Constant development

[Melvin J Bramley]

No complaint here of constant development but curious to why I am obtaining such good results.
I use an old Sima roller base and a Paterson tank.
When I develop Ilford Delta 100 in XTOL 1:1 I develop for the full recommended time, I do not reduce the time by the often suggested 15%.
Printing on a diffusion enlarger I use grade 3 filtration for really nice results.
Increasing film agitation whilst increasing filtration seems contrary to suggested methods.
What happened?

 

[retina_restoration]

Dunno. How old is your Xtol, and is it the Kodak branded Xtol? A 15% reduction of time isn't exactly significant.

 

[MattKing]

Are you comparing your results with results you were obtaining in the same conditions, save that you were using less agitation?
That would be the only really informative comparison.
And how much developer are you using in the tank? If you are taking advantage of the opportunity to use less liquid that rotary agitation offers you, that adds a variable that makes a 1:1 comparison challenging.
When I switched over to using continuous rotary agitation - with a developing tank full of replenished developer - I had to arrive at a new set of development times that were appropriate for that workflow.
That was long enough ago that I can't really remember how my eventual "standard" times compared with what I was doing before.

 

[Paul Howell]

You may have increased contrast, a test with a densitometer would confirm, which matches best contrast for a diffusion head.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Delta and Tmax films like lots of agitation.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

Are you comparing your results with results you were obtaining in the same conditions, save that you were using less agitation?
That would be the only really informative comparison.
And how much developer are you using in the tank? If you are taking advantage of the opportunity to use less liquid that rotary agitation offers you, that adds a variable that makes a 1:1 comparison challenging.
When I switched over to using continuous rotary agitation - with a developing tank full of replenished developer - I had to arrive at a new set of development times that were appropriate for that workflow.
That was long enough ago that I can't really remember how my eventual "standard" times compared with what I was doing before.

My results are better than those obtained with a 15% reduction in development but with 1:2 dilution.
The XTOL is fresh and I mixed it 1:1 for a 300 ml mix as per Paterson tank.
I'm going to try the same with HP5 and see what happens!

 

[GregY]

Getting great results is what we're after..... if i were wondering about my results, i'd have to figure in exposure & shutter accuracy as well as agitation & development time.

 

[Vaughn]

Film development time, temperature, and agitation are dependent on the SBR (scene brightness range), the method of printing the image, what one wants the image to look like, and how you exposed the film.

So if your negs print well for you, then what happened was that you did everything correctly.

 

[MattKing]

My results are better than those obtained with a 15% reduction in development but with 1:2 dilution.
The XTOL is fresh and I mixed it 1:1 for a 300 ml mix as per Paterson tank.
I'm going to try the same with HP5 and see what happens!

That point though is that you can't reliably say that changing the agitation to continuous rotary agitation will require a change of X% of development time, unless ll the other variables remain unchanged.
And by the way, 300 ml in a Paterson tank behaves quite differently when the tank is upright when compared to when the tank is on it's side and being rotated.

 

[Chuck_P]

Delta and Tmax films like lots of agitation.

Yes and must be very consistent with time and temperature, especially temperature, imo.

 

[koraks]

When I develop Ilford Delta 100 in XTOL 1:1 I develop for the full recommended time, I do not reduce the time by the often suggested 15%.
Printing on a diffusion enlarger I use grade 3 filtration for really nice results.

Excellent. Keep doing what you're doing and don't worry!

My guess is that maybe you lean towards the side of underexposure and maybe you're photographing fairly flat/low contrast scenes. Just a wild guess. But really, I'd stick to the suggestion above and just be happy in that you have a routine that gives you good negatives!

 

[pentaxuser]

And by the way, 300 ml in a Paterson tank behaves quite differently when the tank is upright when compared to when the tank is on it's side and being rotated.

Can you say in what aspects the "quite differently" manifests itself, Matt. All the "constant rotatíon" articles seem to say is that the film develops in the same way but just more quickly

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Oxidation and the "energy" of the agitation.
With all that air tumbling around continuously in a half/partially filled tank, things are going to behave a bit differently than if the tank is full, where the larger quantity of liquid makes for a much more subdued amount of tumbling and aeration.
In contrast, the 300 ml of developer in a tank used for inversion agitation spends most of its time still and keeping the film covered and away from the air.
This consistency is one of the main reasons I always use a full tank. Of course, when using replenished developer, their is no penalty paid in terms of wastage.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Matt Can you say what issues may arise with rotatíon such as what kind of things will behave differently and of those what things might cause or will cause problems to the negs

I ask because I don't think I have ever seen problems as I hope you will list being mentioned

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Thanks Matt Can you say what issues may arise with rotatíon such as what kind of things will behave differently and of those what things might cause or will cause problems to the negs

I ask because I don't think I have ever seen problems as I hope you will list being mentioned

pentaxuser

Not problems - inconsistencies.
Throw differing amounts of tumbling air into a tank, it's a bit like throwing differing amounts of salt into your soup recipe - the results will differ from meal to meal.

 

[GregY]

Film development time, temperature, and agitation are dependent on the SBR (scene brightness range), the method of printing the image, what one wants the image to look like, and how you exposed the film.

So if your negs print well for you, then what happened was that you did everything correctly.

Yes Sir

 

[mshchem]

One thing to consider. A Jobo tank is designed to hold the reels fixed to the tank (IIRC) where a Paterson tank is designed to let the reels spin freely in the tank. Could be that the reels in a Paterson tank rolling in one direction with a teeter totter (isn't this how the Simma roller works?) are not getting anywhere near the agitation of a Jobo???

FWIW, I use a Jobo, I don't reduce times. With XTOL I use the times that Kodak published in the past.

 

[Chuck_P]

With all that air tumbling around continuously in a half/partially filled tank, things are going to behave a bit differently than if the tank is full, where the larger quantity of liquid makes for a much more subdued amount of tumbling and aeration.

Continuous agitation of sheet film in a tray, especially a single sheet of film, I guess, is not as aggressive toward development since the sheet stays submerged and is not subject to any aeration, only the wave action of lifting up the tray edges? I always thought how does tray development not always produce bullet proof negatives with all that agitation.

 

[snusmumriken]

I'm glad this subject has come up. I've always wondered why we agitate prints constantly in developer, but not films. The only reason I could think of (as I'm no expert) was to allow local contrast or edge effects to happen. But I use a 2-bath developer, where such effects happen primarily in Bath B. So in Bath A I do continuous agitation by inversion (in a Paterson tank), in Bath B as little as I can get away with. It works for me, whether the tank is half full or full (1 or 2 films).

 

[MattKing]

I'm glad this subject has come up. I've always wondered why we agitate prints constantly in developer, but not films. The only reason I could think of (as I'm no expert) was to allow local contrast or edge effects to happen. But I use a 2-bath developer, where such effects happen primarily in Bath B. So in Bath A I do continuous agitation by inversion (in a Paterson tank), in Bath B as little as I can get away with. It works for me, whether the tank is half full or full (1 or 2 films).

If the film or paper is horizontal, you need to agitate continuously in order to avoid localized exhaustion of development in the places where exhausted developer might pool.
If the film or paper is vertical, the fluid in contact with it can and does flow without our intervention.
Stand development minimizes that "self" flow.

 

[snusmumriken]

If the film or paper is horizontal, you need to agitate continuously in order to avoid localized exhaustion of development in the places where exhausted developer might pool.
If the film or paper is vertical, the fluid in contact with it can and does flow without our intervention.
Stand development minimizes that "self" flow.

I’ll take your word for it, Matt, although it stretches my imagination to think that fluid flows freely between or along the turns of film in a small tank spiral. Presumably, in the case of vertical film, we can’t rely on this anyway, otherwise why is any agitation recommended, and how do perforation streamers occur on 35mm film? And if self flow is insufficient, why don’t we always use continuous agitation to assist supply of fresh developer and removal of inhibitory by-products? What is the downside?

 

[MattKing]

I’ll take your word for it, Matt, although it stretches my imagination to think that fluid flows freely between or along the turns of film in a small tank spiral. Presumably, in the case of vertical film, we can’t rely on this anyway, otherwise why is any agitation recommended, and how do perforation streamers occur on 35mm film? And if self flow is insufficient, why don’t we always use continuous agitation to assist supply of fresh developer and removal of inhibitory by-products? What is the downside?

Don't forget that the developer permeates the emulsion.
The fluids do move around a bit on their own. It is just difficult to show how that happens.
The bits of knowledge I have about fluid dynamics and the thermodynamic properties of fluids involved in chemical reactions are far too incomplete and dated to be relied upon from me - - but if you want to get a sense for what happens, make a batch of homemade beer or sauerkraut and take a look at it when it is fresh and the fermentation is most active .
That would be more obviously active than what happens with film, but it will give the "flavour".
Intermittent agitation schemes are always a balance between the advantages of "stand" types of approaches and the advantages of continuous agitation types of approaches.

 

[pentaxuser]

Not problems - inconsistencies.
Throw differing amounts of tumbling air into a tank, it's a bit like throwing differing amounts of salt into your soup recipe - the results will differ from meal to meal.

Thanks. So just that I can be clear, you saw inconsistencies in your negs and it was that factor that persuaded you to give up on using the 50% of developer that is one of the benefits of rotary processing?

What were the sort of differences in the negatives in the processed film? Different states of development that required say different contrast grades than would have been the case if a full tank of developer had been used or different exposúre times between negatives that to your eye should not have required different exposures or something else?

Can you recall how often these inconsistencies occurred before you made the change to rotary processing with the same full tank that is required for inversion

You'd think that with a change in rotation direction every 3 or is it 5 secs then the random tumble of liquid should have covered the whole film ín such a manner that any differences you refer to would be eliminated and you might have expected Jobo to have discovered these inconsistencies when they tested rotary development with half full tanks

Finally do you follow the same procedure with C41 or is C41 development not part of your regime?

Your findings have unnerved me ín the sense that I have always used what Jobo recommended for C41 i.e, 140ml for a single 35mm fílm and have never experienced your inconsistencies( am I an accident waiting to happen?) but I need to qualify that by saying I have never used rotary processing for b&w

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Thanks. So just that I can be clear, you saw inconsistencies in your negs and it was that factor that persuaded you to give up on using the 50% of developer that is one of the benefits of rotary processing?

No.
If you make several changes in the volume of fluid in the tank, you won't be able to come to any consistent conclusion about how much, if any, changes in development times you need to use as a "rule of thumb" when you change back and forth between continuous agitation and intermittent inversion agitation.
This thread is about arriving conversion "rule of thumb" for those who use both types of agitation, or for those who are switching to something new.
If you vary the amounts in the tank, any such rule of thumb will give inconsistent results when applied.

And no, I don't develop C41, but note that the main manufacturer's recommendations assume continuous agitation.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the reply but it still isn't clear to me what made you decide to use a full tank instead of a half tank when rotary processing so I'll try again

When you first tried rotary processing did you decide to use a full tank instead of a half tank simply for consistency purposes and was that because you felt it to be safer as you knew that a full tank always worked so why risk a half full tank on a just in case it didn't work basis so have never used half the amount of developer as Jobo suggests for rotary processing

If the answer is Yes and that you have never tried a half full tank then fine

pentaxuser