Standing Development with Dilute Compensation Developers

I have had great success using Rodinal at 1:300 or so without agitation
on thin films such as Acros. With the news that Rodinal is no more, I
must start looking at other developers (and am curious to experiment
anyway). What is a good starting point?

I've read in the archives here that Acutol works well. What is the
weakest dilution one can use and expect good, sharp, negs with a broad
tonal range from thin emulsions (using standing development or very
little agitation)? Other recommendations?

wrote:
I have had great success using Rodinal at 1:300 or so without agitation
on thin films such as Acros. With the news that Rodinal is no more, I
must start looking at other developers (and am curious to experiment
anyway). What is a good starting point?

I've read in the archives here that Acutol works well. What is the
weakest dilution one can use and expect good, sharp, negs with a broad
tonal range from thin emulsions (using standing development or very
little agitation)? Other recommendations?

1:19 is about as weak as you'd want to go with Acutol.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I have had great success using Rodinal at 1:300 or so without agitation
on thin films such as Acros. With the news that Rodinal is no more,

It's still available under a different label.

http://www.photoformulary.com/DesktopDefault.aspx

See Announcements.

Thanks. Will standing development work at 1:19?

wrote:
Thanks. Will standing development work at 1:19?

I don't recommend standing development at all with roll film. Stand
development is best used on sheet film laying flat. Streaking is all
too common otherwise.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I have had great success using Rodinal at 1:300 or so without agitation
on thin films such as Acros. With the news that Rodinal is no more, I
must start looking at other developers (and am curious to experiment
anyway). What is a good starting point?

I've read in the archives here that Acutol works well. What is the
weakest dilution one can use and expect good, sharp, negs with a broad
tonal range from thin emulsions (using standing development or very
little agitation)? Other recommendations?


Forgive my ignorance, but what's the benefit of standing development over
agitation?

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Matt Clara spake thus:

wrote in message
oups.com...

I have had great success using Rodinal at 1:300 or so without
agitation on thin films such as Acros. With the news that Rodinal
is no more, I must start looking at other developers (and am
curious to experiment anyway). What is a good starting point?

I've read in the archives here that Acutol works well. What is the
weakest dilution one can use and expect good, sharp, negs with a
broad tonal range from thin emulsions (using standing development
or very little agitation)? Other recommendations?


Forgive my ignorance, but what's the benefit of standing development
over agitation?

Supposedly more pronounced "edge effects", and therefore apparent sharpness.

Supposedly.


--
God willing, the many crimes of the Bush Administration
will eventually be printed in a nice leatherbound,
multi-volume edition that will look fantastic on my bookshelf.

it is a great way to harness contrast. developer exhausts on the
highlight areas (and just sits there since there is no agitation), and
keeps working on the shadow areas. this also leads to edge effects.

many claim this is risky and could lead to streaking or "bromide drag",
but i have not any problems with the combo mentioned in my original
post.

On 18 Dec 2005 02:14:10 -0800, you wrote:

it is a great way to harness contrast. developer exhausts on the
highlight areas (and just sits there since there is no agitation), and
keeps working on the shadow areas. this also leads to edge effects.

many claim this is risky and could lead to streaking or "bromide drag",
but i have not any problems with the combo mentioned in my original
post.

Edge effects are typically minimal on todays films such as TMX/TMY
D100/D400. It might be different with sheet films (larger area/volume of
exhausted chems) but with roll film even the longest developments I used
generated almost no detectable (read not detectable in the print) adjacency
effects. Best practice is to dilute a highly alkaline, low sulfite
developer and use it with high contrast films. I haven't done this since
Tech Pan was discontinued though.

John

wrote:
it is a great way to harness contrast. developer exhausts on the
highlight areas (and just sits there since there is no agitation), and
keeps working on the shadow areas. this also leads to edge effects.

many claim this is risky and could lead to streaking or "bromide drag",
but i have not any problems with the combo mentioned in my original
post.

I get plenty of adjacency effects with normal agitation. Two
inversions, once per minute.