Brush development

[David Vickery]

Hello, I would like to ask Jorge and anyone else who uses a brush for agitation if you would please describe your technique. If you have already written about this, then please just direct me to that site. I have found a four inch Hake brush with no metal ferrul and have used it with some success, but I am affraid that I may not have the most random, non-pattern movement yet. I have some streaking in the sky areas that may be caused by not enough randomness or maybe it was the inspection safelight fogging the sheets in the pre-wash holding tray. I did have another tray on top of it, but it may not have been enough?

 

[Mateo]

Jorge is definately the one to ask on this subject but it sounds like you have the light on during your presoak and I think that would cause the problem. I use the safelight for about 3 or 4 sec only after the film has developed for 3/4 of the total time that I guesstimate for each particular sheet's requirement. After seeing how far along it is I guess again and give it another 1, 2 or whatever min and check again with the light for 3 or 4 sec.

 

[David Vickery]

Thanks Mateo, but it sounds like I am doing pretty much what you are. The streaking is fairly faint, so I was wondering if maybe I got lost in a daydream (I seem to remember being on the edge of a cliff that no one had ever been to before, with a 20x24 view camera and there was no wind and the clouds......) and didn't pay close enough attention to moving the brush around.

 

[Jorge]

Hi David, I am surprised you are getting uneven developing with the brush. What I do is place the tray lenght wise and move the brush up and down continously. The brush is touching the film and you have to make sure you brush on the edges also. get a one size bigger tray and hold the film by one corner and move your brush in a steady manner. Keep the same rythm and you should be ok.
When I do it by inspection I try not to take the film out of the developer I am afraid oxidation would cause streaks. HAving said this I do it for some negatives and have never seen streaks or uneveness.
I guess the first thing to try is to make sure the brush is actually touching and removing the developer if you are just passing the brush on top of the film without touching it can cause this problem.
Hope this helps if not, let me know and we will work the problem, I have messed up in all possible ways so I am sure we can arrive at the solution.

BTW what temperature are you using? this might be somthing you can look at also, if too high then it could also be a problem.

 

[FeS2]

For BIG prints I used a common 4" painters foam brush in a homemade resin coated tray, just kept it moving, no scratching or marking.
Separate brushes for developer, for stop, for fixer, etc. worked fine.

 

[juan]

Nearly 20-years.

 

[pentaxuser]

Well the OP hasn't been seen since 2006 and wasn't Jorge quite famous amongst the very "old stagers" I say old stagers as he hasn't been seen since 2006 either

What was brush development for film anyway? Clearly a minority interest as it was 5 posts long not including mine and juan's posts which were really nothing to do with the subject

It is nearly midnight here in the U.K. and seeing this thread is a bit like entering "The Twilight Zone"

pentaxuser

 

[juan]

Jorge quit photography many years ago. I’ve seen some posts saying he moved to Mexico and has since passed away.
There was quite a bit of talk about brush development at that time. I did it for awhile.
Seeing these old posts makes me feel old.

 

[pentaxuser]

Jorge quit photography many years ago. I’ve seen some posts saying he moved to Mexico and has since passed away.
There was quite a bit of talk about brush development at that time. I did it for awhile.
Seeing these old posts makes me feel old.

So what did brush development consist of and what were its advantages over "normal" development

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

So what did brush development consist of

Brushing developer, stop and fix over a sheet of film or paper instead of dunking the entire sheet into a bath.

what were its advantages over "normal" development

For paper it's one way of processing very large prints. For sheet film, it's a way to get even development, but frankly, there are usually other, less risky (in terms of emulsion damage) ways of achieving the same thing.
Another potential benefit is selective development on certain areas of a print or sheet of film. Can be useful for artistic effects. I don't know of any people who do this on film. I've done similar things on prints, but it never progressed further than a little experimentation.

 

[sasah zib]

still used -- masks, mats, lith development...
- even, fast exchange across the 'laminar barrier'

 

[juan]

It’s used to provide very even and fine development. For instance astronomical photography is or was done with brush development.

 

[pentaxuser]

It’s used to provide very even and fine development. For instance astronomical photography is or was done with brush development.

Thanks. What was it about brushing developer on to a sheet film that achieves this fine and even development that normal development doesn't?

Intuitively it would seem that continuous immersion in a developer with no contact with anything except the developer has to be better and is this only true of sheet film? I presume so otherwise brushing a length of 120 film would offer the same very even and fine development, wouldn't it?

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

What was it about brushing developer on to a sheet film that achieves this fine and even development that normal development doesn't?

Constant agitation and more or less a guarantee that fresh developer is brought in direct contact with the emulsion all over the place.

I'm not sure if it would work very well for 120, let alone 135. Theoretically it would, of course. Practically it may be cumbersome.

 

[pentaxuser]

Constant agitation and more or less a guarantee that fresh developer is brought in direct contact with the emulsion all over the place.

I'm not sure if it would work very well for 120, let alone 135. Theoretically it would, of course. Practically it may be cumbersome.

Thanks but wouldn't constant agitation in a tank do the same and even if it didn't I had thought that normal inversion agitation on the usual cycles of 10 sec a minute(Ilford) or 5 secs every 30 secs (Kodak) ensure that the developer is changed before its exhausted?

The OP in fact suffered from some streakiness by brushing which was why he started the thread. He suspected his brushing wasn't random enough and was looking for a random pattern that he thought others might have the secret for

It all just struck me as a some kind of largely imaginary "darkroom magic"

pentaxuser

 

[GregY]

I tried it with 5x7" and a couple of different brushes.... foam/ hake..... & ended up with even development but fine scratches on the negative. I went back to standard tray processing.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks but wouldn't constant agitation in a tank do the same and even if it didn't I had thought that normal inversion agitation on the usual cycles of 10 sec a minute(Ilford) or 5 secs every 30 secs (Kodak) ensure that the developer is changed before its exhausted?

A tank that works for 8x10 film the same way that, for example, a Paterson tank works for 120 film would probably have to be the size of an oil drum. And think about the film reel!
Big pieces of sheet film interact with fluids and fluid flows in ways that are different than smaller rolls of film.

 

[koraks]

Thanks but wouldn't constant agitation in a tank do the same and even if it didn't I had thought that normal inversion agitation on the usual cycles of 10 sec a minute(Ilford) or 5 secs every 30 secs (Kodak) ensure that the developer is changed before its exhausted

What @MattKing says. Sheet film is a different animal. Evidently there are other ways also with sheet film to get even development. Otherwise brush development would have been more popular. I wouldn't say it's some kind of black magic; it's just one more technique and one that isn't very popular for obvious reasons. Which is not to say it can't be effective, or be a viable option in specific cases.

 

[pentaxuser]

So shouldn't more 4x5 sheet users be brushing or certainly 8x10 sheet users but I see none here who use both sizes mention brushing so I assume there is now or perhaps has always been other ways with sheet film to get even development which presumably are easier

All I was trying to get to the bottom of was why brushing seems to have so few if any followers. It seems to be just one technique that is at best as good as or not in the case of the OP but no better than other easier techniques

It sounds like the guy on the Penny Farthing bicycle who can undoubtedly pedal well enough to match other users of ordinary bicycles. The problem being it took him a long time to learn and takes more effort to move his bike as fast and as easily as his fellows using their bikes

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

still used -- masks, mats, lith development...
- even, fast exchange across the 'laminar barrier'

Breaking that boundary layer (by whatever means) is hugely important to getting even development - something that I wish everyone who seems to treat their film agitation procedure as requiring the utmost delicacy (and the least possible agitations - though litho film & dot formation will blow their minds) could understand.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Evidently there are other ways also with sheet film to get even development. Otherwise brush development would have been more popular. I wouldn't say it's some kind of black magic; it's just one more technique and one that isn't very popular for obvious reasons. Which is not to say it can't be effective, or be a viable option in specific cases.

Looks like this is indeed the case. As per SPSE handbook (Section 10.3.1.1, page 623), brush development "provides good agitation agitation but is tedious, has a very low production rate, and depends highly on operator technique for reproducible results." Further, "Removal of the antihalation backing may be incomplete, because solution flow to the back of the film is restricted."

 

[koraks]

I assume there is now or perhaps has always been other ways with sheet film to get even development which presumably are easier

For most applications, yes.