand or semi-stand for sheet film as I believe
> the size of the
> material plays a part in "uneven" development. With the
> dip-n-dunk method, I
> dilute 1:1:200 and agitate for 5 seconds every minute and
> adjust the time to
> control contrast. With normal development times between 10-14
> minutes there
> is plenty of room for expansion and contraction. I noticed that if I
> increased the agitation to 10 seconds I started to get
> excessive base fog.
> Because of the size of the negative and the enlargement
> (16x20 or 20x24) I
> don't worry as much about the edge effects for visual
> sharpness as I do with
> 35mm (I have printed 35mm Tech Pan at 40x60 with no grain and
> only slight
> fuzz which I attribute to lens quality).
>
> I generally lose a number of images to over/under exposure on
> each roll of
> film but can't contribute them to development problems.
>
> I hope this helps you, but I learned long ago that what works
> for one person
> won't work for another.
>
> Scott Wainer
> smwbmp@starpower.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 02/21/03-10:44:17 AM Z CST