Has anybody ever tried this technique?

I tried it yesterday and was pretty happy with the results.

The method I used was:

Rodinal diluted to 1:100.
Agitated the tank for the first minute. (by inversion)
Then left the tank to "stand" for 1 hour.

Then I stop bathed and fixed as normal.

The film I tried it with Ilford FP4+ rated at ISO 125.



The last couple of film I've processed have had bad drying marks on them, I'm not sure if it's the water or I've suddenly started/stopped doing something.

Very interesting if that is a straight print. Any dodging./burning?

CD

Posted by saul_son Has anybody ever tried this technique? I tried it yesterday and was pretty happy with the results. The method I used was: Rodinal diluted to 1:100. Agitated the tank for the first minute. (by inversion) Then left the tank to "stand" for 1 hour. Then I stop bathed and fixed as normal. The film I tried it with Ilford FP4+ rated at ISO 125. http://img.photobu...rn/UpperHulmeS.jpg The last couple of film I've processed have had bad drying marks on them, I'm not sure if it's the water or I've suddenly started/stopped doing something.

Never tried this technique before.

Bad drying marks? Do you use a detergent or the like to reduce surface tension? Ilford and other brands sell those in bottles.

Posted by Uncle Goose Never tried this technique before. Bad drying marks? Do you use a detergent or the like to reduce surface tension? Ilford and other brands sell those in bottles.

I always use Wetting Agent if that's what you mean? It's only been the last 2 films this has happened with, it's been years since I've drying marks like that.

@ Charlie: This is just a scan. I made a few small adjustments, but not as much as I normally have too. It's gonna be a few weeks until my darkroom is sorted.

Interesting developing technique.

For streaks rinse for at least 10 minutes and try mixing your agent with distilled water if you don't already.

Posted by fahque Interesting developing technique. For streaks rinse for at least 10 minutes and try mixing your agent with distilled water if you don't already.

I've thought about using distilled water but, I haven't had any streaks since using a Jobo film squeegee.

Posted by saul_son I always use Wetting Agent if that's what you mean? It's only been the last 2 films this has happened with, it's been years since I've drying marks like that.

You can use biodegradable dish soap (like Sunlight, not sure what the brands are in the UK). Put one or two drops in a big bowl of clean cold water, dip your film, squeegee (I just use my first and second fingers pressed together for 35mm film) then hang to dry.

As for the stand development, just curious why you'd use that technique on the image you posted? From what I understand, it's used to reduce contrast, particularly in images with highlights that could easily be lost - such as night shots of city scenes, things like that. It appears as if you've just got an image with zero contrast, shot under low contrast light to begin with. Personally I'd have over-agitated for less than the 'proper' dev time, to increase the contrast a bit in that particular image.

Posted by mortimer You can use biodegradable dish soap (like Sunlight, not sure what the brands are in the UK). Put one or two drops in a big bowl of clean cold water, dip your film, squeegee (I just use my first and second fingers pressed together for 35mm film) then hang to dry. As for the stand development, just curious why you'd use that technique on the image you posted? From what I understand, it's used to reduce contrast, particularly in images with highlights that could easily be lost - such as night shots of city scenes, things like that. It appears as if you've just got an image with zero contrast, shot under low contrast light to begin with. Personally I'd have over-agitated for less than the 'proper' dev time, to increase the contrast a bit in that particular image.

Ilford Wetting Agent does the job just fine especially at a dilution of 1 - 2000 or whatever it is.

Re: why I used it on the image I posted. Simple, it was a roll of film I just had lying around that needed processing. However the conditions that day were quite bright and the sky would normally have been pretty much washed out so in that respect it saved the sky. There is little contrast in that image probably because it's just a flat scan from the negative, in the darkroom I'd probably split grade print it to pump some contrast into the ground.

Hey Saul_Son, I do almost all of my black and white developing as rodinal stand developing. It seems more useful to be able to get the edge effects, as well as the higher dynamic range in a negative. When you scan or print it, you have all the freedom to change contrasts and curves. But if you develop film and lose the details or block up highlights or something, you can never get that back.