Agitation with Paterson Tank

[pentaxuser]

For what it is worth I also use Xtol according to the Kodak instructions. The instructions on J109 say up to 5 cycles initially or 5-7 cycles with TMax film then inversions for 5 secs every 30 secs suggesting that 2-5 inversions is the range possible. I have found that about 3 inversions are all that are possible in 5 secs unless you are inverting at a rate close to the cocktail waiter method but I agree that even 5 inversions in 5 secs do not seem likely to result in the kind of sprocket hole phenomenon that the OP mentions but never having done 5 I cannot be sure

I have been using Xtol for at least 10 years and have never seen the problem which afflicts the film of the OP.It certainly all suggests to me that the cause may lie elsewhere

pentaxuser

 

[dkonigs]

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.

I'd have to agree with this. Unless agitation and/or volume is so bad that the film gets seriously uneven exposure to the developer, its probably a light leak somewhere in the process.

However, arguing over the minutia of agitation methods often sounds like the ultimate example of superstition and pointless argument in photography. Sure, it can affect results to a point. But beyond that point, I might as well argue that I get better results by Doing the Hokey Pokey and Turning Myself Around followed by 6 jumping jacks, than someone else gets by including a somersault.

 

[mshchem]

But beyond that point, I might as well argue that I get better results by Doing the Hokey Pokey and Turning Myself Around followed by 6 jumping jacks, than someone else gets by including a somersault.

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who does the Hokey Pokey!

 

[Randy Stewart]

Going back to the original question, I suggest that it contains a false assumption: that inversion agitation in a Paterson tank is the same as inversion agitation contemplated by Kodak in its processing suggestions. Kodak's instructions date from the 1950s (when I started). At that time, the principal tank system used at home was Nikor, the classical steel tank and reel(s). You commonly used a tank large enough to contain your film reels. Once filled as necessary to cover the film, there was almost no air left in the tank. Inversion flushed the solution through the reels, over the film, fairly slowly at 3-5 inversions in ten seconds. Paterson tanks and the agitation problems they present had not been invented. Now, a Patterson tank, holding one 35mm reel of film (and maybe an empty reel to stabilize the film reel in the tank), with enough solution to cover the film reel, holds about 2.5 times the volume of air as developer solution. Inversion agitation with that load is roughly the equivalent of processing film in a cocktail shaker. Air surging through the reel, flushing developer forcefully though film sprocket holes and oxidizing the developer. Although it's not a perfect process, twisting the stirring rod in a Paterson is probably the only save way to agitate. Skipping its notorious leakage problems, a Paterson tank might be agitated on a roller base as an alternative if continuous agitation is acceptable. (Unicolor, Beseler, Ilford)

 

[focus_on_infinity]

Going back to the original question, I suggest that it contains a false assumption: that inversion agitation in a Paterson tank is the same as inversion agitation contemplated by Kodak in its processing suggestions. Kodak's instructions date from the 1950s (when I started). At that time, the principal tank system used at home was Nikor, the classical steel tank and reel(s). You commonly used a tank large enough to contain your film reels. Once filled as necessary to cover the film, there was almost no air left in the tank. Inversion flushed the solution through the reels, over the film, fairly slowly at 3-5 inversions in ten seconds. Paterson tanks and the agitation problems they present had not been invented. Now, a Patterson tank, holding one 35mm reel of film (and maybe an empty reel to stabilize the film reel in the tank), with enough solution to cover the film reel, holds about 2.5 times the volume of air as developer solution. Inversion agitation with that load is roughly the equivalent of processing film in a cocktail shaker. Air surging through the reel, flushing developer forcefully though film sprocket holes and oxidizing the developer. Although it's not a perfect process, twisting the stirring rod in a Paterson is probably the only save way to agitate. Skipping its notorious leakage problems, a Paterson tank might be agitated on a roller base as an alternative if continuous agitation is acceptable. (Unicolor, Beseler, Ilford)

OK, now it all to make a little more sense. I assumed Kodak was talking about something similar to a Paterson tank. The Paterson instructions say the swizzle stick is just for initial agitation, and that the single inversion is correct. I can't really imagine what more or faster inversion would get you, given how much developer is being sloshed around.

I have the newest Paterson tank, and I haven't had any issues with leakage. I can see the swizzle stick being useful, only because it takes a good 10-15 seconds to get the top securely on, and I'd rather do that after the initial agitation.

 

[Samuel Dilworth]

You said earlier you “can see the sprocket holes right on the film.” If by that you mean sharp images of the sprocket holes somewhere within a frame on the film, you can safely rule out agitation as the cause no matter what tank and agitation technique you’re using. Developer and fixer cannot flow or not flow so neatly.

Vague streaks across the width of the film at about sprocket-hole spacing would be a different matter.

 

[focus_on_infinity]

Vague streaks across the width of the film at about sprocket-hole spacing would be a different matter.

This, although not vague.

 

[MattKing]

Looks like surge marks to me.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Looks like surge marks to me.

+1
Try gentler agitation. I do 2-3 inversions in 5' in Paterson and Jobo tanks. Having the tank full also helps, leaving a lot of empty volume will obviously make agitation more vigorous. Agitation brings fresh developer on the film and removes development byproducts from where they form, which affect development. Even gentle inversion will get the job done.

 

[koraks]

They could be surge marks, although I'd be surprised even with continuous and heavy agitation for them to appear like this. I think a light leak somewhere still cannot be excluded.
Is this pattern the same across the entire film length or are there variations?

 

[MattKing]

May we see a digital photo of the negatives themselves, backlit preferably, and with the film edges and rebates visible?

 

[pentaxuser]

May we see a digital photo of the negatives themselves, backlit preferably, and with the film edges and rebates visible?

A vital request I feel. Otherwise we might go down several blind alleys in terms of likely causes. I myself was on the point of silliness when I pictured the OP in his darkroom agitating with Gloria and the Miami Sound Machine at full blast as the cause

pentaxuser

 

[focus_on_infinity]

I believe these are surge marks. I have rolls where they don't appear at all, and some where they're as you see. The roll that has them the absolute worst was one where I was low on developer. On my next roll I'm going to try the Paterson instructions for agitation (i.e. one inversion every 30s), and see how it turns out.

 

[MattKing]

What type of Paterson tank are you using - the current Super System 4, the 30+ year old System 4 or something more ancient?
And I will repeat, can we see the negatives, including the rebate area?

 

[focus_on_infinity]

This is one of the new Patersons. Yeah, I'll see if I can take a scan of the whole film in the next day or two. Thanks.

 

[MattKing]

Not a scan please - a photo!

 

[John51]

I don't get on with the wide lid of the Super System 4. I get leaks when inverting half of the time.

Rather than chase perfection, I let the loose end drag. The most convenient agitation method for me is swizzle stick only, so that's what I do. I make an effort to be consistent and so far so good, the negs are printable.

 

[bnxvs]

 

[radiant]

Nice build bnxvs! Did you calculate how much more liquid you need when running horizontally?

 

[bnxvs]

Nice build bnxvs! Did you calculate how much more liquid you need when running horizontally?

Thank you. 500ml

 

[radiant]

Thank you. 500ml

500ml per film compared to 290ml per film? Or 290ml + 500ml?

 

[bnxvs]

Horizontal agitation does not imply the use of different volumes of working solutions. You have only one indicator for calculating - cylinder volume / 2. It is easy to determine this simply by filling the tank with water (of course by first making a lid). So, whether you will develop 1 or 2 135 mm films or 120th film, there is no difference. )))

 

[radiant]

Horizontal agitation does not imply the use of different volumes of working solutions. You have only one indicator for calculating - cylinder volume / 2. It is easy to determine this simply by filling the tank with water (of course by first making a lid). So, whether you will develop 1 or 2 135 mm films or 120th film, there is no difference. )))

Ah yes, of course. So it is basically the same liquid amount as when using the tank "fully loaded".

Have you calibrated your developing time with this? Or have you noticed contrast increase?

 

[bnxvs]

Have you calibrated your developing time with this? Or have you noticed contrast increase?

I usually calibrate any film, developer, etc. in case of changing processing conditions. In my signature you can find a link to an online densitometry plotter.
I attach files for a 3D printer (if someone needs it).

 

[radiant]

I usually calibrate any film, developer, etc. in case of changing processing conditions. In my signature you can find a link to an online densitometry plotter.
I attach files for a 3D printer (if someone needs it).

Nice that you shared the design.

In general how did the development change with constant rotating agigator? What developer do you use with that?