Two other posters also referred to "continuous agitation."Face down first, followed by continuous agitation for at least 30 seconds.
How is this continuous agitation done?
Ansel Adams wrote in The Print:
"I prefer to agitate by carefully lifting the print out of the solution and turning it over. [...] Single prints should be turned over periodically, but rocking the tray will suffice for part of the agitation."
(Page 75 of Series 3 edition).
I thought rocking was most popular, but AA implies that turning the print over regularly is better. I either rock the tray or swirl the solution around with my fingers with the print on the bottom, face-up. Here's an old thread on this subject: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/agitation-during-paper-development.44242/
How do you agitate? What method do you think results in most uniform development?
Mark Overton
What's the advantage of initial face-down agitation? All I can think of is avoidance of light from the safelight for the first 30 secs but if the safelight is safe then this won't matter and if it is not safe then the remaining time will still be enough to affect the print, won't it?
Thanks
pentaxuser
I start by putting the print in face down and either rock it or bump the edges to make the print move around. After a minute I turn it over and continue to rock or bump the edges.
Posted advantages to starting face-down are: less exposure to safelight, and you know the print is fully immersed. But disadvantages mentioned include the greater chance of a spill or damaging the print, more oxygen in the developer, and another I just thought of: the portion of the print touching the bottom will get less developer, causing unevenness. To me, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Are there any other advantages to starting face-down?
Mark Overton
I prefer they remain calm, trying my best not to agitate them. They sometime become quite nasty when agitated!
A print doesn't actually need "new developer" as it develops.
Coincidentally, I tested this idea last week. I wanted to compress shadows, and figured if I did not agitate, shadow-development would lag the rest, yielding compressed shadows, similar to a compensating developer for film. I made two 4x5 prints of the same neg, both exposed identically. I developed one normally, and developed the other with *no* agitation for twice as long (both face-up). Both prints look identical. So maybe the slow drifting of fluid on its own is enough. Maybe there's no point in getting agitated about agitation because it makes no difference. Seriously, I'll keep agitating, but I won't be concerned about it.
Mark Overton
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?