Experimenting less agitation

[marciofs]

I developed a Tmax 100 cutting doing half agitation than I normally do. So instead of agitate for for first minute continuously and then once every minute until the end, I did agitate the first 30 sec continuously and the once every 2 minutes until the end. It was 12min development process with 1:50 Rodinal.

The result was a more dull and darken middle tones.

But since I used a Agfa Box for the shots, I suspect it lens may have a red layer in it, as I once read somebody comment about. And since it was a bright but not sunny day, I guess this read layer have influenced on the dull middle tones result.

I improved the middle tones contrast and brightness on pos edition but here is possible have an idea:





It was just a experiment anyway. But maybe I sould have develop longer to give more brightness to middle tones? Because it seems to me that the result is a little bit under developed.

 

[NB23]

Even your "normal" agitation scheme is well below kodak's recomendation.

I find that people mess around too much with film development. Too much magical thinking involved.

 

[recviemart]

yes, you should never deviate from the instructions on the package!?!!
recviem-art.ro

 

[dasBlute]

most of my problems with film development over the years have occurred with too-little agitation/development...

 

[pentaxuser]

Even your "normal" agitation scheme is well below kodak's recomendation.

Based on what he has said the OP has developed the Kodak film in Rodinal so I am not sure what Kodak's recommendation on agitation has to do with it. However the Rodinal(original) agitation method is very similar and he has followed the first part which is constant first 30 secs bit not the second part which is then 5 secs every 30 secs?

After the first 30 secs so over 11.5 mins his one agitation every 2 mins is 5/6 agitations which is a lot less than say 2-3 agitations every 30 secs so about 24-36 agitations.

pentaxuser

 

[NB23]

yes, you should never deviate from the instructions on the package!?!!
recviem-art.ro

Yes. The smartassness is better exploited at the shooting stage. Not in the darkroom.

 

[baachitraka]

I agitate once in 5 mins for 10seconds and develop for 16mins but I based my exposure based on incident meter on open shadows with yellow filter attached to the lens.

 

[NB23]

The whole point of agitation being even development, what's the point of less agitation with more time? More time to streak?

 

[baachitraka]

I know its very different from the convention, but this works for me with the film OP is using by following this article.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

With the mentioned films in the article, Fomapan 200 works also well with this way.

 

[marciofs]

I know its very different from the convention, but this works for me with the film OP is using by following this article.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

With the mentioned films in the article, Fomapan 200 works also well with this way.

Thank you very much. I will try.

So maybe if I had done all the same for a bit longer it would have a nicer result.

I was just testing curious about the result, to see if there is any diference or tonal range, sharpness, etc.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I've adjusted my agitation scheme for some developers to optimize edge effects. For example, I agitate sheet film in PMK once through the stack every 30 seconds for the first half of the development time, but halve the agitation frequency for the second half of development.

Reduced agitation risks unevenness (that's why I stay "normal" for the first half), but works in a compensating manner and enhances edge effects. The idea is that the developer exhausts in the very active, dense areas of the negative, but keeps working in the less dense, shadow areas of the negative. When an area of high density is adjacent to an area of low density, there is a little "bleed over" at the edge, which results in a thin line of less density in the high density area, and a thin line of more density in the low density area. This is easily observable with a good grain magnifier, and is called a Mackie line. It can give the illusion of greater sharpness and definition, which is what I'm looking for.

The exhaustion in the highlights, activity in the shadows also helps control highlight density (for appropriate subjects, of course) and is a good trick to keep shadow and mid-tone contrast high while reducing the overall density of the negative (at the expense of highlight contrast, of course, but that is usually not an issue with higher-contrast subjects).

Of course, appropriate changes in overall development time and testing is needed to take full advantage of this, but I find reduced agitation a very good too.

There are those who swear by stand and semi-stand development, where agitation is almost non-existent. I haven't gone that far with reduced agitation, but Steve Sherman's techniques are intriguing, and I'm likely to give it a try in the near future.

Have fun experimenting, and remember, the instructions on the box are for amateurs and those who like plain vanilla. Sure, you'll get good results, but maybe not optimal...

Best,

Doremus

 

[baachitraka]

Thank you very much. I will try.

So maybe if I had done all the same for a bit longer it would have a nicer result.

I was just testing curious about the result, to see if there is any diference or tonal range, sharpness, etc.

Also the most important is metering. I use gossen digisix with incident metering settings.

I have read the article and comments more than 20 times to understand it. Author also mentions about films that works and that don't work. If printing is targeted the choice of paper developers also need consideration.

Good luck.

 

[marciofs]

I've adjusted my agitation scheme for some developers to optimize edge effects. For example, I agitate sheet film in PMK once through the stack every 30 seconds for the first half of the development time, but halve the agitation frequency for the second half of development.

Reduced agitation risks unevenness (that's why I stay "normal" for the first half), but works in a compensating manner and enhances edge effects. The idea is that the developer exhausts in the very active, dense areas of the negative, but keeps working in the less dense, shadow areas of the negative. When an area of high density is adjacent to an area of low density, there is a little "bleed over" at the edge, which results in a thin line of less density in the high density area, and a thin line of more density in the low density area. This is easily observable with a good grain magnifier, and is called a Mackie line. It can give the illusion of greater sharpness and definition, which is what I'm looking for.

The exhaustion in the highlights, activity in the shadows also helps control highlight density (for appropriate subjects, of course) and is a good trick to keep shadow and mid-tone contrast high while reducing the overall density of the negative (at the expense of highlight contrast, of course, but that is usually not an issue with higher-contrast subjects).

Of course, appropriate changes in overall development time and testing is needed to take full advantage of this, but I find reduced agitation a very good too.

There are those who swear by stand and semi-stand development, where agitation is almost non-existent. I haven't gone that far with reduced agitation, but Steve Sherman's techniques are intriguing, and I'm likely to give it a try in the near future.

Have fun experimenting, and remember, the instructions on the box are for amateurs and those who like plain vanilla. Sure, you'll get good results, but maybe not optimal...

Best,

Doremus

I like results from semi stand development I tried but I don't like to wait for 1h or more. Usually, developing normaly I have my negative hanging to dry within 1h.

This is why I thought about less agitation. I want to see if I can get this sharper looking and more tonalities without have to wait 1h or more to develop negatives.

 

[marciofs]

Also the most important is metering. I use gossen digisix with incident metering settings.

I have read the article and comments more than 20 times to understand it. Author also mentions about films that works and that don't work. If printing is targeted the choice of paper developers also need consideration.

Good luck.

I just read all the article and comments and I am going to try it next.

Thanks.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

After reading lots and lots of posts on APUG I find that people get into trouble when they assume that they know more about films than Kodak, Ilford, etc. Remember the advice, "If at first you don't succeed try reading the directions."

 

[marciofs]

After reading lots and lots of posts on APUG I find that people get into trouble when they assume that they know more about films than Kodak, Ilford, etc. Remember the advice, "If at first you don't succeed try reading the directions."

As far as it is an experiment there is nothing to loose.

I obviously don't try new methods with seruos stuff like when I photograph models or some special photos from a trip. Only with street urban photographs with I can play and experiment with and see if I can get constant results from new methods.