Opinions on stand development
Old 01-17-2016   #1
Whateverist
Registered User
 
Whateverist's Avatar
 
Whateverist is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 244
Opinions on stand development

What are everyone's feelings on stand development?

I've tried it out to see what the fuss is about and have been getting some interesting results. It's also very very cheap and can be done from the comfort of a couch while watching a movie, remembering to give the tank a stir every other commercial break.

Mainly, though, I found it a good way to salvage film when I really don't have much of a clue on how to develop it properly. Adox CMS II being a good example: I can't for the life of me make it work properly with normal development but let it soak in a 30+1 dilution and presto, useable negatives.

(attached image: HP5+ exposed for 320, 150 minutes in DDX 1+30, stirred every half hour)
Attached Images
File Type: jpg img416-1.jpg (26.8 KB, 121 views)
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2016   #2
mfogiel
Registered User
 
mfogiel's Avatar
 
mfogiel is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Monaco
Posts: 4,658
Stand development is done mainly to achieve two results:
- compensating development ( with possibly some speed enhancement)
- edge effects to enhance the acuity
If you scan, in theory it should work very nicely. The problem is, I've never been able to produce a uniform result with such development - the least I had to agitate was every 3 minutes minimum. In order to verify your results, you should expose the first frame out of focus against a uniform background to check for the symptoms.
P.S. I would use rather some non solvent developer with CMS, like HC 110, Rodinal or Acurol.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2016   #3
oftheherd
Registered User
 
oftheherd's Avatar
 
oftheherd is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,898
CMS II has a recommended developer, of course more expensive than things like Rodinol or HC 110.

Rodinal is also good for films of unknown age or ASA.

DDX 1:30 for 150 minutes? I wouldn't have guessed, but you have a njce photo there. Hoe is the grain?
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2016   #4
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
 
Colin Corneau is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Winnipeg MB Canada
Posts: 959
I tried it once, IIRC 1:100 Rodinal for 2 hours - agitate for first minute, then at one hour then dump.

It worked very well (on FP4+) and what I noticed was it evened out a high contrast scene pretty nicely -- shadowy interior and a bright window were closer than if I used my normal regiment...is this common?
__________________
www.reservedatalltimes.com

"Viva Film Renaissance"
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2016   #5
rybolt
Registered User
 
rybolt's Avatar
 
rybolt is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Yellow Springs, Ohio
Posts: 615
Forgive my ignorance but don't you get a fair amount of emulsion swelling with times like that? In the dim old days the rule was to use the shortest amount of acceptable time in any bath. That didn't mean that you should develop for 4 minutes and fix for 5 but it did mean that you probably shouldn't wash the film for two hours.
Just curious where this process came from. We always used to joke that if one person started a rumor that they were getting very fine grain by adding lemon koolaid to their stop bath SOMEONE was going to try it.
__________________
Fuji X Pro 1,XT 1and XF1 cameras and lenses.
Sony RX1
Leica M6 with black Wetzlar 50mm
A pair of Barnack Anniversary cameras
Who knows how many others

http://www.ryboltcox.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2016   #6
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS's Avatar
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada, eh.
Age: 62
Posts: 19,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin Corneau View Post
I tried it once, IIRC 1:100 Rodinal for 2 hours - agitate for first minute, then at one hour then dump.

It worked very well (on FP4+) and what I noticed was it evened out a high contrast scene pretty nicely -- shadowy interior and a bright window were closer than if I used my normal regiment...is this common?
Yes it is .
__________________
my little website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

photography makes me happy
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2016   #7
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is online now
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,114
No feelings, stand developing works well with developers supporting it.
One I know and it worked for me is known commonly as RODINAL.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2016   #8
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
 
Fixcinater is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Portales, NM, USA
Posts: 542
I've settled on semi-stand with 1:100 HC110 straight from syrup concentrate. Scans well, grain isn't nutty at least with slower emulsions, and it's dead easy.

I generally go 1hr with 15 seconds to start, one swirl or inversion every 15 mins, but if I want to maximize shadow detail (say, shots from a dark bar), I'll let it stew with the same swirl/inversion for 2 hrs.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2016   #9
tyrone.s
Registered User
 
tyrone.s's Avatar
 
tyrone.s is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Down Under
Posts: 237
Nice image Whateverist. What's the shelf life of HC110 after it's opened?

Rodinal seemed to be the developer of choice for stand around here on RFF at one point.

Rodinal is certainly cheap, works well for stand and after being opened it's shelf life can last for years. As noted above by an earlier respondent, stand developing has compensating qualities that can help even out the exposure range - the limited amount of developer develops the highs (which mostly consumes the active developer) but the residual solutions continues to develop shadow detail until complete exhaustion of the developer.

With Rodinal the idea seems to be to use very little agitation to reduce grain. Rodinal at full strength is grainy (being originally 'developed' well before 35mm negatives were in use), but stand dev at high dilutions can work around this to some extent (whilst preserving accutance - or apparent sharpness of the negative).

As you noted stand developing is very cheap, and the regime of developing whilst watching TV is hard to beat. From memory there are arguments about how important one or two hours is because with 300mls at something like 1:100, there's unlikely to be any working developer left well before the one hour mark. When mixing at 1:100 dilutions I always mixed 4:400 mls minimum to make sure that I had enough developer to actually develop a roll. Then there are the inevitable differences of opinion 1:100 or 1+100. I don't think it matters at these dilutions.

The most I ever developed was 5 rolls in a 5 reel tank all at different speeds and times. I've never had a roll fail to develop with stand.

Stand developing seems better with slower speed films, say 100asa and under.


A link here that provides good info here is:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...6&postcount=47

It provides a nice overview of one person's workflow and good examples of sample images.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2016   #10
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS's Avatar
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada, eh.
Age: 62
Posts: 19,391
HC-110 has a very long shelf life at full strength just like rodinal. With fast 400 speed film, HC-110 gives finer grain than rodinal. I mix it 1:100, 15ml in 1500ml tank for 5 rolls of 135, or 3 rolls of 120. (There is no practical difference between that and 15ml in 1485ml.)
__________________
my little website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

photography makes me happy
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2016   #11
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by rybolt View Post
Forgive my ignorance but don't you get a fair amount of emulsion swelling with times like that? In the dim old days the rule was to use the shortest amount of acceptable time in any bath. That didn't mean that you should develop for 4 minutes and fix for 5 but it did mean that you probably shouldn't wash the film for two hours.
Just curious where this process came from. We always used to joke that if one person started a rumor that they were getting very fine grain by adding lemon koolaid to their stop bath SOMEONE was going to try it.
I don't think modern emulsions swell much, at least at these times - I will be corrected if I am wrong.

The lemon Kool-Ade doesn't work.
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2016   #12
Whateverist
Registered User
 
Whateverist's Avatar
 
Whateverist is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by oftheherd
P.S. I would use rather some non solvent developer with CMS, like HC 110, Rodinal or Acurol.
I would too, but I happened to have a bit of DDX left in the bottle.

Quote:
Hoe is the grain?
Middling. Not great, but good enough. I'll post a 100% crop when I get back home.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2016   #13
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,643
Like mfogiel says, consistent result that may or may not be repeatable. Unless you (like mfogiel says) need compensating development it is an inconsistent endeavor. But if you have to try it use HC-110 to lessen the chance of streaking.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2016   #14
colyn
ישו משיח בנו של אלוהים
 
colyn's Avatar
 
colyn is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: CowTown, Texas
Age: 66
Posts: 4,463
I prefer semi-stand with Rodinal.

I've had good luck with slow speed films but fair to poor results with high speed films above 400asa.
__________________
Colyn

The Lone Star State....

Leica M2 | M3 x 2 | IIIa x 2 | IIIc | IIIf black dial | Kodak Retina IIIc | Kodak Retina IIIC |


Flickr

My website

My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2016   #15
Mablo
Registered User
 
Mablo is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,932
The main problem as I see it is that people usually start their b&w developing history with stand dev because it's so d***ed easy to do. They get low contrast greyish negatives which they interpret as excellent because they've never seen anything better. It's frustrating to witness the same sad story over and over again.
__________________
Mablo
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2016   #16
Sid836
Registered User
 
Sid836 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,132
+1 to what Mablo said. Stand development isn't really worth it. You get thin negatives, you have absolutely no control over contrast and those strange halos at the dark/light boundaries.

Btw, most people that do stand development think that they can develop a film with just 3.5ml of developer in say 350ml water for a 1+100 Rodinal stand for example. This is wrong! When the film/developer maker says that you need at least 10ml of developer to fully develop your film that calls in the case of Rodinal 1+100 for 1100ml of solution. Hence their thin negatives.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2016   #17
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is online now
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 71
Posts: 2,503
On another recent thread I put this up to help:

http://jbhildebrand.com/2011/tutoria...-with-rodinal/

My experience has been very good with stand development. Low ASA (ISO) films work best for me.
__________________
I make photographs as a return ticket to a moment otherwise gone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2016   #18
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Clark View Post
On another recent thread I put this up to help:

http://jbhildebrand.com/2011/tutoria...-with-rodinal/
Actually, this is bad article spreading wrong information. Stand development should not be applied with the same recipe for any film with any sensitivity - think about it: that would mean you don't need to measure exposure anymore. Since exhaustion based, with stand, one needs to vary quantity of developer, depending on sensitivity, not dilution.

In any case, like many, I started using stand, got some good results, but now do mostly standard, manufacture recommended recipes; results are more predictable, and less chance of bromide drag. A straight Rodinal 1:50 recipe gives so much better results, even grain is less pronounced than 1:100 stand.

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2016   #19
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is online now
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 71
Posts: 2,503
I looked at the article and, perhaps in error, that if a 100 ASA film is exposed at 100 ASA and, say, a 400 ASA film was exposed at 400 ASA, stand dvelopment time at 1 plus 100 would be the same. That has been my experience; however, I develop only 1 roll at a time!

Haven't tried push exposure and stand developing. Will have to try it to see if it works. But I don't use push or pull anymore. I can change speed easily with digital!

From my experience, the lower ASA films seems to work best with stand dveloping.
__________________
I make photographs as a return ticket to a moment otherwise gone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2016   #20
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Clark View Post
I looked at the article and, perhaps in error, that if a 100 ASA film is exposed at 100 ASA and, say, a 400 ASA film was exposed at 400 ASA, stand dvelopment time at 1 plus 100 would be the same. That has been my experience; however, I develop only 1 roll at a time!
And that is correct for some films, Bill. Each film has a nominal sensitivity, for which normal stand works. For example, you can develop APX 100 @ 100 and TMY-2 400 @ 400 in the same tank. But you can't include, say, Neopan 1600 @ 1600, since Neopan 1600 has a nominal sensitivity of around 650 (?). To develop the Neopan @ 1600, you would need to add some Rodinal.

With the article, I'm objecting to this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by hildebrand
Take that one step further, if you can soup a roll of Tri-X 100, and a roll of the same film pushed two stops in the same tank… that means you can actually change what ISO you shoot at mid roll. I’ll repeat that; you are no longer bound by one of the biggest advantages digital has over film, you can change ISO on the fly.
That's plain wrong, and not helpful to somebody starting out with B+W development.

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2016   #21
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is online now
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 71
Posts: 2,503
Thanks for helping Roland. I just keep it simple and use it mainly for Pan F Plus, Fuji 100 Acros and a few others, exposed at designated ASA. Don't use any 1600 film anymore. I don't use this developing method very often but find it interesting, especially if I have my eyes glued to the TV! It gives me 30 min., then agitate, then 30 min. more!

For me, it's something different to use every so often.

Did a friend request on FB.
Thanks! Have a wonderful week.
__________________
I make photographs as a return ticket to a moment otherwise gone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2016   #22
marcr1230
Registered User
 
marcr1230's Avatar
 
marcr1230 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,369
There have been some long threads on this. my take-away was that you chance uneven development, so then people start talking about semi-stand...

I recall reading about and seeing for myself issues with more development or streaks due to sprocket holes or convections within the tank

Wet darkroom photography should be based on repeatability of process and consistently usable results

sure there are going to be creative mistakes and unintended but positive occurances

it just seems to me if you use stand techniques, you open yourself up to randomness of results and who wants to ruin negatives
__________________
Too many cameras, too little time
Gallery: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg....php?uid=25736
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2016   #23
Whateverist
Registered User
 
Whateverist's Avatar
 
Whateverist is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 244
For those interested, this is the image as it came out of the scanner.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2016   #24
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcr1230 View Post
recall reading about and seeing for myself issues with more development or streaks due to sprocket holes
Hence, why I love stand with 4x5 - no sprocket holes.
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-19-2016   #25
tho60
Registered User
 
tho60's Avatar
 
tho60 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 286
I had bad experiences with stand developing: bromide drags along the sprocket holes, uneven tones etc.
  Reply With Quote

a victim of stand developing
Old 01-19-2016   #26
tho60
Registered User
 
tho60's Avatar
 
tho60 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 286
a victim of stand developing

I try to attach a picture which demonstrates the problem of stand developing.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_0002.jpg (15.8 KB, 44 views)
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-19-2016   #27
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
(1) Almost anything will work, for a given value of "work".

(2) Until you know what a decent negative looks like, your value of "work" is worthless.

(3) So, posts 16 and 17 are exactly right.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-19-2016   #28
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,643
I've posted this a few time already on RFF. But it always seems somebody has dreams of stand development solving all their problems. This is not a mini essay on stand development but you will see that CONTROLED high dilution can and WILL help with high contrast situations. John Sexton is probably the last expert that is well-known on Zone System development. So, his knowledge is precious, at least for me.

http://johnsexton.com/images/Compens...evelopment.pdf
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-19-2016   #29
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,486
I have tried it with test films. Expose some uniform grey areas and watch for streaks.

A few times it worked, usually not. The worst offender was the leader which is overexposed. Bromide drag streaks all over the place every time. Sooner or later it will ruin a sky.

Internet is full of success, nobody reports failures. Maybe you will be lucky.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-19-2016   #30
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
 
Fixcinater is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Portales, NM, USA
Posts: 542
How about semi-stand, have any of you that dislike full stand tried semi-stand AKA reduced agitation? When I've tried full stand, I've run into the bromide drag and uneven dev issues but semi-stand (invert every 15 mins) has mitigated all.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-19-2016   #31
Whateverist
Registered User
 
Whateverist's Avatar
 
Whateverist is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 244
Quote:
(2) Until you know what a decent negative looks like, your value of "work" is worthless.
Apart from experience, do you have any good resources that can help with this?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-19-2016   #32
Sid836
Registered User
 
Sid836 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,132
A note to those using stand development; stand development in solvent developers always results in reduced sharpness.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2016   #33
Santtu Määttänen
Visual Poet
 
Santtu Määttänen's Avatar
 
Santtu Määttänen is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Finland
Posts: 283
There's two reasons why I use stand development from time to time (alway in rodinal, since it seems to work nicely in stand). First is to tame down contrast, either from the scene or from film + lens combo that I know to produce very very high contrast (happens when shooting Rollei Retro 80S with Fuji GW690). In those cases stand development helps me constrain the contrast to a level where I can print it nicely with out 0 or 00 filters (target figure for me is 2 in VR papers for most work).

Second reason of stand development is to get an effect. Mainly in special cases where there's plenty of fog in the scene and I'd like to further reduce the contrast to get creamy look.

Mostly I use regular development. It's easier to get consistent results and it's faster too
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2016   #34
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,486
To reduce contrast, expose at 1/2 box speed and cut your normal development 20%.
This will also reduce grain considerably specially if you skip stop bath. Pushed film has larger grain clumps.


Time in developer is how to increase or decrease contrast. Do not control it with agitation .
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2016   #35
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by tho60 View Post
I try to attach a picture which demonstrates the problem of stand developing.
Goes to prove "surge marks" are from too little agitation not too much. Bromide drag stops replenishment locally.

Randomise agitation and do more of it specially first 30 seconds after immersion.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2016   #36
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
I may have missed a post (or two) but I'm pretty sure there is no agreement on a definition of "stand development". How long for a given developer? How much agitation to start? ANY agitation thereafter? If so, how often and how many inversions, twists, etc.?

I've backed off on agitation to improve grain characteristics - it works for my set of variables. IMO trying to determine a unified theory is akin to asking "What is your experience of the world?"

Be prepared for lots of information, a lot of which may or may not apply to your situation.
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2016   #37
Santtu Määttänen
Visual Poet
 
Santtu Määttänen's Avatar
 
Santtu Määttänen is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Finland
Posts: 283
Of course there's plenty of definitions of stand development and semi stand, I how ever don't like definitions and work on what works

For me personally, when I say stand development I mean very little agitation, low concentration developer and long time. In my case it's mostly 1+100 rodinal. First 30seconds heavy agitation, then inversions at half way point. Mainly done for one hour, at times even two, inversions always at half hour marks. Several of them, not so spesific on times or amounts, but there must be quite a few.

I had problems with sprocket marks in early days when I tried stand development. But never had them since I started inversions in middle of development. Not saying my method is the best or that it would work for you. But for me, it works in cases where needed. I would never rely only on stand development though. Film is too expensive to be tossed into tank with out a second thought. In cases where it's effects are preferred, it's a way to get them.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2016   #38
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whateverist View Post
Apart from experience, do you have any good resources that can help with this?
Alas, no. But if you know any other photographers whose prints you admire, ask as many of them as possible if they would mind showing you their negatives. Explain why!

Trying to illustrate a good negative in print or on a screen is extremely difficult. The differences have to be exaggerated to show up meaningfully.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2016   #39
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Santtu Määttänen View Post
Of course there's plenty of definitions of stand development and semi stand, I how ever don't like definitions and work on what works
Well yeah, that was my point.
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2016   #40
jalLee2001
jallee55
 
jalLee2001's Avatar
 
jalLee2001 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 115
I have tried it twice. The last time tried 4 rolls of Bergger 400 with (rodinal). Was not happy at all with the results. Some bad streaking around the sprocket holes on two of the four films. The films were soft and grainy. Now---I am sure there was user error somewhere.

I will stick with Xtol.
__________________
M6/M7/Summicron 28,35,90/Elmarit 135/Summarit 50/ Summilux 50
FM3/F100/Mamiya 7ii

flickr.com/people/jallee55
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:43.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.