Out of all the photo communities on the internet, Reddit's AnalogCommunity has some of the highest percentage of false information. They have a sub dedicated to making fun of them, AnalogCircleJerk, which I find entertaining.
You can even do rotary processing with steel reel tanks - but if the tank is steel as well, you may be bothered by the infernal racket!
View attachment 407076
It's especially noticeable when trying to develop something like sheet film in a tube, you can get streaks referred to as "bromide drag" ..
Isn't bromide drag the result of lack of rotation/agitation as in full stand development ? Or is the phrase "bromide drag" used to describe a similar effect in terms of appearance but isn't in fact bromide drag at all ?
pentaxuser
So any amount of agitation as long as it is completely repetitive creates bromide drag? So based on this and Matt's comment even regular inversion agitation can create bromide drag?The failure demonstrates "laminar flow" doesn't need to be static like stand development. My situation was such that the products of reducing silver Br-, I- etc acted to restrain development downstream, i.e. bromide drag.
You need to insure your agitation scheme provides enough chaos that you have even development with no artifacts.
So any amount of agitation as long as it is completely repetitive creates bromide drag? So based on this and Matt's comment even regular inversion agitation can create bromide drag?
It's news to me and certainly something that I have never seen mentioned in terms of other than stand development. So, along as semi-stand agitation were to be completely regular, this too runs the risk of bromide drag?
It's a pity that Ilford and Kodak do not warn against this in their instructions for agitation. At least I cannot recall seeing reference to the necessity of randomness
I have been using what can be regarded as "regular/repetitive inversion agitation for the last 20 years and haven't seen this effect of bromide drag
Have I been lucky, perhaps?
pentaxuser
Repetitiveness does not automatically create a laminar flow. The problem that @mshchem refers to is that of laminar flow, which can be summarized/simplified as a liquid flowing relatively slowly across a surface, with the liquid forming more or less discrete 'layers' that don't mix (much). The net effect in film development is that a perfectly laminar flow effectively constitutes little to no agitation. A perfectly laminar flow will however never exist; there's always a degree of turbulence. The problem is that this degree of turbulence will differ in various spots across the entire film surface (roll or sheet). This results in differences in the degree of agitation across the film surface. In turn, this can turn up as variations in the degree of development.So any amount of agitation as long as it is completely repetitive creates bromide drag?
They do in certain places, but instead of boring people with theoretical stories about rheology and fluid dynamics, they just give practical points that will avoid or at least minimize the risk of uneven development as a result of issues like this one.It's a pity that Ilford and Kodak do not warn against this in their instructions for agitation.
No.
Bromide drag isn't the only mechanism that results in uneven development.
The geometry of tanks and reels also plays into it, along with agitation patterns. Anything that might cause there to consistently be more "flow" of moving developer adjacent to one part of the negative vs. other parts of the negative can result in there being different amounts of development in different parts of the negative.
And as for providing instructions, this is what Kodak says:
View attachment 407106
For testing one's skill in maintaining even development, try the SS sheet film racks and dip-and-dunk into tanks. It is the method I was (and then we) taught at the university for 4x5s. I do not believe it was 'bromide drag', but we called them surge marks along the edges of the negatives, where developer surged thru the holes of the SS film rack. If the agitation was not 'randomized' enough, the film areas next to the holes got more development. Actually just lifting, tilting 45 degrees, then back into the tank a few times was all it took.
Out of all the photo communities on the internet, Reddit's AnalogCommunity has some of the highest percentage of false information. They have a sub dedicated to making fun of them, AnalogCircleJerk, which I find entertaining.
So little chemicals are used, each piece of film (or paper) gets FRESH chemicals -- and it saves a lot of money. That's not just the Jack Benny in me -- it makes disposal simple.
So any amount of agitation as long as it is completely repetitive creates bromide drag? So based on this and Matt's comment even regular inversion agitation can create bromide drag?
It's news to me and certainly something that I have never seen mentioned in terms of other than stand development. So, along as semi-stand agitation were to be completely regular, this too runs the risk of bromide drag?
It's a pity that Ilford and Kodak do not warn against this in their instructions for agitation. At least I cannot recall seeing reference to the necessity of randomness
I have been using what can be regarded as "regular/repetitive inversion agitation for the last 20 years and haven't seen this effect of bromide drag
Have I been lucky, perhaps?
pentaxuser
What happens if it doesn't reverse direction?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?