Steve,
I'm sure that you have figured this into the equation. In an oxydation/reduction situation like development, the reaction will continue until either it is stopped or one of the components in the reaction is depleted. So if we dilute the developer way down, how can we be sure that there is sufficient reducing agent available to process the amount of film present? It seems to me that if we run out, it's over.
I'm no chemist; I suppose if I were I could figure it out. Otherwise, I suppose we could insure ourselves by using a large amount of developer. How do you deal with this?
Thanks,
Larry
I certainly am no chemist.
Dilutions and overall amounts of chemistry need to be consistent for sure. Developer exhaustion is paramount to the process. The frequency of agitation, length of agitation and style all play into the end result. I always used to say that developing film is the most boring part of film photography. This particular method of film development opens up so many creative possibilities it becomes challenging and exciting to determine development times and technique.
My starting point is 15ml A 10ml B 2000ml water 70F.
Thinking back to Tim's original question of how to attain a full range contrast negative from a very flatly lit scene of similar tonalities. In that sense Reduced Agitation Development is a magic bullet because no other wet process method will affect the end result Tim sited, let no one tell you otherwise. With twenty years under my belt, I spent 2 years and a lot of 7x17 film trying to shoot in flat light and make prints on Azo. I nearly gave up until I read an article by Sandy King where he described the possibilities and rewards of Semi-Stand development.
With all conventional forms of film development a negative can be measured from deepest shadow values starting at about .20 to a highlight density of between 1.4 and 1.6 for Azo. With exact exposure and careful development very flat scenes can be expanded to nearly these numbers. However, the print will still look like weak and flat because the micro contrast in the scene has not been significantly altered to give the impression of higher contrast. Basically, that is all hard contrast printing paper does, exaggerate micro contrast. Reduced agitation development doesnt change the beginning point (.20) or the ending point (1.4 / 1.6) it dramatically alters the micro contrast which gives the impression of greater contrast and dare I say increased sharpness
However, I can't help but agree with Jason in that one must have a pretty thorough understanding of the B&W process before venturing off into very specialized processes.
As with most things, when you gain something most times it comes at a price. While for me, and my unusual methods of working the gain far out weighs the drawbacks. Certainly, the process isn't for everyone's style or subject matter. With respect to your vision it is by no means a magic bullet.
I am especially pleased that the term "increased sharpness" has not been mentioned in this thread prior to now. Progress is being made.
Cheers!
