Min. agitation technique - help

[slm]

Hi Everyone, I'm trying to figure out how to get "better" results using Arista EDU ultra 400, and having just read about min. agitation, thought I'd try it out.

I developed a first roll in Xtol 1:1, and added 50% time as a starting point, so 13 mins total. I agitated the first minute, and then 10 secs every 3 mins. The film was exposed at box speed.

The results are not what I expected. Contrast looks low to what I'm used to with a standard development (using digitaltruth times) and agitation of 5 secs every 30 secs. Also, the negatives look soft, with fine detail having been "mushed".

So, how do I interpret the results ? Time ? Not enough agitation ?

thanks for your help
Steven

 

[CBG]

There are only so many variables you need to deal with at one time. Agitation, developing time, and film speed rating are the biggest ones here. Of course there are plenty of variables you could mess with, but it pays to change one or two things at once and then re-evaluate based on your results. If you change ten things at once, you'll never be able to sort out what did what.

For the moment, I'm assuming you are working with freshly mixed developer and enough of it. Old or exhausted developer can let you down, especially when using a dilute mix.

I'm assuming you had enough developer. Having just enough developer to barely cover the film can lead to killing the developer during the developing process, especially when using a diluted - think 1:1 or 1:2 etc - mix. There just isn't that much developing agent in that few ounces of liquid, so don't scrimp on filling the tank. Fill it to the brim.

I'm assuming you are keeping tight control over temperatures. Even a degree or so makes a difference.

If highlight density is low - flat negs -try 50% longer time than what you had. Call it 20 minutes in your case. Yes, that's a honking huge jump, but if you try to sneak up on it in tiny increments, 5 or 10% at a whack, you will be testing over and over and over and spend far more time than you want. Not to mention that you wouldn't be writing in here if the negs were just a teeny bit flat. Best to try to straddle the "real" time with really big increments, and then you can interpolate quite well by judging visually.

You didn't refer to the shadow areas specifically, but if the shadows look underexposed in your first test roll, try adding a stop of extra exposure.

Since some folks do verrrry minimal agitation, you are probably giving enough agitation.

Remember the old adage that you expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. Think of them as pretty independent variables. 1. Give enough exposure to beef up shadow density to where you want it - rate the film speed to where you are getting usable detail in the shadows.
2. Develop long enough to build highlight density.
3. Examine your negatives and see if you have too little or too much density and adjust speed rating for shadow density, and adjust developing time to build enough highlight density.
4. Do a test print the way you usually print (or scan if that is how you print) to see how your exposure and development scheme works.
5. Based on your results, go back through steps 1 through 4 until you get workable results.
6. Keep detailed notes as you go so you don't lose track of what you did. Just don't ask me how I know this.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

To me it sounds like not enough exposure for this type of development, and perhaps amount of stock developer.
How do the shadows look? If they are thin, then increase EI of film I'd say to 200-250, shoot another roll and develop the same way. Just change that one variable. If the shadows look fine, then either extend development time (which would seem unnecessary as developer is only diluted 1:1) or increase amount of stock developer. For one roll of film, I wouldn't have anything less than 100ml of stock. Anytime you are playing around with semi-stand or stand development, rating a film at its box speed doesn't work, at least for me, especially for the latter.

 

[slm]

Thanks for your responses. I had 250ml each Xtol & water, so i should be good on that front, but your suggestions have given me a better direction. I also have HC110 on hand, would that be a better developer for this type of developing ?

Cheers

 

[An Le-qun]

Having used exactly this combination of ingredients (different water, though most likely), here's another interpretation:

With Xtol and the agitation scheme you're using, use 1:3 dilution. That makes the developer weak enough so that it exhausts in the highlights but continues to work away at the shadows. Keep the same times you've been using, though, for the minimal agitation.

 

[aldevo]

Having used exactly this combination of ingredients (different water, though most likely), here's another interpretation:

With Xtol and the agitation scheme you're using, use 1:3 dilution. That makes the developer weak enough so that it exhausts in the highlights but continues to work away at the shadows. Keep the same times you've been using, though, for the minimal agitation.

This won't work.

A Pyrazolidinone-Ascorbic Acid developer like XTOL doesn't easily produce a compensating effect. I've tried using dilued XTOL and PC-TEA with stand development to develop film and didn't observe the sort of compensating effect that I clearly see with Rodinal diluted to 1:100 and greater.

 

[An Le-qun]

Actually, it does work. I use it all the time with (in my opinion) good results.

Arista 400, Xtol 1:3, 18 minutes (or a little longer) in 3 minute cycles.

At higher dilutions, Xtol indeed does work like a compensating developer, or so I am told.

 

[piu58]

Hi Everyone, I'm trying to figure out how to get "better" results using Arista EDU ultra 400, and having just read about min. agitation, thought I'd try it out.

Steven

Minimum agitation development has some disadvantages. You may get too less contrast and uneven results. I would not takte this into account first for "better" results.

I recommend to determine the effective film speed first and then the accurate time for the contrast you need for your paper/enlarger/paper-dev combination. This will lead to better results quickly.

 

[burchyk]

My own testing shows that reduced agitation lowers highlight contrast, it seems normal to me that you got less contrast than with 5s/30s scheme

 

[Stoo Batchelor]

Steven,

Try printing the negatives on your usual stock of paper and evaluate them from there. If you haven't already, check your paper for maximum black. You will then be able to tell where to go with your development just by looking at your highlight and shadow detail in the resulting prints.

I hope this helps

Stoo

 

[c6h6o3]

Hi Everyone, I'm trying to figure out how to get "better" results using Arista EDU ultra 400, and having just read about min. agitation, thought I'd try it out.

I developed a first roll in Xtol 1:1, and added 50% time as a starting point, so 13 mins total. I agitated the first minute, and then 10 secs every 3 mins. The film was exposed at box speed.

The results are not what I expected. Contrast looks low to what I'm used to with a standard development (using digitaltruth times) and agitation of 5 secs every 30 secs. Also, the negatives look soft, with fine detail having been "mushed".

So, how do I interpret the results ? Time ? Not enough agitation ?

thanks for your help
Steven

You should use a highly dilute developer for minimal agitation development. I like staining ones like Pyrocat HD. It doesn't contain any metol which tends to "mush" the grain, as you put it. The stain adds to contrast as well.

A properly developed minimal agitation negative can appear quite thin and still yield a wonderful print, particularly if a staining developer has been used. Steve Sherman develops all of his negatives this way.

 

[slm]

Well, I ran another test (will do more today) and just raised the time to 18 mins, in Xtol 1:1
The contrast went up and looked similar to the standard agitation technique.

I guess I should also mention what I'm trying to achieve here; I recently read a minimal agitation method would increase adjacency effects resulting in a sharper negative, so I just want to get the best negative I can. I've always used published development times and shoot at box speed in the past. I once did a stand development test, it was ok but I also felt contrast was way down.

If anyone has a concise guide to: determine film speed & best development method for a film, please feel free to point me in the right direction.

Happy New Year everyone.


Cheers
Steven

 

[bdial]

There are lots of descriptions of determining film speed and development time around. Many threads in here, also Fred Picker's The Zone VI Workshop book, and of course Saint Ansel's book The Negative.

Aside from Beyond Monochrome, a good contemporary source is Bruce Barlow's film test kit; Dead Link Removed
Not free, unless you attend one of the workshops, but not expensive either.

 

[Stoo Batchelor]

Hi Steven

I am glad that you have got your negatives just about where you want them. Shooting at published development times and at box speed will rarely give you a great negative, in fact I often wonder where the film manufactures get their times from, as they can be so far out. From personal experience it will be well worth your time and effort to do a little testing. At first it can be quite daunting, and quite a drawn out process, but once you have done it once it will become a breeze, and you will really begin to understand the saying "Expose for the Shadows, develop for the highlights"

I think the real beauty is, once you have done the test for yourself, and found the perfect development routine for your favourite film/developer combo, you can then begin to borrow other photographers times/temps etc for other developers and films, and with the experience have gained, you will be able to recognise from the resulting negatives what you have to change to give you the perfect negatives for your own personal use.

Three sources that come to mind regarding testing for personal film speed; Just re-released, and can be found on Amazon, is Ralph Lambrecht's "Way Beyond Monochrome," Les McLean's "Creative Black and White Photography," and John Blakemore's "Black and White Photography Workshop," I devised my own routine using a little bit from each, though 80% was from Ralphs book.

I hope this helps and good luck.

Stoo

Well, I ran another test (will do more today) and just raised the time to 18 mins, in Xtol 1:1
The contrast went up and looked similar to the standard agitation technique.

I guess I should also mention what I'm trying to achieve here; I recently read a minimal agitation method would increase adjacency effects resulting in a sharper negative, so I just want to get the best negative I can. I've always used published development times and shoot at box speed in the past. I once did a stand development test, it was ok but I also felt contrast was way down.

If anyone has a concise guide to: determine film speed & best development method for a film, please feel free to point me in the right direction.

Happy New Year everyone.


Cheers
Steven

 

[slm]

Hi Stoo, thanks very much for the book suggestions and encouragement. I may have spoken too soon, the test I had done that looked better was done on a 30cm length of film, from a test roll. Tonight I developed an entire roll with the same time and agitation, but i have uneven development, and I believe streaks too, but in a vertical direction. My developing tank is the type that you insert a special plastic thermometer and it is used to "spin" the reel. I would have thought any streaking would occur in a horizontal direction.

Looks like I have more work to do.

Cheers
Steven

 

[piu58]

Steven,

if you have problems with uneven devlopment then try continious agitation. The dev time must be decresed by 20...30%. All problems with streaks are solved.

 

[Stoo Batchelor]

Steven, yes, don't give up.

Personally I feel that you should change your agitation routine to the inversion method. I have read of many people over the years suffering from uneven development and streaking because they are using the little 'twiddle agitator' supplied by Paterson. Even Paterson suggest using this only for the first initial agitation, and then to continue with the inversion method.

Just pour in your chemicals, and then you want to slowly and repeatedly turn the tank upside down, while at the same time be making a sort of side to side swirling motion(very hard to describe) Continue as before, agitate this way for the first minute, and then ten seconds at the three minute stage, and then every three minutes thereafter. As always after each agitation, don't forget to tap the tank on the work top to release air bubbles.

One little tip...Before the start of agitation, push the centre of the lid down with your fingers, while slightly lifting the lip/edge of the tank, and then seal. This is sometimes called "Burping the Tank" and creates an air lock to stop your chemicals from leaking during agitation. I am pretty sure that this will cure your streaking problem.

Cheers

Stoo

Hi Stoo, thanks very much for the book suggestions and encouragement. I may have spoken too soon, the test I had done that looked better was done on a 30cm length of film, from a test roll. Tonight I developed an entire roll with the same time and agitation, but i have uneven development, and I believe streaks too, but in a vertical direction. My developing tank is the type that you insert a special plastic thermometer and it is used to "spin" the reel. I would have thought any streaking would occur in a horizontal direction.

Looks like I have more work to do.

Cheers
Steven