Semi-Stand Development - FX55

In today's video I examine whether Geoffrey Crawley's FX55 (FX-55) works well with reduced agitation or semi-stand development. Being a phenidone developer it should be less effected by development by-products and show little bromide drag but what of the compensation and increased sharpness that semi-stand can provide? Does FX55 show any of these characteristics? Take a look at my preliminary findings.
FX55 1+1 dilution means to dilute the standard working FX55 developer with an equal amount of water.
More FX55 videos listed below.
Thanks for watching! If you like these videos why not become a Patreon of Pictorial Planet? Your patronage will support the making of these videos, my informative website, and the writing of my second book full of photographic goodness.
John Finch
Pictorial Planet
Website: www.pictorialplanet.com
Patreon: / johnfinch
My Book: www.pictorialplanet.com/Book/b...
Videos you might want to see:
FX55 Review and making: • The Last of the Great ...
Getting the Best from FX55 Part 1: • Getting the Best From:...
Getting the Best from FX55 Part 2: • Getting the Best From:...
Getting the Best from FX55 Part 3: • Getting the Best From:...
FX55 special modification: • 2024 Season - Crawley...
FX55 Two Bath Part 1: • FX55 Developer Two-Bat...
FX55 Two Bath Part 2: • FX55 Developer Two-Bat...
FX55 Diluted (1+1) Wow Moment: • FX55 Diluted - A Wow M...
HP5+ better in FX55 or D23R: • HP5 Plus - Best in FX5...
Why we can't and why we can use ascorbic acid in FX55: • Friday Tip - Why we ca...
#FX55
#FX-55
#semi-stand development

[@Austinite333]

Slightly off topic but recent experiments using semi stand development resulted in very noticeable differences. I had purchased 100 ft roll of Kentmere Pan 400 for a general purpose film but the grain was near unacceptable. No developer really made much of a difference until….I used a weak solution of Tmax developer 1-15 @ 21c for 30 minutes and only 3 agitations every 10 minutes. It was like magic turning this film from grainy to non grainy. I tried to speed up the process by dropping to 20 minutes and longer agitation resulting in noticeably increased grain. I appreciate all the good advice John.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Very interesting, thanks!

[@wilbertvandenberg3158]

Hi John. Would it be possible to film the print comparisons without holding them in your hands? It's difficult to see detailed differences when they move constantly or when the light and reflections on the prints aren't constant. Thanks for your very instructive videos. You're a very worthy successor to the much missed Barry Thornton.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Mmmmm... it's tricky because I like to get them up close. It's good feedback and I'll definitely work on it, thank you!

[@AI-Hallucination]

Thanks John maximum respect

[@PictorialPlanet]

🙏

[@user-qm8sx8ne8g]

Another well explained video in both the spoken and written form The classroom approach works well in certain instances. Just something that has struck me after seeing several videos from several sources is that I have decided that more contrast has more impact for me so that the print from the reduced agitatíon and increased time actually looked better for me It drew my eye to it more. Only a personal observation on my part as I agree that the reduced agitation per se was not an improvement in terms of what the video was testing

[@PictorialPlanet]

That's an interesting observation. Thanks for sharing.

[@danielalexandre4008]

Interesting. I tried semi stand on an old verichrome pan 120 found in a 6x4.5 folding I bought. I had no clue so i shot it at plus 2 ev and developed it in rodinal 1/100 for one hour with initial agitation and again once at 30 minutes. Quite flat but usable and no bromide drag as far as I can tell, but it's easier to see on 35mm because of the holes.

[@TrashTheLens]

I can see an obvious difference between normal and reduced agitation. The latter causes lens caps to fall off! :D

[@PictorialPlanet]

🤣That made me chuckle!

[@cornwestern1689]

I think Metol as a standing developer agent does work. The idea is that you want a very dilute developer where the agent could have local exhaustion. One example is Beutler formula and FX39 where the high dilution and high alkali combined produce the forementioned local exhaution effect.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Yes, I'd forgotten about these very dilute acutance developers. Thank you!

[@lehnemaigard9609]

I really like your videos! What do you think about rotary development? I use it with Xtol 1+1, I like the consistency and that I can move away from it. Would FX55 also be a good option for rotary development?

[@wmwanderer]

Hi John! Let me start by saying that I've developed my first roll of film with the help of your great book. I'm excited to keep on developing! I also couldn't help but notice a D700 being photographed today. Any thoughts on it? Cheers!

[@PictorialPlanet]

Thanks for buying my book and congratulations on deving your first film. Don't stop now :) The D700 is a legend. Low pixel count and high image quality. For years I used Nikon D800s, D810s, and Canon 5D III for my event work but for personal work I never bettered the D700. The sensor is a gem.

[@dineshdhankhar6751]

Thank you for your videos, John. They are amazing. I have an old Kodak tri-x pan film , which expired more than 40 years ago. Developing in D76 (1+2) gets it developed but with a very heavy base fog. Is there any way to eliminate this base fog of such an old film ?

[@PictorialPlanet]

Not now it's developed, not that I know of.

[@timwalker6790]

My “go to” for sharpest results always used to be a delta or Tmax in diluted FX-39 (1+14 or 1+19) with agitation every 2 minutes.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Thanks, Tim.

[@Sosinvestimenti]

Dear John, Thank you for this great lesson in photographic chemistry. Can you please tell me if I can use in stand mode the Bellini Hydrofen (which replicates the studional)? If yes, at what dilution and time will I develop my film? Best wishes, Edoardo

[@PictorialPlanet]

Thanks for your comment, Edoardo. Unfortunately I cannot answer your question because I don't use Hydrophen (or Studional).

[@davidottman9501]

Interesting. I've experimented with reducing agitation with HC-110, dilution H (1+63). I like the thinner dilution because it feels less harsh, the shadows and mid-tones show up a bit better while leaving highlights about the same. Reducing agitation to about once per 3-minute intervals doesn't seem to hurt anything, although improvements are debatable. Longer than that seems to show some dragging streaks. The development time does need to be a bit longer, I'm still trying to work out by how much. My conclusion with HC-110 is that thinner dilutions, even beyond H, are helpful but reducing agitation isn't. Each chemistry mix has its own properties. Thanks for the tip about the connection between metol and agitation, I'll try some phenidone mixes for that.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Yes, I'm getting the same idea as yourself with FX55. Dilution (with a longer time) is better than reduced agitation. I used HC110 for quite a while a few years ago and got good results. It's a fine developer.

[@VictorBezrukov]

please more classroom works !!

[@PictorialPlanet]

Ha! Really?

[@normusarms]

That's very interesting, if FX 55 is "optimised" and does not benefit from reduced development what about Rodinal? It is well known that reducing agitation and diluting Rodinal works. Is Rodinal "optimised " at 1+50 with 3 minute agitation cycles? You now have me thinking about "optimising " developers. 😀

[@PictorialPlanet]

Very interesting concept, isn't it? Do you think Rodinal changes with reduced agitation? The grain and acutance? If it does then the balance of developing action changes due to by-products building up or developing agent action changing through exhaustion. But if one has a developer that didn't would that be a more balanced or "optimised' developer? Of course, this stability might not be a desirable property also.

[@normusarms]

Manufacturers probably aim for dilutions that have a safe margin of error. Diluting developers and using longer intervals between agitating the film in the developer may provide desirable results for some. I guess most people want to use the least amount of effort to gain the outcomes they are satisfied with. Looks like Crawley nailed it with FX55.

[@Gulfmannen90]

I have a question for you about chemicals, is it possible to dump 500ml of chemicals, make 500ml of new chemicals and mix them together to make it "good" again? Regards Johan

[@PictorialPlanet]

Not sure I understand?

[@Gulfmannen90]

@@PictorialPlanet I was thinking about for exemple for the stop bath or fixer, is it possible to remove half of the bath and make a new half bath and mix them together to make it "good" again for using. Sorry for not explaining good.

[@PictorialPlanet]

@Gulfmannen90 I see. No, I wouldn't advise that. When a stop of fix is finished it's full of waste products that you don't want. Better to start with a fresh batch.

[@Gulfmannen90]

@@PictorialPlanet thanks for your answer

[@g-r-a-e-m-e-]

But slightly related John did talk about the D23 replenisher: kzbin.info/www/bejne/q4nPZHSNoqetrJI