Stand Development Inversion Test - Bromide Drag? RODINAL & ID-11 

Yes I have to get them in the darkroom. It was nice for once to come out the darkroom for a video though and not everyone has ability to make prints so I scanned but I know what you mean totally.

My experience fully confirms the comment on the scanning part. Lately I find scanning to be the most crytical part of the whole process. Auto mode is so-so, while manual setting can greatly change the results and not necessarily to the better.

Thanks for the tip John.

I think so. And thanks for the idea.

Cheers Bennett

We're they special dishes or anything from the kitchen? Thanks for sharing

They were glazed pottery dishes in those days, I used 3 5x7 inch ones. The film was put through emulsion side up. You could try how it works with some old film in the light.

5x7? So how did you cover the whole role of 120 film?

Holding the ends of the film, one side is dipped in first and the developer will hold the film as you seesaw from hand to hand. Have a go with some old film in the light. Dish development is also very good for 5x4 film, more economical than tanks.

interesting vibrations can cause that. Funny though.

Testing the pushing limits of caffenol C-L I got bromide drag on a sheet of 4x5. So is not a myth, but appears predominantly with solvent developers.

life of Brian LOL

That's really interesting. I love these old story's Howard. I can't imagine papers worried too much about contrast as long as they had a story to write and a print to go with it

I was just going to ask the same thing. I've tried to stand develop 120 film many times, but I always get a lighter edge on one side of my negs. Not a problem to fix it later but I stopped using stand development because of that.

First off, you need to define your exact process when you’re talking about “stand development”, as it means different things to different people. With 35mm I use rodinal 1+100, 60 minutes, no agitation after 1st minute, on the bottom reel of a 2-reel Paterson tank, 500ml of developer. There most definitely is not “always” a lighter edge. I have not seen that in my negatives. What I have seen are “edge effects”. This is because the exposed portion is chemically active compared to shadows or unexposed film, and it it pulls in developer from surrounding areas of the emulsion causing a slight haloing effect. Many people consider this a feature, not a bug.

It's a great dev. I've always got a bottle, apart from now, ordered new one today. I don't use it on any scapes I work hard for but great for lots of other shoots.

@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss I enjoy your collection of developers. Do you make specific decisions on which developer you use for a certain project? if so, what are they and why? Love this channel. THE BEST PHOTOGRAPHY RU-vid CHANNEL!

@@gelderlandproduction thanks Michael. I use mostly Xtol but recently shifted to ID11. They work well for me. If I'm using slow speed films such as panf50 for seascapes I like to dump that in perceptol for very fine grain. Rodinal if I want some grit to a film. Such as street photos, hp5 and Rodinal.

@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Id be interested in a comparison of Delta 100 in Rodinal, ID-11 and X-Tol. :-) To see the differences in grain structure.

@@gelderlandproduction I think. Xtol would win.

What are your impressions of using ilford pan 400? Is it similar to hp5 or more like a kentmere 400 or a kentmere pan 400? That film is not popular but have good price.

@@angelusrufus7479 I am no expert, and I have only a shot Pan400 a few times. But I think they are discontinued as Pan400 and Sold as Kentmere 400 now. My experience from the few rolls I’ve shot is that you have a very grainy 400 film, and that is rather pay a little bit extra for the Hp5 which I find to be a better fit for my use.

What you saw was streaking, not bromide drag. Anchell/Troop recommend limiting stand to one hour to avoid streaking.

It can and does happen. Makes you wonder what is going on inside the tank when it happens.

How much Rodinal did you use and how many films in the tank?

@@azzalos I use a Paterson tank made for two 135 film. I usually develop one 120 film or two 135 films. I always make 700ml of developer. Since I posted a couple of months ago, I actually had bromide drag once. Don't know why...

@@CM-cb2km it might have been surge marks from agitation. I don’t use any after the first minute, it’s not necessary with rodinal (contains no bromide). I would also suggest only doing one roll per tank, so you get even coverage quickly.

Great tip! That's how I felt with the pinhole. When I shoot my Holga I have a perfect combo of HP5 and XTOL but the light outside has to be spot on for a good result. When I see the clouds and light look right then it's a Holga moment off I go!

That would be really interesting in medium format, and how the pull could take some of the grain away.

Good shout. I actually thought it was 800 ISO film?

@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss You may be somewhat correct on that. More on that later. I tried to a bit more research and it seems like 3200 has similar proposition to HP5. Sort of like its more sensitive little brother. HP5 is known for its huge exposure latitude, and can easily be pulled 1 stop or pushed 2 stops (or 3 if you're feeling lucky). But is still marketed by it's standardized ISO rating. 3200 seems to be really similar in this regard - it has a ginormous latitude which allows it to be pushed to hell. It's base rating seems to be 1000, but can be pulled to 400, or easily pushed by 2-3 stops to 3200 and 6400. It seems that the apparent ability to be pushed so much made Ilford (or Kodak, I don't know who went first) pull (pun intended) some marketing strings and write it's "recommended" push speed on the box instead of the true ISO rating. Essentially like if you saw alternate-universe HP5+1600. It seems that to get the 1000 ISO, you need to be using t-grain dev. If you use something more old school, its rating seems to be only 800. (At least that's what I read about Kodak's P3200). So in short, if we were honest, the most sensitive film you can get on the market is not 3200, but only 1000, but apparently pushes so nicely by two stops that that's what went to the box printer. I'd still like to see you abuse it....(ehh...)

Thanks for sharing. I've been happy with the results in the past but always wary of the uneven development issues. I did a stand a while back as my folding camera on a shoot had a sticky shutter! Negs came out nice in the end. If I went for a timed dev I think they would have been all over the place.

Exactly.

Hi Peter. I think I did a while back on my videos.

Thanks for watching Michael.

Rodinal doesn’t dissolve the grains at all, it’s not a solvent developer like D76, DD-X, etc.

Have fun. Pinhole is great joy.

How can you finish reading that book and keep it all in lol. It's a good read

me too! I've always wondered that.

Great point!To be honest I thought they would all be the same on the first roll, at least they all looked the same at a glance. I'll have to check.

Thats right. I mentioned that and said possibly the clouds changed. I think!

@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss that doesn't look like a lighting change to my eye. I've looked again and it's across the entire edge of the negative in a defined band that tapers to the middle.

Interesting. So you push film for more speed and stand dev to control the contrast?

by the way: thank you for your nice content and PLEASE keep your endless curiosity, which i like very much. greetings from the Black Forest, southern Germany =)

@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss yes, exactly. rodinal acts as a nice balancer in stand development

You can get bromide drag with HC110. Not with rodinal.

If I swear too much my wife makes me cut it out, other than that not really Richard.

It's a mystery!

300ml is too little. 500ml is the recommended minimum with 5ml of rodinal. What you saw wasn’t bromide drag.

@@joeltunnah thanks

George waves back!

Hello 👋

thats interesting.

@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss what tipped me off that the frame positioning might actually be part of the issue was the fact that the streaking was only coming into the frame from the side that was touching the sprocket holes, the other side of the frame was always clear. This consistently manifested itself as lines streaking up from the bottom of the frame. In the film gate, in the camera, the bottom of the frame is actually closer to the top of the camera (the lens projects the image onto the film plane upside down) and it’s at the upper end of the film plane where the film has a tendency to slide downwards and expose closer to the sprocket holes if using an “undersized” (according to 1930’s Leica standard, anyway) 35mm cart. So what I think is happening is there is increased developer activity around the edge of the sprocket holes when stand dev’ing, which is an area of the film where normally nothing would be exposed in pretty much any other camera, so normally there would be no developer activity in that area... and maybe just that slight bit of developer activity in that area is enough to kickstart the whole effect... but just a theory on my behalf. This stuff’s all a bit above my paygrade!

@@MrRom92DAW what developer are you using? And for how long?

@@joeltunnah if I semi-stand develop, I typically use very high dilutions of HC-110 and depending on the film I will sometimes let it develop between 30-60 minutes, with only a brief agitation period halfway through. But the streaking effect is the same. It never occurs on the side of the film where the image is further away from the sprocket holes, so something about the presence of an exposure directly touching the holes (and thus already increased developer activity in that area) is somehow “kickstarting” that process

@@MrRom92DAW HC110 contains bromide, and is known to cause bromide drag. Try rodinal, which has none.

George says YO!

and a snack

Not me.

I guess it can happen without standing. I guess it depends on the developer and tank process. Who knows what goes on inside the chemistry once you start? I'd love to see a simulated example of exactly what is going on with all the chemical reactions. Like one of those Big Bang programs.

Well I got one on eBay for about £3 and then saw the other identical one in the pound shop! ha ha. Should have bought a few more. BUT. The batteries wear down quick so best to get a kitchen timer with on off switch!

@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss ah I’ll get some and make sure they have a switch. Thanks, I love your channel, it’s my favourite and you got me back into the darkroom after nearly a 40 year gap.

@@peter-robinson hope. It goes well Peter!

I think mostly lack of contrast Iain. Maybe vs a pulled development.

Rodinal doesn’t have bromide in it, that’s why. And with pulled development, your shadows don’t have enough time to catch up, so you get less shadow detail, and slower effective film speed. With stand, even in a compensating developer like rodinal, you get full film speed, or even a slight bump up.

@@joeltunnah I didn't know this. Makes sense now you've explained this. Thank you :-)

@@IainHC1 you’re welcome.👍

I've seen it on 120 too!

With what developer? That’s an important detail.

@@joeltunnah only tried it with rodinal.

@@josephasghar then it can’t be bromide drag. It could be streaking from going beyond 1 hour, too heavy dilution, or surge marks from agitation. Try at least 500ml with 5ml rodinal, 1 hour, no agitation beyond first minute.

Shanghai Gp3 Rodinal, Orwo UN54 ID-11