• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Do you twiddle?

Eric Rose

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Messages
6,842
Location
T3A5V4
Format
Multi Format
Way back in the early 70's I was experimenting with various development techniques and equipment. I was looking for the least amount of grain and the best sharpness I could get from Panatomic X and TriX both rated at box speeds.

Up until that point I had always developed my film in Honeywell tanks with metal spiral reels. The Paterson System was introduced to me so I tried it as well. One option with Paterson was to twiddle the film back and forth during your agitation intervals. Or you could just put the cap on and do the usual inversion agitation.

I tried both and really could not find any real difference. These days if I have two 120 rolls in a tank I use the twiddle technique due to a sore wrist but still use inversion for up to two 35mm reels. Ya I know the weight difference is not that much but it does make a difference to me.

So my question to you is, do you twiddle or not? Have you noticed any REAL difference between the two agitation methods?

I am not really interested in hearing about your Jobo's, or stand development etc.
 

Gerald C Koch

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
8,131
Location
Southern USA
Format
Multi Format

Having had a bum wrist myself I appreciate your problem. When I had a plastic tank I did indeed twiddle. Never saw any difference between negatives produced by either method.
 

Svenedin

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
1,191
Location
Surrey, United Kingdom
Format
Med. Format RF
I used to twiddle but now I invert due to concerns that I was doing it wrong according to the "received wisdom" of cyberspace. Actually I can see no difference. I twiddled for over 5 years so a lot of films and about 70 films so far with inversion. Perhaps I am not skilled enough to see a difference. Twiddling means no leaking of solutions as well as less strain. I wonder whether twiddling is more of a problem with bigger tanks e.g 5 reel where mixing from top to bottom might not be good enough. Some tanks, my AP/Kaiser tanks for instance, bump the reels up and down on a cam whilst twiddling presumably to aid top/bottom mixing.

It needs a controlled experiment really. Ideally, identical films developed identically and then assessed by a different individual who does not know (I hesitate to say "blind"!) which process was used.

I have seen heated discussions about this with strong opinions either way.
 
Last edited:

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
54,718
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Paterson themselves recommend that you only "twiddle" at the beginning of the development cycle - inversion is recommended for the balance.

Believe it or not, I have read their instructions!

I don't know that you can be sure to get sufficient movement of the developer or fixer with the agitation limited only to twisting. Remember, the purpose of agitation is to move spent developer or fixer off the film and replace it with fresher developer and fixer.

Even early on, when I was using a tank that didn't permit inversion, I supplemented the twist agitation with moving the entire tank in a figure eight pattern on top of the counter/in the bottom of the sink.
 

Svenedin

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
1,191
Location
Surrey, United Kingdom
Format
Med. Format RF

You are absolutely right. I have not seen my tank instructions for over 25 years!
 

David Brown

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
4,060
Location
Earth
Format
Multi Format
Back in "the day", when I started out with the Sears Home Development Kit, it was one of those Yankee adjustable plastic reel and tank things* that only allowed "twiddling". At that time, I was pleased to simply get negatives. I've been using stainless reels with inversion since, oh, I don't know, the Carter Administration, so I can't really comment as to the effect of my different agitation schemes.

*I still have it - as an historical artifact.
 

studiocarter

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
437
Location
Pittsburgh
Format
Multi Format
Twist only in Patterson 5 seconds every 30 but I wonder about longer amounts and what it would do to say less time in total. 8-10 minuets are indicated for Arista 100 in D-76 1:1 and that changes the film a lot. I just tried the middle time. Now if more or more intense agitation were added, two different things, to 8 minuet developing, would film look like it had been developed 10 minuets. If so, why bother?
 

Pat Erson

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
336
Format
35mm RF
Kevin Caulfield said:
I invert with a toroidal twist.
Click to expand...

THIS! Keep it complicated, always!

Seriously a long time ago I dropped and damaged my Paterson tank so it leaked during inversions. I "widely" thought "hey I'll twiddle instead of inverting". Nope I came up with hugely underdeveloped films.
 
OP
OP

Eric Rose

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Messages
6,842
Location
T3A5V4
Format
Multi Format
Interesting Pat. I just developed two rolls of 120 Delta 400 in one tank using the twiddle method and they look exactly the same as if I had used the inversion with a twist technique. I use PyroCat-HD 1:1:100 for pretty much everything so I am not sure if your experience is related the the developer you are using. Back in the 70's I was using Microdol X and D76 when I was doing my experiments and again saw no difference.

I agree that with larger tanks it is probably more important to move the chemicals around so you get fresh developer to the surface of the film.
 

LAG

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
1,006
Location
The moon
Format
Multi Format
Eric Rose said:
...So my question to you is, do you twiddle or not? Have you noticed any REAL difference between the two agitation methods? ...
Click to expand...

I do. No difference at all, sometimes I twiddledee and others twiddledum

Tweedledee: Well, all is well that ends well
Tweedledum: What is That?
 

Bob Carnie

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
7,735
Location
toronto
Format
Med. Format RF
Kevin Caulfield said:
I invert with a toroidal twist.
Click to expand...
If I am processing by hand in small tank I believe this is the very best method.

I actually do this on critical film with grey backgrounds and blank skys if I know in advance before I put the drum on a Jobo.
 
OP
OP

Eric Rose

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Messages
6,842
Location
T3A5V4
Format
Multi Format
Hi Bob, thanks for your comment. Actually looking for AB results between the two methods rather than opinions on best practices. I have used both practices for the conditions you describe and have achieved identical results from both.

The conventional wisdom has always favoured (toroidal) twisting inversion method. However with a lot of things, conventional wisdom quite often is just an old wives tale repeated enough times that it became gospel.
 

Bob Carnie

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
7,735
Location
toronto
Format
Med. Format RF
For most work simple inversion will work but if you are trying to work with neutral backgrounds I like the twist motion as well, Long time ago we proved this method to ourselves in our
darkroom, others may disagree but since your asking this is what we found out to be the best way.
 

Bob Carnie

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
7,735
Location
toronto
Format
Med. Format RF
michael_r said:
Bob, you find that gives you better uniformity than the Jobo? (just asking, I don't own a Jobo).
Click to expand...

I use this method in conjunction with the Jobo if I am worried about the backgrounds, as I have had major issues in the long past even with the Jobo, we would get minus densities along the rotation path, and for a couple
of months I shut down the line.

The only solution to this problem was to do inversion and twist for the first 15 seconds by hand and THEN put the drum on the Jobo.
Looking back another problem could have been the water we were using , as sometimes in a large city things can go haywire.

Because of this issue , I have never had the courage to try semi and stand development.

I have always felt this method for a small production workflow is the absolute best way, even over Jobo.
 
OP
OP

Eric Rose

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Messages
6,842
Location
T3A5V4
Format
Multi Format
It's interesting you got minus densities with the Jobo. A good friend of mine shoots 12x20' B&W negs and he was getting the same thing while using Xtol. He switched to PyroCat-HD and has not had any problems since.

I understand your wanting to take zero chances with client film processing. I would do the same.
 

Bob Carnie

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
7,735
Location
toronto
Format
Med. Format RF
It was really bad, say the least we shut down film production till we solved the problem.

I also had a somewhat similar incident in 1991 the year I started my company, We bought 35 new stainless steel reels for 35 mm film and every third frame we would have a faint density line, turned out it was because of the way the film went into a solid core on these paticular reels, we changed them all out with reels that were open in the middle and no problems, Its funny how flow marks can screw up your life.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
54,718
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
I'm not sure that a few people here performing an A-B test is going to reveal the truth.
Thousands of different users performing the same A-B test in their circumstances may yield useful statistical results though.
Or alternatively, someone like Bob and his staff performing some careful elimination tests.
Or, and this might be revolutionary, we could rely on the tests performed by manufacturers like Kodak or Paterson.
 

studiocarter

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
437
Location
Pittsburgh
Format
Multi Format
I have examples of horizontal banding in sky's tones on 6x9 thin negatives. Now I'm wondering if that is not a result of scraping emulsion onto the plastic backing showing up when emulsion is thin. It may be a result of twirling developer the same way all the time. I'll have to try doing inversions along with spinning the stur stick.
Is this effect a result of spinning?


Michael.
 
Last edited:

Bob Carnie

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
7,735
Location
toronto
Format
Med. Format RF
Which way is the film twirling left to right ? , because this looks similar to some of the problems I had, but in my case it was two wide distinct minus density marks not banding like I see here.
 

Kirks518

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
1,494
Location
Flori-DUH
Format
Multi Format
Like MattKing, I only twiddle for the first 10 seconds, then it's inversions the rest of the way. I do it only because in my mind, twiddling only moves the developer laterally, and I don't think it's being moved around as good as inversions. That's just my opinion, but if works for me.
 

studiocarter

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
437
Location
Pittsburgh
Format
Multi Format
Bob Carnie said:
Which way is the film twirling left to right ? , because this looks similar to some of the problems I had, but in my case it was two wide distinct minus density marks not banding like I see here.
Click to expand...
I load 120 film tail first in a Patterson tank then spin clockwise. No back and forth or no inversions.
Left to right reading properly orientated, I don't know, tail to head spinning.
If you recognize this then I invert and twist next roll!
 
OP
OP

Eric Rose

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Messages
6,842
Location
T3A5V4
Format
Multi Format
When I twiddle, I twiddle back and forth. On a bit of a tangent but I have seen surge marks from 4x5 hangers that have holes around the top and bottom. This happened to me once when I only agitated by pulling the hangers directly up and then replacing them into the tank directly down. The developer was going through the holes at a faster rate thus over developing the neg in those areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register