Am I overagitating? And... can that only mess up some of a roll?

[Moose22]

here's a suggestion: Try the Kodak regime. The amount of inversions in the time interval Kodak gives and its what I use with Xtol,

I thought I was.

Agitate for 5 seconds every 30 (I agitate more the first 15 seconds, but for the rest i was trying 5 seconds every 30).

I based it on both reading the internets and this, from the Kodak X-tol instructions:

Steps 2 through 4 will take approximately 7 to 20 seconds, depending on the type of tank.

5. Let the tank sit for the remainder of the first 30 seconds.

6. After the first 30 seconds, agitate for 5 seconds at 30-second intervals. Agitation should consist of 2 to 5 cycles, depending on the contrast you need and the type of tank.

Again, something else may be wrong. IN the back of my mind I'm wondering if I didn't put enough chemical volume in (I noticed my tank says 550ml for 120 570ml for two rolls of 135... did I accidentally use 550ml? I also did two rolls of 120 that night ) and I'm also wondering if maybe my seals are going a little on the camera based on that post upthread. Both rolls were from the same camera, but the other I fired off over a couple days, while with the affected film the camera sat intermittently while I burned the roll over two weeks.

I have a roll of Delta 100 in that camera now, it has been loaded a week. I am doing some santa photos tomorrow for friends with a new baby because... well, friggen parents man. They go stupid for that kind of crap. Everyone goes a little nuts the first year with a baby, We can indulge them a little. After I get the color shots I'll burn half the roll on the baby and the fat man, then do some walkin' around photos in the sunshine the rest of the weekend, and see what I get.

With my luck it'll work great and the problem won't recur until I get complacent and shoot something I really want to come out nice -- don't get me wrong, I want everything to come out nice, but I don't think my masterpiece was going to be "Girl in half of a dragon costume looking at her cellphone."

 

[Moose22]

I use the tank and reels below - for both 35mm and 120. I believe the reels are the same ones OP uses. Regardless of developer, I invert every minute, for a total duration of max 10 seconds, and tend to do 1 inversion (up-down) for 35mm and 2 (up-down up-down) for 120.

I invert EXTREMELY slowly and have never seen the effect shown in OP's message.

I would suggest the opposite is true: fast, energetic inversions (think making a Martini) gives subpar negatives IME. Perhaps turbulent flow results in areas on the negative (eg those closer to the sprocket holes) being affected by differential development.

I actually bought THAT tank to get the reels. It was on sale on amazon for $15.99. The tank was leaky and terrible so I threw it away and just use the reels which work great for easy loading.

My tank is:

It works fine. It leaks, maybe, sometimes, but if it does it'll be only a tiny bit which doesn't matter to me for this. I just leave it in the sink, so I do inversions to agitate.

Please describe subpar?

I think the "gentle" agitation is just a placebo style effect. But placebo is not wrong; if you *feel* your photos become "better" (and you cannot describe it) then it is really good for you.

Wont believe me? Check this video for example - results at 11:49.

Can you just give me a TL: DR ?

I appreciate people's info, but there's a reason I don't go to the you tubes in the first place. Way easier to scan words than back and forth with someone rambling stupid crap for a camera hiding 45 seconds of content in the middle of 20 minutes of video.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I don't mean to doubt years of rigorous research on the effect of agitation on grain and actual development uniformity, in general.

However, _some_ developer coverage effects (let's call them 'local coverage artifacts') are inextricably associated with agitation. Even if I use an optimal amount of developer solution for my tank/reel/film combo ('coverage') I might still experience local coverage artifacts that I can correct by fine tuning fluid dynamics during development IME.

Some developers, I have found, are prone to producing foam if intensely agitated. This foam will show up on the developed negative as oval/circular lighter areas surrounded by a darker ring. The inverted image will present ring artefacts. These are completely avoidable by making sure the developer does not produce foam, which in my experience happens when its movement is kept steady and slow.

Fomadon LQN, just to make an example, is a developer that will produce foam if intensely agitated.

Sorry, I should have been clearer - 'Coverage' as I used it was referring to how well the developer accesses the silver halide and develops it - some develop a little a lot, others develop most of it a little (preferable). As a matter of fact, the issues I observed that were caused by people agitating insufficiently/ poorly in the initial cycle did produce bubble-like artefacts. Done properly, good agitation should be getting any foam/ bubbles dislodged from the film surface & rising to the the surface. Bubble patterning problems can also stem from insufficiently well cleaned tanks producing a development accelerating reaction with certain developers.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Bubble patterning problems can also stem from insufficiently well cleaned tanks producing a development accelerating reaction with certain developers.

Development acceleration, but also I have experience problems if wetting agent gets in-grained into plastic reels, so now do that step off the reel.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Development acceleration, but also I have experience problems if wetting agent gets in-grained into plastic reels, so now do that step off the reel.

I have never seen this problem across dozens of reels, both Paterson and Jobo in either B&W or C-41 - if they are properly & thoroughly cleaned after each use. The main possible problems with plastic reels seem to have stemmed from (now obsolete) formalin stabilisers in colour processing.

 

[BobUK]

The tanks shown appear to have push on poly caps over the filler hole.
Years ago I read that when inversion agitatation is used, the chemicals can occasionally remain trapped in the internal filler cone after agitation.
So you have a situation were you have two fluid levels above the spiral. Possibly leaving the top of the spiral barely covered.
The answer was to loosen the poly cap after inversion had taken place. This lets the air into the tank and the correct fluid level is restored above the spool.
Of course it all depends on the internal construction of your particular tank. You will have took and see if this is applicable to your set up.

 

[pentaxuser]

I thought I was.

Agitate for 5 seconds every 30 (I agitate more the first 15 seconds, but for the rest i was trying 5 seconds every 30).

I based it on both reading the internets and this, from the Kodak X-tol instructions:

I agree that is what the Kodak instructions say but I had misunderstood 2 turns each 30 secs which I think was all you said initially.

My own view was that even 2 turns every 30 secs was close enough to Kodak's instructions to eliminate agitation as the cause but "more for the first 15 secs" really eliminates agitation as the problem. My reason for suggesting what I did was simply because at the start nearly everyone's discussion centred around agitation as the cause

Frankly and it doesn't take Einstein to come to this summary we are tending to clutch at straws for a definitive cause but in throwing other possible causes into the discussion it can help as each one can be addressed to see where it leads

I suspect that we may never get to the cause but hopefully it will be one of those problems that when you seemingly check that your developer quantity, temp, time etc are right then it will come right even though to the best of your knowledge what you do to eliminate the cause is what you had done before

pentaxuser

 

[radiant]

Can you just give me a TL: DR ?
I appreciate people's info, but there's a reason I don't go to the you tubes in the first place. Way easier to scan words than back and forth with someone rambling stupid crap for a camera hiding 45 seconds of content in the middle of 20 minutes of video.

I fetched you a video example, looked up for the exact time from the video and you are asking TL;DR ?

I mean "going" to Youtube is one click away. You do not need to dress up for it or anything

 

[Moose22]

I fetched you a video example, looked up for the exact time from the video and you are asking TL;DR ?

I mean "going" to Youtube is one click away. You do not need to dress up for it or anything

Yes.

No offense to you -- but screw youtube and youtubers. I hate those rambling idiots so much... It's not you, it's me.

And you could have just said "Hey, here's what this dude found," right here, saved us all a click and a time search. But that's OK of you don't want to . Others might enjoy some rambling dude's rambling.

 

[albireo]

I actually bought THAT tank to get the reels. It was on sale on amazon for $15.99. The tank was leaky and terrible.

What was terrible about it? I don't find mine that bad, it's essentially functionally equivalent to my larger Paterson, which I use when I want to develop two 120 rolls at the same time. They both do what they're supposed to do I'd say.

 

[Moose22]

What was terrible about it? I don't find mine that bad, it's essentially functionally equivalent to my larger Paterson, which I use when I want to develop two 120 rolls at the same time. They both do what they're supposed to do I'd say.

Specifically how leaky it was. And there was no way to invert it without making a mess. And the funnel part didn't have a way for chemistry that made it to the lid to flow back into the tank itself, yet it seemed designed for the chemistry to make it out the top... my current tank has two channels, one in the middle one on the outside, so anything that makes it as far as the seal/lid will go back inside via that outside channel. Paterson's are the same.

Maybe yours is different than what I got. I just went to the Amazon ad that I bought from, and it's $29 now and the picture and the box design are different than the one I got, so... I'm guessing that is the case.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07FKK32XH/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

On mine, literally nothing sealed. It was just a bad design, and functionally NOT equivalent to Paterson or even my Omega tank, so I'm guessing that's the case. It was shot in the dark, and there are a lot of dodgy Chinese resellers on the Amazon who sell whatever they can buy in bulk.

 

[mshchem]

Specifically how leaky it was. And there was no way to invert it without making a mess. And the funnel part didn't have a way for chemistry that made it to the lid to flow back into the tank itself, yet it seemed designed for the chemistry to make it out the top... my current tank has two channels, one in the middle one on the outside, so anything that makes it as far as the seal/lid will go back inside via that outside channel. Paterson's are the same.

Maybe yours is different than what I got. I just went to the Amazon ad that I bought from, and it's $29 now and the picture and the box design are different than the one I got, so... I'm guessing that is the case.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07FKK32XH/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

On mine, literally nothing sealed. It was just a bad design, and functionally NOT equivalent to Paterson or even my Omega tank, so I'm guessing that's the case. It was shot in the dark, and there are a lot of dodgy Chinese resellers on the Amazon who sell whatever they can buy in bulk.

Holy crap! That's a Chinese copy of an AP tank. Too bad you didn't get the AP tank and reels made in Europe.

 

[MattKing]

Holy crap! That's a Chinese copy of an AP tank. Too bad you didn't get the AP tank and reels made in Europe.

It may very well be. But it also may be the lower cost version that is/was also made by AP. The reels that (used to) come with that tank are/were also AP reels, but don't have the wide flanges.
Freestyle sold those as Arista tanks and reels. The more "refined" tank and wide flange reels are sold by them as Arista Premium.
In addition to the Omega branding, you will also find the same branded as Samigon.

 

[mshchem]

It may very well be. But it also may be the lower cost version that is/was also made by AP. The reels that (used to) come with that tank are/were also AP reels, but don't have the wide flanges.
Freestyle sold those as Arista tanks and reels. The more "refined" tank and wide flange reels are sold by them as Arista Premium.
In addition to the Omega branding, you will also find the same branded as Samigon.

Lists brand on Amazon as Jian Cheng.

 

[Moose22]

Well, I'll say this much. The tank I got I didn't care for, but I loaded a roll of 120 on it tonight and those reels are the shiz! Just for a beginner, it's so easy to feel the square edge of the ramp compared to the round edge, and get it arranged in the right direction.

Not complaining about my tank, it works great. I really think, other than being light tight and not leaky, tanks is tanks. In fact, this thread makes me think my off-brand chinese tank would work, just treat it like it's non invertable and do the figure-8 agitation.

I appreciate the advice everyone has given here. The 120 came out... just fine. Go figure. I haven't burned that whole roll of Delta yet, but when I do it I'll let all y'all know if it's wonky or good, too.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Yes.

Screw youtube and youtubers. I hate those rambling idiots so much...

There isn't a single prototype of a YouTuber and one should not discard a platform that has shitton of valuable content in it. Especially if the said one is an autodidact.
There are those who are on point and fast, and those who stretch it out - regardless of the platform. The dude linked in the YT video has another one on the effect of agitation frequency and contrast that I've shared as an example, but OK - you could find a far more stretched-out book on this topic I guess.

 

[Moose22]

. The dude linked in the YT video has another one on the effect of agitation frequency and contrast that I've shared as an example.

And if you say that, HERE, and describe his results, which might only take a single sentence or two, then we know. Now. This may become important when the youtube link goes dead, for example. Say, if someone is using a search engine 5 years from now and hits that post after youtube or the poster has deleted the video. People will know exactly what the point is, regardless. Even if the video is up forever, someone scanning the thread will know the point op was making before having to leave photrio, before having to watch a commercial, etc.

Like I said, it's me. Specifically me. I appreciate the intent, genuinely. There's no sarcasm in that. I'm cantankerous. A notorious curmudgeon. I don't like siloed services that draw information away from the open internet, and I KNOW I'm weird about these things, but that is my reason.

For the record, if you send me to Instagram to look at your photo I won't see it, because I refuse to log in and let the Face Book track me. If you send me to Face Book for something, again, I won't see it. Same reason.

The point of Photrio, while a much smaller community than a reddit or a face book, seems to be its focus, longevity, and searchability. There's good information here, with discussion around it. I search, I get results, I don't end up with 10,000 suggestions all driven by who bid the most to advertise to me. And it's open to the world, not siloed. That was the benefit of pre-social-media internet and likely the reason APUG users still come here.

 

[Greg Dickson]

I like to keep concepts simple so for my two cents I would simply add.
The role of agitation is to place fresh chemistry at each point on the negative.

The longer the chemical sits at a particular spot on the film the more depleted it will become.
So agitation just moves new chemical to that site.
Vigorous agitation also mixes the chemicals in solution.
Leaving aside the problems of foaming that is.
That in my mind is where you've simply gone too far.

If you think you need stronger chemical continually for faster development times then agitate lots and vigorously to ensure the chemicals are mixed evenly and the strongest chemical is at any one point at any given time.

With this way of looking at it you can develop your own regime that works on the particular style you shoot.
High contrast compressed for example.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

And if you say that, HERE, and describe his results, which might only take a single sentence or two, then we know. Now. This may become important when the youtube link goes dead, for example.

Nothing lasts forever - this forum can go down, Wiki can go down, YT can go down, FB, Google - true.
The results were as I - a slide shooter that's just dropped into the world of film development / BW Reversal in the summer of 2016 - observed them myself and had arguments over with "pros" that agitation matters. Both the oomph of it and more - frequency of it. More frequent agitation will increase contrast and vice-versa - I invoke the Stand Development as the other extreme example of this.


By the way, I got similar effect with Delta 100 that I shot at box speed and reversed in PQ Universal - didn't chime in because reversal =/= normal development and PQ Universal =/= your normal film developer. And I got it by introducing the odd agitation scheme for the first minute (constant) and by reducing the agitation frequency.
Ilford wants me to make 4 inversions after pouring it the developer in and then do 4 inversions after every minute. What I did was constant agitation the first minute followed by 3 inversions every two minutes to reduce the harsh contrast a bit.


The result was reduced contrast and similar problem at the end of the roll. Now - writing this post - I'm interested what introduced it for I didn't had this problem up to this point. Was it the over-agitation in the first minute introducing surge lines or the reduced agitation frequency that introduced bromide drag-like effect common in Stand?
Next time around I'll do without the odd first minute routine I made up and see/report what happens.

 

[Moose22]

Going to add a note just for the future:

1. I did another batch identically, same agitation, no problems.

2. I left a roll of Delta 100 with the first couple of frames done in the camera for a week and a couple of days, and I left it out so it wasn't hidden in a dark place and saw sunshine during the days. After that I shot the rest of the roll and had the lab develop it to isolate the possibility of a light leak from my developing. No problems.

My only firm conclusion is I think the light seals on this camera are just fine.

For the surge lines, I'm still suspecting it was MY issue, and that I used 550cc instead of the recommended 570cc. I was developing 120 that night as well, and that only needs 550cc, so I might have just made that mistake and the flow problems were most evident where the spiral was tighter in the middle of the reel.

I'm tempted to experiment to see... but I don't want to burn $20 worth of Delta to do it. Maybe I shoot junk rolls of Arista or whatever I have that's cheapest. If I do I'll post results here.

 

[MattKing]

If you are using too little developer, the effect will likely be as visible with a short piece of film advanced to the end as it will be with a full roll.

 

[Moose22]

If you are using too little developer, the effect will likely be as visible with a short piece of film advanced to the end as it will be with a full roll.

Possibly. We're really grasping at straws here, it seems. So I'm putting it forward as one more straw to grasp at. Same with the light seal hypothesis, but that one was easier to test and if it wasn't the problem I got a GOOD roll of film.

That said it was weird. I never thought I'd pull a roll of film out of the tank and be disappointed that there were no problems with it, but that's almost how it seemed. "Damn, these look just fine."

 

[drmoss_ca]

Over the years I have seen many people ask 'what are these marks next to the sprocket holes?' Someone will say surging, and someone else will say bromide drag. Someone will recommend more agitation and someone else will recommend less. And among those people, all trying to be helpful, someone will be right.
Eventually we'll get smart and say use a strip of the same film in the same tank and same developer two more times. Agitate more with the first strip, and less with the second. Compare.

 

[250swb]

Since using the twizzle stick in my Paterson tank surge marks are a thing of the past (touch wood) and here is my reasoning. Before temporarily defecting to digital photography for many, many years I'd used deep tanks for processing 35mm, 120, and large format film and never encountered any surge marks. But returning to film I started using a Paterson tank and although I'd used them before decided to start again from scratch and iron out any older bad habits. So I started inverting the tank according to instructions and every so often I'd get surge marks, nothing where I could pin down a reason but it was frustrating. So I thought back and came to the conclusion that if the deep tank worked so well and film wasn't subjected to rushing developer or air during inversion then just twiddling the Paterson stick back and forth mimics the swishing around in a deep tank.

Of course there was a time when developing film wasn't complicated, before people had easy access to different types of dev tanks and success came because 'mine is better than yours', or magic schemes to cope with a wide range of random exposures like stand development (Sunny 16, it's your fault) . But needing a new dev tank or bromide drag aside, you got to know the equipment you had, and you used the non-existence of conflicting information to work out what you know about photography, and you did what drmoss.ca says above, you did some tests if there was a problem. Tiny details can make a difference and unfortunately threads like this are sweeping statements, sometimes with logic behind remarks, but often it's illogical, there is almost no reason why any dev tank can't give consistently perfect negatives.

 

[drmoss_ca]

The only time I had a real problem with surge marks was with Mr Qualls' monobath. They were really bad, and it didn't matter if I poured the solution into the tank with the film in there, or dropped the loaded reel into the tank already containing the monobath. In the end that's what turned me to the Rondinax tanks as the surge marks at least then were horizontal, parallel to the film edge, and present outside the image area. I can see that using the twizzle stick is basically doing the same thing.
The first developing tank I ever used was my father's 'Gnome' bakelite tank with twizzle stick. It could not be inverted as it wasn't designed to be inverted without all the solution coming out! The light tight lid would just let the solution pour out of the "twizzle-hole" and the pouring spout at the side. 1940's or 1950's era. Here's a Soviet copy:

So I guess there's nothing wrong with twizzling if that was the only agitation possible in those days!