Kodak agitation = "Tone devlopment equalizer" ?

Hi,

I was always puzzled at how Kodak insists in its documentation on the small tank agitation of 5 inversions in 5 seconds every 30 seconds, versus everybody else's 4 inversions in 10 seconds every minute.

My conclusion is that Kodak wants to "equalize" development times.

What I mean is that given that in time X a certain film/developer combination will fully develop shadows, and given that:

- shadows don't change much with agitation
- shadows don't change much after they are fully developed
- Kodak assumes that people don't want to go into details, they just want to assume that time is directly proportional to contrast

then they will recommend:

- an official dev time of Y = 2 times X, or maybe Y = 1.5 times X
- strong agitation (5 inv/5sec/30 sec)

so that an average user will be able to:

- change contrast with slight changes in dev time (since highlights dev is maintained quick by the strong agitation).
- not run the risk of underdeveloping shadows (since they are already way past shadows dev time)

So this simplifies contrast management at the price of sacrificing further refinement in tone management.

Does my reasoning make sense?

The longer the film is in the developer, the more the shadows will develop, so it's false to say that having shorter dev times due to more frequent agitation will omit the risk of shadows that aren't fully developed.
I've seen this measured, so it's not some sort of magic or anything, just a dynamic of longer development time. This becomes practical if you photograph in high contrast lighting, or if you want to compress your tonal scale for some other reason, because if you slow down agitation to something like once every 3 minutes, or once every 5 minutes, you end up needing a longer development time. This becomes what we call compensating development, because it lifts your shadows while highlights are compressed, while mid-tones then become what you control with exposure.

I don't know why this is something that is omitted by every manufacturer out there, but was common knowledge and practice of many years ago. I guess that manufacturers want to stay away from getting too involved with people's processes, and give a standard recommendation that works 'pretty well most of the time' to be safe and not screw things up for folks. The recommended times, dilutions, and agitation patterns might give technically sound results, and yield a negative with a perfect tone scale, or whatever, but many people who use the film are less interested in technical perfection, and more interested in conveying something as abstract as emotion.
Agitation is a tool that we can use to shape our results, beyond the 'catch all' recommendation of the manufacturer, whatever it is. It helps us create a negative which results in a tonality in a print that lives up to our vision and what we want to convey.
Any recommendation from someone else, regarding what a developing cycle should be, should be taken with a grain of salt anyway, and only as a starting point where individual tweaks are then applied to get the best out of the light you're shooting in, the contrast of the lens you're using, your meter accuracy, your metering technique, the shutter accuracy of your lens, what paper you print on, and what paper developer you use, etc etc etc ad nauseum.

What manufacturers give you are recommendations. Not something you follow like some sort of gospel.

5 inversions in 5 secs is getting close to the cocktail barman routine with a shaker and is very vigorous compared to 4 in 10 secs. Clearly the liquid's speed at 5 in 5 is much greater as well as being over twice as many inversions in the same time period as Ilford's. I wonder how much difference is made by (a) greater liquid speed and (b) twice as many inversions?

Anyone?

pentaxuser

As far as I understand, shadows are not affected by agitation, only by time.

I've experimented with standing development with highly diluted developer. HC-110 1:100 is great for shots that pick up contrast due to reciprocity failure. As far as I know, stand development works by the developer geting exhausted faster in the highlight than shadows. So at one point in the development, the shadows keep developing while the highlights are slowed or have even stopped development.

Greg Davis said:

In fact, looking at the data sheets for Ilford HP-5 and Kodak Xtol developer, they both recommend 12 minutes for HP-5 in Xtol 1:1 at 20°C while describing different agitation techniques for small inversion tanks.

Click to expand...

Good point. Would the key here be the C.I. or Gbar that each manufacturer gives for its own inversion method? If each is the same or almost then it would suggest that the difference in the inversion method makes no difference or so little difference as to have a negligible effect on the negs.


pentaxuser

I saw it described thus:

Expose for the shadows.
Develop for the midranges.
Agitate for the highlights.

I have learned to minimise agitation to keep highlights under control. I'm a slow learner but eventually by not following manufactuers' instructions to the letter in this regard has given me better prints.

I've found that development is quite sensitive to agitation, both amount and technique, and that agitation varies a lot from person to person regardless of the instructions they think they are following.

I somehow get in 15 inversions in 10 seconds. Haha I guess a old holdover from when I started, just to make sure the dev gets really sloshed into every nook and crevice, since it is on such a tight spiral on the reels. The negatives come out fine.

It is a case of whatever works for you. Agitation strength and frequency is the third important variable. After many years of doing it by the book, I discovered the fact that less can be more. It is more a matter of using just enough. Prints, and especially negative scans will benefit from improved highlight separation in the most subtle of ways.

I always agitate every 30 seconds routine for roll film in small tanks.

And when I develop for published times I often reach Contrast Index (CI) 0.62 which I consider normal.

If you are happy with a different routine, then I don't see any reason to change.

It would be wise to monitor the actual CI that you get (feel free to check average gradient or make your own choice of curve analysis). Test strip making sensitometers and negative reading densitometers are readily available.