Agitation with Paterson Tank

I've been getting visible sprocket hole images on my film. From what I've read, there's a good chance it's due to improper agitation, rather than light leaking inside the camera. I'm going to try to improve my agitation method before I address the camera. However, I'm a little confused about some conflicting information I've read.

The Kodak Xtol sheet says that after initial agitation, it should occur every 30 seconds, for a period of 5 seconds, with 5-7 inversions in that time. That sounds really aggressive compared to other methods I've seen. The Paterson tank instructions suggest agitation once per minute, with a single inversion. That's somewhere between half and 1/10 of Kodak's advice!

I'm not really sure where to go with this, other than that I've been following Kodak's advice, which seems like it's way overboard. Before I try the Paterson method, I have a couple of questions for the community.

1.) What's your agitation method for the Paterson tank?
2.) Does agitation method vary with film and chemistry?
and
3.) What are the symptoms of under-agitation?

The only time I've had visible sprocket holes was when I processed a roll of JCH Street Pan 400, and was probably due to QC issues with the film itself. It was the first roll of B&W film I'd developed in years, so I was definitely worried that something might be bad in my process. The next day, however, I processed another roll of the stuff that came out perfect. I've never really had this problem since.

I would ask if you're agitating with inversion, or with the stir stick that comes with the tank. (But you did mention inversion, so hopefully that is what you're doing.)

I’ll answer out of order:
2) I vary my agitation method depending upon film and chemistry but many people don’t. I vary it more for the film than for the chemistry, typically. Some people will advocate sticking to the same agitation method no matter what.
1) I mostly just use two main agitation schemes for both Paterson and stainless steel tanks. One is the basic Kodak method of 7 initial inversions followed by 4 inversions every 30 seconds. I use this for most films faster than about ISO 125 regardless of which developer I’m using. The other is to agitate continuously for one minute and then 3 inversions each minute after. I usually agitate more gently when I use this method and this is the method I usually use for films ISO 125 and slower. I find it builds less contrast than the other method. I’ll use these as my starting points and then adjust to taste for each film depending upon what I’m after.
3) Under-agitation can lead to streaks, uneven development and low contrast. It can also lead to the sprocket hole marks you’re describing but it shouldn’t be confused with surge marks which are usually a symptom of OVER-agitation.

This is just what works for me; my local water, the chemistry, films and tank sizes I use, etc... it will probably take a little trial and error to dial in an agitation scheme that gives you the results you like consistently.

My personal opinion in this matter is that when you follow a specified time, in which you have a set interval when you should -agitate- every minute for instance - I'd say that the importance of the fact that the chemistry is actually moving far greater than how you jiggle it like a maracas or easely turning it over.

I'd say it's a matter of placebo when it has to do with peoples special jiggles.

I might stretch to that rodinal has a tiny effect related to how hard you move it, but still temperature has a greater factor.

With respect to inversion agitation, it is important that you randomize it.
Each inversion should include some rotation, and you should be able to feel and/or hear the solution tumble and gurgle through the film.
You can agitate gently and quickly, or you can agitate aggressively and quickly, and in both cases be following the Kodak recommendations (which I basically follow).
Visible sprocket hole images usually imply to me that you are creating too consistent a flow pattern for the developer.

Two good videos on this subject:

rubbernglue said:

I'd say it's a matter of placebo when it has to do with peoples special jiggles.

Click to expand...

I'm a scientific guy but I'm pro-placebo; whatever works, whatever makes you happy. Placebo is in really big part of healing people

I'm using the stick method instead of inversions and never noticed improper or irregular development. The only time I had irregularities near the sprocket holes was when I was using near-depleted fixer. So I would suggest to check your fixer as well.

MrclSchprs said:

I'm using the stick method instead of inversions and never noticed improper or irregular development. The only time I had irregularities near the sprocket holes was when I was using near-depleted fixer. So I would suggest to check your fixer as well.

Click to expand...

I started with stick agitation and got uneven results, then I read the instructions that say the stick is for the first agitation - so that when you have poured liquid into tank you can get agitation going as fast as possible.

With stick I think anyone is risking it - there is a good reason why film makers suggest inversions.

focus_on_infinity said:

I've been getting visible sprocket hole images on my film. From what I've read, there's a good chance it's due to improper agitation, rather than light leaking inside the camera.

Click to expand...

It depends what you understand by "visible sprocket holes".
My first idea at reading such are (partial) images of sprocket holes. And such are due to film having been exposed through holes of an adjacent layer of perforated film.

AgX said:

It depends what you understand by "visible sprocket holes".
My first idea at reading such are (partial) images of sprocket holes. And such are due to film having been exposed through holes of an adjacent layer of perforated film.

Click to expand...

Indeed. The only occasion where I had something resembling this that was related to agitation was when I tried fixing 35mm in a Paterson tank without agitating at all. This resulted in partial fixing and streaks of non-fixed silver running downward between the sprocket holes (across the short side of the film). In general, images of sprocket holes are related to fogging issues.

vedostuu said:

I'm a scientific guy but I'm pro-placebo; whatever works, whatever makes you happy. Placebo is in really big part of healing people

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. Placebo effect has been proven by scientists

So with the roughly a million rolls (slight exaggeration) of film I've processed in Paterson tanks, I've always followed Eastman Kodak instructions. I always used Kodak chemistry, when I was a kid my Dad started me on Microdol-X, later I used a lot of HC-110 dilution B, then starting 20 plus years back XTOL. My Dad's 1940's era Elkay tank was a spin and slide agitation only, worked great. Paterson invert and twist 3 times in roughly 5 seconds every 30 seconds. In rubber tanks with sheet film every minute, lift hanger up, lift and tilt left, then right. Worked great.
Now I use the infernal devil machines by Jobo, these negatives have a bit more snap, but I get great results. I've found that fixing agitation is often overlooked, T grain films work especially well with Jobo machines during fixing, 5 minutes with fresh Kodak Rapid fix w/ hardener. I also use hypo clearing agent for at least 3 minutes to get the purple dye out.

focus_on_infinity said:

I've been getting visible sprocket hole images on my film. From what I've read, there's a good chance it's due to improper agitation, rather than light leaking inside the camera.

Click to expand...

How are you examining your images? Looking at the negatives, making prints, or scanning?
I made a major mistake relying on scanned images when I was seeing sprocket hole artifacts on my C-41 color negatives. I thought it was incorrect agitation, but it turned out it was a problem with the scanner negative holder that sometimes introduced problems that looked like some kind of bromide drag through the sprocket holes.

vedostuu said:

Two good videos on this subject:

Click to expand...

Thanks for the two links. They were good videos and I was surprised at how I preferred the constant agitation reversed negs to the "normal" agitation ones. I had always had the impression that if the Ilford recommendations are to reduce development time for constant agitation by about 15% this was likely to mean that constant agitation would produce noticeable over-development.

Perhaps it does in the strict definition of what the developer maker decides is the correct CI and really what I mean is that "over-development" is what I prefer in terms of the kind of prints I like. Again I should perhaps qualify this by adding the caveat that what the presenter showed as the results is in fact how two prints would turn out.

Maybe I need to try slight over-development or at the very least err on the side of over-development by being relaxed about going over a bit

pentaxuser

mjork said:

How are you examining your images? Looking at the negatives, making prints, or scanning?
I made a major mistake relying on scanned images when I was seeing sprocket hole artifacts on my C-41 color negatives. I thought it was incorrect agitation, but it turned out it was a problem with the scanner negative holder that sometimes introduced problems that looked like some kind of bromide drag through the sprocket holes.

Click to expand...

I can see the sprocket holes right on the film.

mshchem said:

So with the roughly a million rolls (slight exaggeration) of film I've processed in Paterson tanks, I've always followed Eastman Kodak instructions. I always used Kodak chemistry, when I was a kid my Dad started me on Microdol-X, later I used a lot of HC-110 dilution B, then starting 20 plus years back XTOL. My Dad's 1940's era Elkay tank was a spin and slide agitation only, worked great. Paterson invert and twist 3 times in roughly 5 seconds every 30 seconds.

Click to expand...

That's kind of the thing. I'm following Kodak's instructions, and mine are different from yours, and both of us seem to be following different instructions than other people. Mine clearly say 5-7 inversions in 5 seconds every 1/2 minute. And, I'm putting in a little twist. It seems like a lot of agitation, though.

focus_on_infinity said:

That's kind of the thing. I'm following Kodak's instructions, and mine are different from yours, and both of us seem to be following different instructions than other people. Mine clearly say 5-7 inversions in 5 seconds every 1/2 minute. And, I'm putting in a little twist. It seems like a lot of agitation, though.

Click to expand...

Do what you are doing, you are following the latest instructions. You are not over doing the agitation. The little twist is good too. The objective is a nice crisp, fully developed negative.

This whole discussion starts to smell like pixels have taken over the silver. Going back to the days when silver was king, these kind of discussions where leading nowhere and were rather part of small "scientific" circle of getting, for total lack of reasons, the most out of a negative. So as I mentioned in the thread on agitation alteration idea running elsewhere as we speak, put some though into everything you consider:

1. what is the level of consistency and repeatability in your process time after time
2. do you test water (ph at least) every time before mixing chemicals
3. what is the accuracy of your thermometer, the eye balling of mercury level, poultry digital cheapo, high degree lab quality?
4. have you read the book by Richard J. Henry "Controls in Black & White Photography" 2nd edition?
5. After having the read the book are you still trying to advocate that every stupid little alteration in your processing routine makes a difference in the final image?
6. If 5 is a Yes, do you add sugar to your coffee or drink it straight as mother nature intended?

My point about bringing up (again) Dr. Henry's book boils down to one short summary of it: he was a scientist, he did the study from a pure scientific perspective where every little noticeable change under microscope altered a conclusion, he lists in bibliography over 600 references, it is 256 pages about controlling photography without a single image presented (set aside the cover photo, which serves to proof anything, but what the content tries to deliver).

It is a great book for what it is. If one manages through it, and is still fit to roam around the public, all the better. But to me, it is hard to argue that a lot of theoretically correct scientific effects any part of the process may have on the laboratory qualities of a negative, has absolutely no bearing on the photograph it ends up being.

Having read the book myself, I came away with the basics (which does not take away anything from the ... fun ... I had reading it, even if below appears like I could have skipped the reading altogether) :

1. do your processing right, manufacturer instructions are best starting point, if you are following this, stop looking at it as the constant suspect of something being wrong with your negatives, it isn't
2. do examine your negatives for important unwanted qualities, good read is the basics of B&W processing where this was broken down to really just few standard possibilities (over/under exposure, over/under development, combined with basic temperature control as it actually may wreak havoc with outcome for no apparent other reason)
3. adjust for any findings in 2, once figured out what went wrong, test if required, especially if a substantial change in routine was implemented
4. monitor results as you continue with the basics, stick to single or as few as possible film/developer/routine combinations
5. follow No.4 and focus on actual photographs you are trying to make

There is absolutely zero probability we can maintain laboratory consistency of every step of the way, a pre-requisite to start dreaming about having laboratory consistency in developed negative. And this is nothing but pixels, pixels, more pixels ...

Witold said:

There is absolutely zero probability we can maintain laboratory consistency of every step of the way

Click to expand...

I agree.
But it's perfectly feasible to prevent sprocket holes from showing up in negatives. I think that's really the only thing OP is asking for at this point. I guess his initial hunch that it may have something to do with agitation has thrown some of us off in the direction of processing consistency while the cause is quite likely to be I a different area.

koraks said:

I agree.
But it's perfectly feasible to prevent sprocket holes from showing up in negatives. I think that's really the only thing OP is asking for at this point. I guess his initial hunch that it may have something to do with agitation has thrown some of us off in the direction of processing consistency while the cause is quite likely to be I a different area.

Click to expand...

Yes, agree. I poked at where the discussion has started going.

Reading this thread reminds me of William Powell in the Thin Man movie, “For a Manhattan you shake the cocktail shaker one way, and for a Bronx you shake it differently.” (Approximate quote).
For what it’s worth, I give it a twisty inversion...just like Martinis.

mshchem said:

Do what you are doing, you are following the latest instructions. You are not over doing the agitation. The little twist is good too. The objective is a nice crisp, fully developed negative.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it seems that the large majority of photographers are somewhere in the 3-5 inversions every 30 seconds, which isn't that far off from what I'm doing. I think a little rotation can't hurt the process. Maybe I'll take it down to 4 inversions next time. I haven't shot any 35mm in a few weeks, so, no sprocket holes at all.

But maybe it has nothing to do with agitation. If I still get the sprocket holes after a couple more roles, I'll probably start looking at the light seals on my camera. I found one role that I developed with the Lab-Box that had visible sprocket holes, so it's entirely possible that the issue is the camera. It's not consistent, though, so it's hard to narrow it down to any one factor.

The system of agitation can vary with different developers too. If you use Rodinal (and this is the original instructions written by Agfa. Pour the developer into the tank, give constant agitation for the 1st 30 seconds then one inversion every 30 seconds until complete. This is due to Rodinal being an 'acutance' type of developer where there is enhanced 'edge' effect which has the appearance of the image looking actually sharper. . The edge effect created with Rodinal is due to the developer exhausting quicker at areas where there is a difference of tone so producing something similar to the 'Unsharp Mask' that can be created in digital programmes.

I had images of sprocket holes on film when my changing bag developed light leaks from old age. New bag, no sprocket hole images!

I doubt an agitation error resulted in distinct sprocket-hole shapes on the film.

A light leak somewhere sounds more likely, possibly after the film was removed from the camera and before the developer hit it. So in what conditions are you loading your developing tank reel? It should be dark enough that you can’t see your hand in front of your face after your eyes have spent five minutes adjusting to darkness.

Examining the film will help identify the cause. Where exactly on the frame/image do you see the sprocket-hole shapes? How many frames are affected and is there a recurring pattern throughout the roll? Are the sprocket-hole images darker or lighter than the surrounding image? How clearly are their edges defined? Is the sprocket-hole image greatly different in density from the surrounding image or barely visible?

You can imagine what the answers to these questions will tell you.