Minimal Agitation the Sweet Spot or a Waste of Precious Time?

[NortheastPhotographic]

I am about to start developing curves for Catlabs X 80, FP4+, and HP5+ using 510-Pyro and my Hy6 Mod 2. I had been doing 70F, with 30 seconds of agitation followed by 5 inversions every 3 minutes. Suddenly I am having a crisis of confidence with this method. The good negatives I've processed so far do look nice with pretty good compensating effect. The grain suppression from 510 Pyro is impressive with HP5+, though I've only made prints on 8x10 paper.

Just thought I'd do an informal poll. Should I stick with the minimal agitation or quit screwing around and go back to 5 inversion every 60 seconds?

 

[koraks]

If this works for you, why not stick with it? A 3 minute interval is still within the range where geberally no undesired unevenness occurs. I've gone down to a 20 minute interval with good results, but observed little benefit over a continuous rotation scheme, so I went back to jobo.

Btw I found instant mytol even marginally less grainy than 510, but nore importantly I like the tonality of mytol better. Followed by pyrocat and only then 510 pyro. But it was all pretty close in all respects.

 

[pentaxuser]

I am about to start developing curves for Catlabs X 80, FP4+, and HP5+ using 510-Pyro and my Hy6 Mod 2. I had been doing 70F, with 30 seconds of agitation followed by 5 inversions every 3 minutes. Suddenly I am having a crisis of confidence with this method. The good negatives I've processed so far do look nice with pretty good compensating effect. The grain suppression from 510 Pyro is impressive with HP5+, though I've only made prints on 8x10 paper.

Just thought I'd do an informal poll. Should I stick with the minimal agitation or quit screwing around and go back to 5 inversion every 60 seconds?

You've answered your own question, haven't you? If the negs look good and print with good detail on say grade 2-3 then your agitation is fine. If you are curious then use 5 inversions every 60 and see if the negs are any better

My only useful advice is to avoid ingesting bleach when agitating. I cannot say for instance that the Ilford regime of agitation is any better than the Kodak one although one is British and the other American but I do feel confident in saying that the American bleach advice is definitely wrong

Just lightening these dark times in the current state of the pandemic

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

If you are getting significantly more visible granularity with HP5+ at approximately a 3.5x enlargement compared to 510 Pyro, there's something wrong with whatever developer and process you are using as a comparator. Were the comparator films developed to the same effective CI (ie you allowed for the effect of the stain on effective printing density)?

Going to agitation intervals greater than 5 minutes is not a good idea because of the risks attendant in terms of unevenness etc. The proposed 'benefits' of lower agitation don't really exist, especially not under rigorous scientific study of sharpness etc. If you really need to enhance perceived 'sharpness' there are better and dramatically more effective ways to do so.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Going to agitation intervals greater than 5 minutes is not a good idea because of the risks attendant in terms of unevenness etc. The proposed 'benefits' of lower agitation don't really exist, especially not under rigorous scientific study of sharpness etc. If you really need to enhance perceived 'sharpness' there are better and dramatically more effective ways to do so.

Who is asking about an interval greater than 5 minutes? Not me.

 

[grain elevator]

Going to agitation intervals greater than 5 minutes is not a good idea because of the risks attendant in terms of unevenness etc. The proposed 'benefits' of lower agitation don't really exist, especially not under rigorous scientific study of sharpness etc. If you really need to enhance perceived 'sharpness' there are better and dramatically more effective ways to do so.

Ok I'll bite, which ways are better to get more edge effects? And what about compensating effect?
Are we sure 5 inversions are necessary? I do 3, maybe one could go down to 2, and have no issue with unevenness, but no idea if it is significant as less agitation goes.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Ok I'll bite, which ways are better to get more edge effects? And what about compensating effect?
Are we sure 5 inversions are necessary? I do 3, maybe one could go down to 2, and have no issue with unevenness, but no idea if it is significant as less agitation goes.

Unsharp masking. An awful lot of the painful conniptions people put themselves with overthought and overwrought development approaches are because they are happy to let people convince them that registering a mask is difficult.

Who is asking about an interval greater than 5 minutes? Not me.

I was simply stating the outside limit. I think you'll see very little difference between 1 or 3 minute agitation cycles if you ensure that you develop to the exact same contrast index.

 

[grain elevator]

Haha I thought about adding "except of course unsharp masking". Yes, too much effort for me, and I'm only looking for very subtle edge effects anyway, hate it when they're obvious. But mostly I'm looking for compensating effect when I do what the OP describes, and I think so is he.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Haha I thought about adding "except of course unsharp masking". Yes, too much effort for me, and I'm only looking for very subtle edge effects anyway, hate it when they're obvious. But mostly I'm looking for compensating effect when I do what the OP describes, and I think so is he.

The most effective and reliable way I've found is to adjust development aim density for your system to place your average negative on to a harder grade of paper, possibly print on a harder than aim grade, then fog in highlights with a diffuser under the lens & dodge/burn that fogging exposure (often at a lower grade than the initial exposure). Regarding compensation, it rarely works well because it creates compromises in all the negatives - and what people think is 'compensation' is often just an 'N-' development which by reducing overall highlight density makes them easier to print & has better separated tones because it softens the shoulder and lowers the overall gradient of the curve. Aiming 8 stops on to G2 rather than 7 is going to bring most situations into the range of current MG papers, unless you routinely prefer flatter lighting situations.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

There are a lot of drawbacks to masking. You're doubling the potential for dust in an enlargement. Plus the additional task of exposing, processing, drying the mask, then testing it. Possibly leading to making a new mask... It may not be 'hard' but it is time consuming. For those very few truly exceptional negatives that are also not sharp enough I might consider the riggamorol but I think i'd rather at least start with a film processing regime that enhanced edge effects.

 

[grain elevator]

Fogging in highlights with diffusion sounds very interesting, I have to try that!
I believe that flashing the paper can serve a very similar purpose as compensating development, as both compress the highlights into printable range. I just hope to keep printing times more reasonable with compensating development, and I don't like developing too flat because I always seem to have some very low contrast images on every roll of film.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I am about to start developing curves for Catlabs X 80, FP4+, and HP5+ using 510-Pyro and my Hy6 Mod 2. I had been doing 70F, with 30 seconds of agitation followed by 5 inversions every 3 minutes. Suddenly I am having a crisis of confidence with this method. The good negatives I've processed so far do look nice with pretty good compensating effect. The grain suppression from 510 Pyro is impressive with HP5+, though I've only made prints on 8x10 paper.

Just thought I'd do an informal poll. Should I stick with the minimal agitation or quit screwing around and go back to 5 inversion every 60 seconds?

Hi,
When I first read what Lachlan told you about five minutes, I didn't feel he was talking about you but about a limit, and that's what I've seen...
Reducing agitation up to, better low to, 2 or 3 minutes instead of 30 seconds or 1 minute, can help, but not so much talking about edge effects (unnecessary if all things are well done) but more about grain and tone, but only with some film and developer combinations, not always... Strange too, it can help not only to tame high contrast, but also for a cleaner tone for expansions: no idea why...
Again as said by Lachlan, all other things kept stable, I found when I went from 2 or 3 minutes, to 4 and 5, image quality started to drop because developers are designed for agitation...
So, reduced agitation is not always a waste of time, but the room we have for it is small, and it also depends on film and developer.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

This is getting a little off topic but regarding fogging print highlights, I was hoping to explore burning at grade 00 to achieve a similar effect. I think the analyser pro should make this a bit easier and more predictable...I'll have to play with it. Luckily the new Ilford MG V has such nice quality that I can proof more reliably with it.

 

[Eric Rose]

Minimal agitation works for me. But there is more to it than just that.

 

[John Bragg]

It works well for me and helps to produce smooth even grain and keep contrast in check in harsh Cornish light. I do 15 seconds initial agitation and then 2 invertions every 2 minutes in Ilfosol 3, or every 4 minutes in HC-110 H with HP5+ @ ei200.

 

[john_s]

Just as a matter of interest for me, OP, what sort of effective film speed (shadow detail) are you getting with 510-Pyro? I ask because I found it to be very low, and every other developer I've mixed has behaved predictably (including several Pyrocat variants, and PMK).

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I am about to start developing curves for Catlabs X 80, FP4+, and HP5+ using 510-Pyro and my Hy6 Mod 2. I had been doing 70F, with 30 seconds of agitation followed by 5 inversions every 3 minutes. Suddenly I am having a crisis of confidence with this method. The good negatives I've processed so far do look nice with pretty good compensating effect. The grain suppression from 510 Pyro is impressive with HP5+, though I've only made prints on 8x10 paper.

Just thought I'd do an informal poll. Should I stick with the minimal agitation or quit screwing around and go back to 5 inversion every 60 seconds?

if it works for you, why change? The key is to be consistent. At the end if the day, everything else being equal, developing time is what ends up changing for more or less contrast, so with that,I prefer to just consistently continuously agitate in a jobo at 24C and change the development time to meet my needs at my lab. At home I generally do 4 inversions at the top of every minute as standard practice and have dev times that are close to what is published for a given film and developer.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

if it works for you, why change? The key is to be consistent. At the end if the day, everything else being equal, developing time is what ends up changing for more or less contrast, so with that,I prefer to just consistently continuously agitate in a jobo at 24C and change the development time to meet my needs at my lab. At home I generally do 4 inversions at the top of every minute as standard practice and have dev times that are close to what is published for a given film and developer.

Yes for client work I only use computer controlled processes and replenished solutions. This is just for my darkroom personal work.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I think it depends on the shot. Minimal agitation works well with contrasty scenes. The developer exhausts faster in highlights with stand development so it's great for controlling contrast. In some cases, not enough agitation can cause bromide drag. I don't think there's one answer.

 

[ic-racer]

I did a bunch of experiments with minimal agitation and or very dilute developers about 15 years ago. After getting into 8x10, I don't do anything special anymore. However, I'm more interested in your comments on the Hy6. It on my list of things I want now as my eyes are not what they used to be and I think I'd like to try autofocus medium format. I love my 6008i and I can focus pretty well, but my 35mm Nikons with AF are just so convenient in low light.

 

[Lachlan Young]

There are a lot of drawbacks to masking. You're doubling the potential for dust in an enlargement. Plus the additional task of exposing, processing, drying the mask, then testing it. Possibly leading to making a new mask... It may not be 'hard' but it is time consuming. For those very few truly exceptional negatives that are also not sharp enough I might consider the riggamorol but I think i'd rather at least start with a film processing regime that enhanced edge effects.

It really is a lot easier than you are assuming if you have adequately clean working practices and environment. Fitting a negative on to a harder grade of paper improves edge effects far more than any developer changes.

Fogging in highlights with diffusion sounds very interesting, I have to try that!
I believe that flashing the paper can serve a very similar purpose as compensating development, as both compress the highlights into printable range. I just hope to keep printing times more reasonable with compensating development, and I don't like developing too flat because I always seem to have some very low contrast images on every roll of film.

I've found over threshold controlled fogging to be far more useful than pre-flashing, especially because you are able to direct it more usefully - and it's often a huge amount faster than burning in. All the diffusion is doing is rendering the negative into a totally diffuse light source, rather in the manner of how you would use a second enlarger to flash paper. You can buy commercial paper flashers, but any textureless matte diffusion stuck under the lens should do the job - I use a Dura-Lar material.

I find anything that purports to 'compensation' often makes things harder to print well than standard techniques applied sensibly. What film(s) are you working with?

This is getting a little off topic but regarding fogging print highlights, I was hoping to explore burning at grade 00 to achieve a similar effect. I think the analyser pro should make this a bit easier and more predictable...I'll have to play with it. Luckily the new Ilford MG V has such nice quality that I can proof more reliably with it.

Both 00 burns and controlled fogging are useful but different in effect. I use them routinely on nearly every print.

 

[grain elevator]

I've found over threshold controlled fogging to be far more useful than pre-flashing, especially because you are able to direct it more usefully - and it's often a huge amount faster than burning in. All the diffusion is doing is rendering the negative into a totally diffuse light source, rather in the manner of how you would use a second enlarger to flash paper. You can buy commercial paper flashers, but any textureless matte diffusion stuck under the lens should do the job - I use a Dura-Lar material.

By over threshold fogging you mean bringing tones down further from paper white, so it can only be done locally, correct?
For flashing the whole sheet, I simply use a weak lamp reflected off the ceiling, works fine.

I find anything that purports to 'compensation' often makes things harder to print well than standard techniques applied sensibly. What film(s) are you working with?

How so?
I used to use mostly the Tmax films, but after the last price increase I'm moving to Ilford. Just got a brick of FP4+, and thinking of Delta 400 for hand-held stuff. As both have more of an S-curve, I expect there will be less need for compensating development, but also less potential develop with a straighter line and be able to burn in highlights with reasonable contrast.
Also will probably continue to use Foma 200 and maybe try 100. It's just that I've run into trouble with films with less than state of the art anti halation tech recently...

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I was just reading through the Zone IV workshop book and Fred does not mention that you need a grey card per se for ISO tests, he just mentions a flat surface like a cardboard box target. Is this true? In the past I've always used a grey card but I suppose it doesn't 'have' to be a grey target...

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I was just reading through the Zone IV workshop book and Fred does not mention that you need a grey card per se for ISO tests, he just mentions a flat surface like a cardboard box target. Is this true? In the past I've always used a grey card but I suppose it doesn't 'have' to be a grey target...

I’m not familiar with Pickers methods myself, but I always use an 18% grey card. I doubt it has to grey, or even reflect 18%, as long as you know what the reflectance is, though using the known 18% convention is simpler.

 

[Lachlan Young]

By over threshold fogging you mean bringing tones down further from paper white, so it can only be done locally, correct?

Essentially, yes. It can be done overall or locally. Just stick a sheet of diffusion material under the lens.

I used to use mostly the Tmax films, but after the last price increase I'm moving to Ilford. Just got a brick of FP4+, and thinking of Delta 400 for hand-held stuff. As both have more of an S-curve, I expect there will be less need for compensating development, but also less potential develop with a straighter line and be able to burn in highlights with reasonable contrast.
Also will probably continue to use Foma 200 and maybe try 100. It's just that I've run into trouble with films with less than state of the art anti halation tech recently...

Honestly, the one thing I've found with Tmax and most modern crystal growth approach films is that they should not be subjected to either severe underdevelopment (no need to really go below N-1, especially with the papers and techniques available today) and that they are well behaved if you use a sensible developer (ID-11/ D-76 does just fine) and your temperature control is on target. The linearity of the highlights is very useful as you can just burn them in without them going mushy from hitting the shoulder. Strong suggestion: follow Ilford's recommendations for the EI 50 (FP4+) and EI 200 (Delta 400) process times as a starting point.