What total development time do you normally use, Mark? Some of the users I'm seeing develop from 50 minutes to an hour. Are you saying that you go that long and still need to go longer if pushing?
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Mark C <pdml-m...@charter.net> wrote: > I agree with most of your synopsis but - > > My experience with stand processing is that time does need to be increased > when pushing. I did not do a formal test but did happen to shoot several > rolls in one session, some pushed and some not. I stand processed all of it > to minimize contrast and found that time needed to increased for pushed > rolls. It might be interesting to take three rolls of the same film, shoot > one at box speed, one pulled two stops and one pushed two stops and then > stand process them all using the same time and developer concentration. I > have some bulk film here - maybe I'll make up three short rolls and give > that a try. I do agree with the rule of thumb that stand processing film > exposed at its rated speed generally produces a usable negative. > > I would add to advantages that stand processing maximizes adjacency effects > and can increase the apparent sharpness. It also minimizes grain with > developers like Rodinal, but dilute concentrations with normal agitation > also minimize grain. > > Under disadvantages I'd add that stand processing can be inconsistent and > streaking , especially with 120 film, can happen. > > Also note that the minimum amount of developer should be used, which may > require larger tanks that would usually be needed. I've experienced this > first hand when going too dilute or doubling rolls caused problems. > > Mark > > > On 2/3/2016 10:28 AM, Darren Addy wrote: >> >> I appreciate those of you with personal experience with stand >> developing sharing your experiences. Correct me if I'm wrong in the >> conclusions I draw here: >> >> The benefits of stand development are: >> a) Conservation of developer. Very diluted, but not reused (unless you >> are saving it to use as "old brown" later). >> b) Done correctly, the goal is to not block up (preserve detail) in >> the highlights, and to pull out as much detail as possible in the >> shadow areas. >> c) Stand development doesn't care what the film speed is or if you >> pushed or pulled the ISO.. it is going to do the above for whatever >> detail you were able to capture. This also makes it great for >> developing film of an unknown ISO/ASA. >> >> The downsides seem to be limited to: >> a) you are going to get a flatter, lower contrast negative in most cases. >> However, this is not a problem if you are: >> a) scanning the negatives >> b) possibly not a problem if you have higher contrast paper, or can >> dial in higher contrast on Multi-Contrast paper, using a dichroic >> color enlarger head. >> c) but it seems it is not great for Zone System work. >> >> Have I missed anything or gotten anything incorrect? >> >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Darren Addy <pixelsmi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Contact prints are now possible from digital negatives printed on >>> transparency material up to whatever size of transparency film you've >>> got. Of course, you have just moved the problem from the size of your >>> camera and film to the size of your printer and transparency roll, but >>> the point is that you can to 24" wide contact prints now. Not many >>> people had/have 20x24 large format cameras. Also, if something happens >>> to your negative you can just print a new one. >>> >>> I understand that properly exposed chromes are amazing, but I never >>> have understood the appeal of a chrome as the medium. Pass the slide >>> viewer... ooh! I realize that there was a time when Cibachrome was a >>> thing for getting impressive prints from positives. >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 2:20 AM, J.C. O'Connell <hifis...@gate.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> there are two ultimates in large format photography, especially when >>>> using a >>>> 8x10 camera. Contact Prints, and Chromes. Both look truly amazing, >>>> unmatched by any other photographic schemes analog or digital. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>>> follow the directions. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> “The Earth is Art, The Photographer is only a Witness ” >>> ― Yann Arthus-Bertrand, Earth from Above >> >> >> > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- “The Earth is Art, The Photographer is only a Witness ” ― Yann Arthus-Bertrand, Earth from Above -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
