Extreme minimal agitation - results of an unintentional comparison

sanking · Feb 15, 2006

Jay,

You makes leaps of fantasy that are not justified by anything I said. But not surprising given your simplistic and limited perspective. Most notably I never said that I did not also make prints from the negatives nor did I state what type of subject I chose for the tests. I must assume that you somehow believe that I have posted somewhere everything I know or have ever done, otherwise why would you assert as fact something about which you know absolutely nothing.

Once again fair attempt at discourse with you has proven futile, so you are going back on my ignore list.

Sandy

jdef said:
Perhaps we can draw no parallels between your testing of J and C 200 with pyrocat HD and extreme minimal agiation, and Steve's testing of the same film, with the same developer, and the same agitation, because for reasons known only to you, you chose to use for your tests a subject that is less than optimum for the creation of edge effects, and because you chose to observe your negs under a microscope instead of printing them, as opposed to in addition to printing them. In any case, your tests seem to be of very little practical value to anyone, since although your results seem to disagree with others', there is no basis for comparison. In light of this revelation, I'll modify all of my previous statements in which I wrote disagree, or disagreement, with the qualifiers, appear, or apparent, and hope that this qualification satisfies everyone.

Jay

noseoil · Feb 15, 2006

"In any case, your tests seem to be of very little practical value to anyone, since although your results seem to disagree with others', there is no basis for comparison. In light of this revelation, I'll modify all of my previous statements in which I wrote disagree, or disagreement, with the qualifiers, appear, or apparent, and hope that this qualification satisfies everyone. Jay"

Certainly not me, Jay. I have learned more from Sandy's research and writings than I have from most of the photography books I have read. They are simple, factual observations. Where he has made subjective observations, he has been honest in his presentation. Sandy has most graciously posted his test results on development times, contrast numbers, SBR's, observations and willingly shared the information on this and other forums. He has not sought personal gain, but the further understanding of a wonderful medium, film. His articles are posted for all to see, read, use and discuss (free of charge). I still hope he will write a book about the technical analysis of development density and film. I hope he does publish such a work, as I would request an autographed copy of the "Book of Pyrocat." Heck, I'd even pay for it in hard cover.

If you disagree with his findings and can back up your arguments with your own personal test data, I would be more than willing to read and try to digest the findings, in so far as my abilities allow. Please tell us about your own tests with respect to minimal agitation, in these I would be greatly interested. tim

Steve Sherman · Feb 15, 2006

Enough with the Tests!

I still marvel at how these discussions always turn hostile.

It's' supposed to fun and when someone finds a new technique which at least in my mind can significantly enhanced their work we should all seek to adapt that technique to our own methods, likes and dislikes, forget about what everyone else thinks.

First off, I'm uncomfortable being mentioned as an expert in the same text with Sandy King. I continue to be amazed at how generous and forthcoming with information and test data Sandy is. Either he doesn't sleep much or doesn't work much, either way we are all the richer for it.

If I'm an expert at anything, I make photographs not tests. I don't enjoy making tests, I hate to develop film and only slightly enjoy making prints which I have already printed before.

But damn do I love to search out a new photograph, compose it, decide how and where to establish relationships, solve a host of problems and then click the shutter, only to travel home sometimes thousands of miles in the hopes that I have calculated the correct development.

Somebody stick a pin in a map, pick a date and have a Dilute Developer / Reduced Agitation Convention and let's all show up with some work! No Tests Allowed!

vet173 · Feb 16, 2006

RGyori said:
I've been following this thread with great interest as I have plans to experiment with semi-stand development of 4 x 5 negatives (Tri-X). One question: With an eye to minimizing the possibility of uneven development, is it an advantage to pre-soak?

Thanks!

Bob

I use and recommend a presoak for the semistand developing that I do in pyrocat. I want to pre swell the emulsion so that it won't take in the developer so fast. My experience has been it is just as important as presoak for jobo processing that I have done. The best way to not have uneven development is to develop ( ymmv ) in a vertical position. I use hangers and tank.

Paddy · Feb 16, 2006

jdef said:
I have not challenged Sandy's results, or the results of anyone else.

This kind of smoke & mirror statement reminds me of the "Rodinal/history" thread that I'm sure some of you must be familiar with. It also brings to mind the cliche "Denial is not a river in Egypt."

Those that can, do. Those that can't, criticize. Steve, Sandy, and so many others, please keep up the great work. And thanks for your willingness to share you thoughts with all of us.

sanking · Feb 16, 2006

I also recommend the pre-soak for stand and semi-stand agitation. Also, make sure that the initial agitation of 1-1.5 minutes is fairly vigorous. Any uneveness that might start because of insufficient or improper agitation at the beginning will become much worse with stand and semi-stand than with standard methods of development.

Sandy

vet173 said:
I use and recommend a presoak for the semistand developing that I do in pyrocat. I want to pre swell the emulsion so that it won't take in the developer so fast. My experience has been it is just as important as presoak for jobo processing that I have done. The best way to not have uneven development is to develop ( ymmv ) in a vertical position. I use hangers and tank.

noseoil · Feb 16, 2006

With tubes I use roll, pitch and yaw for the first minute of development. Roll, end over end, twist. This seems to be as good a job as I can do and it works pretty well. tim

RGyori · Feb 16, 2006

Thanks to all for the reply. Also for the advice regarding vigorous agitation. And... the, uh, vigorous debate.

Bob

Michael Kadillak · Feb 16, 2006

Great suggestion Steve for a get together. Pick a time and place.

I guarantee that the discourse would be far more civil in person and the visual observations would simply speak for themselves.

Of course those that continue to want to banter "opinion" along their distorted lines of logic will find 101 reasons to not show up.

I find the bass ackward process simply amazing.

If you have nothing productive or positive to add to a post, put a lid on it. We already have one Ralph Nader and he has that position locked up.

Michael Kadillak · Feb 16, 2006

Take a look in the mirror Jay. My comments were surely not directed at Sandy, Paddy or Tim. Are you this naturally pessimistic or do you have to work at it?

Outta here...

noseoil · Feb 16, 2006

Jay, I'll buy the hemlock. tim

P.S. That was a joke, har har.

c6h6o3 · Feb 16, 2006

Steve Sherman said:
If I'm an expert at anything, I make photographs not tests.

Then you're an expert, because you sure make photographs.

As to being uncomfortable with being considered an expert, I'm afraid I have only bad news for you. The more people see your prints, the more they will regard you as such.

I've got an old monochrome densitometer we can use for target practice at your semi-stand convention. It's in Paletti's basement. I'll have him bring it along with some really hot .44 Magnum hollow point loads.

sanking · Feb 16, 2006

Yes, Steve will just have to get used to being called an expert. Because there is no doubt but that he has taken the concept of minimal and stand type agitation to new levels in both technique and results on the print.

And we are fortunate that he has been so willing to share his working procedures, both in the various forums and in his articles in View Camera. I for one have learned a lot from his writings.

Sandy

c6h6o3 said:
Then you're an expert, because you sure make photographs.

As to being uncomfortable with being considered an expert, I'm afraid I have only bad news for you. The more people see your prints, the more they will regard you as such.

I've got an old monochrome densitometer we can use for target practice at your semi-stand convention. It's in Paletti's basement. I'll have him bring it along with some really hot .44 Magnum hollow point loads.

Michael Kadillak · Feb 20, 2006

Has anyone discussed minimum agitation with stand development to mitigate uneven densities in a clear sky? Is it recommended that one stay away from stand for a condition where there is an even sky within the photograph or just insure that more regular agitation takes place?

Thanks

noseoil · Feb 20, 2006

This was covered at some point. Basically, it is usually a function of initial agitation. With a bit of care, this isn't a problem. tim

bobbysandstrom · Feb 20, 2006

I think one way to find out would be to expose a gray card at zone 7 or 8 on a few sheets and try different upfront agitation times. You could also try different dilutions from 1:100 to 1:600. I think the results might be revealing. I haven't had the uneveness problem yet so have had no need to do such a test.

Kirk Keyes · Feb 21, 2006

bobbysandstrom said:
I haven't had the uneveness problem yet so have had no need to do such a test.

Bobby - this sentence sounds backwards - I would think you need to do the evenness test first before you can proclaim that you don't have problems with it.

When I test for evenness, I place a sheet of film in a holder, expose under the enlarger with a large piece of white translucent plastic about halfway between the film and enlarger lens. This way I get a very even exposure on the film. I then divide up the film by drawing a 1 cm gid on it and measuring each grid with the densitometer. I'm sure someone will claim this is overkill, but it is a very quantifiable way to measure evenness.

Kirk - www.keyesphoto.com

Extreme minimal agitation - results of an unintentional comparison

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency