Over or under agitation?

winger · May 18, 2017

The edges are darker than the middle and it's really just noticeable in sky areas. I've had this before when I used a tank with a twisty thing, but these were done by inversion (which had been working well). The film is Acros, the developer is DD-X at 1:4 for about 11 min (was around 65 F). I agitate for the first 30 seconds then about 10 seconds every 30 seconds. I may not have started the first 30 quickly enough after pouring in the developer (I need three hands to put down the beaker, invert the tank, and start the timer), but I use the same method every time and it had been working. I'm attaching the negative on a light box and a straight print (no burning, no dodging). It's more obvious in the print (yes, a darkroom print).

So, do I need to be better about starting the agitation or is it too much or too little during the rest of development? Or should I just not shoot skies?

AgX · May 18, 2017

Basically it would not be a matter of to low or to high agitation, but of a too regular agitation, resulting in different, steady streams over the emulsion.

MattKing · May 18, 2017

How about insufficiently random agitation?
Is the developer "tumbling" through the film when you agitate? Any chance you over-filled the tank?

thuggins · May 18, 2017

Nice shots of the 'Burgh. The Smithfield St bridge is one of my favorites.

Your agitation seems a bit much, but I can't imagine how any manner of agitation could cause that pattern. Maybe something to do with the film, or a subtle effect of the actual light.

From the shadows on the two buildings down by the Wharf it must have been in the morning, so the sun would have been low, to your right and behind. But the rest of downtown is pretty evenly lit, so the light must have been filtered thru some clouds. I've seen clouds produce very unusual lighting effects in photos that weren't apparent to the eye.

Kevin Caulfield · May 19, 2017

I'd suggest there is maybe a touch too much agitation and also as Matt suggested, maybe not sufficiently "random" enough. I would suggest 10 s every minute or 5 s every 30 s. Also, when you invert the tank, rotate it sideways at the same time so the tank is actually being agitated in all three dimensions.

Peter Schrager · May 19, 2017

Get yourself a timer with a footswitch
Then you concentrate on developing

Slixtiesix · May 19, 2017

I´m curious about that as well since I have exactly the same problem sometimes...

SasquatchQB · May 19, 2017

That looks really similar to an issue I had a while ago during a photography class - I had read somewhere here (of course, I can't find that thread now) that it might have been Photo Flo residue causing the developer to be more active near the reels. I started scrubbing my reels off before using them after that and it went away. It seemed to me that the surfactant allowed the developer to better disperse into the emulsion, even from just a little residue.

Edit: Found it! (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

tokam · May 19, 2017

My agitation is 2 or 3 inversions in 5 seconds. Quite slow. I'll vary the interval between agitations to either 30 or 60 seconds to slightly adjust contrast. Overall development time has a larger effect on contrast. I also rotate the tank a quarter turn when I put it down on the bench.

During inversion agitation the bulk of the solution should pass through the film reel. You need an air gap in the tank above the film to achieve sufficient turbulence. Did you develop these in a stainless tank that was overfull? I can picture in my mind a stainless reel in a full tank and the film reel just shifts a centimeter or so during inversion but the solution does not circulate completely through the film.

pentaxuser · May 19, 2017

This will sound trite as it seems that I think the solution is simply to do what Ilford advise in terms of agitation but I'd stick to its agitation of 4 -5 inversions for first 10 secs then repeat at minute intervals. If as others have said you ensure that the reel cannot move during the agitation and there is a "head" above the reel to allow movement of developer then by using the Ilford routine you at least eliminate agitation as a problem.

Best of luck

pentaxuser

bdial · May 19, 2017

I add enough time for sorting out pouring mechanics to my timer setting, for example 30 seconds or so. Then start it and start pouring when the timer hits my target time.

bvy · May 19, 2017

Was there any sort of curl along the short edge of the film. Was it loose on the reel? Is the pattern uniform through the entire roll (understanding every frame may not have a telltale sky) or just on some frames? Total conjecture, but I wonder if the film didn't come in contact with other film at some point during development (probably not the entire duration). Or if perhaps it was just a tight squeeze between film on neighboring tracks such that the developer exhausted more quickly there (more likely to happen in the center than the edges). The latter point isn't entirely consistent with the agitation you described though. Just thinking out loud...

A contrast boost shows some other things going on that might indicate uneven development.

winger · May 19, 2017

Peter Schrager said:
Get yourself a timer with a footswitch
Then you concentrate on developing

Yeah, I want to do this. Maybe I can get Siri to help. My gut says that first 30 seconds could be my main problem. I do adjust my total time for pouring, but starting the timer is still cludgy.

My agitation scheme is to invert the tank then back up, turn it slightly, invert and up, etc.. There is a slight chance I put in slightly more developer than I usually do, so maybe that's the issue. But I do know it was moving; maybe just not as it usually does? The reel is a Hewes and I do keep it clean of photo-flo - pretty sure that wasn't it. On average, I probably do 5 inversions on the minute and 3 inversions at the half minute. I'll cut it to 3 at each. The reel does move in the tank, but not more than 1/4" I'd guess.

This is from near the top of the Mon incline and probably 11am-ish - good eye, thuggins. I have an idea for an alt print and this was really a test shot. The real ones will be on 4x5 or 5x7 - I'm just trying to pick my best spot.

Thanks all!! (yes, developing film is my least favorite part of the whole process, but I'd rather do it myself than hand it over)

winger · May 19, 2017

bvy said:
but I wonder if the film didn't come in contact with other film at some point during development

Nope, I'm fairly positive it was on the reel nicely - I feel the edges before it goes in the tank. If that were it, it would have to have moved off and back on as most is fine. Those other marks are drying marks - a rewash wouldn't be a bad idea if the shots were all keepers (they're not). The shots of the 'burgh are the only ones with sky. The other shots don't show it as obviously. Maybe it'll show in prints, but the one I did of a trillium was fine.

photog_ed · May 19, 2017

tokam said:
During inversion agitation the bulk of the solution should pass through the film reel. You need an air gap in the tank above the film to achieve sufficient turbulence. Did you develop these in a stainless tank that was overfull? I can picture in my mind a stainless reel in a full tank and the film reel just shifts a centimeter or so during inversion but the solution does not circulate completely through the film.

I agree that it's the tank being too full. I had this problem decades ago and came to this conclusion then. Since then I use just enough developer (and other solutions) to cover the reel, and get nice even development. For my stainless tank and one 120 reel, that's about 400ml, if memory serves. What I did was measure by putting an empty reel in the tank with cover off, then add enough water to cover the reel plus a few mm. then pour the water into a graduate to see what volume is really needed.

Ed

studiocarter · May 21, 2017

I used to twist only without any inversions, that would prove agitation is the cause if results differ from what was shown. Twist with a shake may do well.

removed account4 · May 21, 2017

hi bethe
i fill my tanks until they overflow out of the fill hole and i have never
had film that looks like this except once, when i didn't fill the tank ENOUGH
and a whole roll of film had an under developed strip down it ... maybe i am just lucky?
how do you agitate-- do you tilt from side to side? do you totally put the tank upside down and right side up again ?
do you roll the tank on your darkroom sink ?
i agree with what kevin said about twisting your tank as you invert it ...
it ends up the agitation looks like a mobius strip or a figure 8. and
take your time doing 10 seconds / 60 or whatever you end up doing ...

sorry to see such nice negatives with a funny strip in the middle

takilmaboxer · May 21, 2017

I had this exact problem with spiral stainless steel reel and a pint-sized tank. With much experimentation I found two ways to avoid the differential development:

1. Best method: use a half full quart sized tank in the dark. Lift the roll of film entirely out of the solution every 30 seconds, let it drain a few seconds, the replace it. Tap the tank to avoid bubbles.This guarantees even development and never fails.

2. The alternative: With the pint sized tank, use only enough developer to barely cover the reel and film. Put the cover on, invert once. Then, alternate inversion and rotation agitation methods every 30 seconds.

I believe that the problem results from insufficient room in the tank for the developer to move freely, hence the use of minimum possible developer volume, or full removal of the reel from the developer. When I first noticed the problem, I took a roll into a local lab that used a Jobo, and the rolls came back perfect. That's how I knew that my methodology was at fault.

Bob Carnie · May 21, 2017

winger said:
The edges are darker than the middle and it's really just noticeable in sky areas. I've had this before when I used a tank with a twisty thing, but these were done by inversion (which had been working well). The film is Acros, the developer is DD-X at 1:4 for about 11 min (was around 65 F). I agitate for the first 30 seconds then about 10 seconds every 30 seconds. I may not have started the first 30 quickly enough after pouring in the developer (I need three hands to put down the beaker, invert the tank, and start the timer), but I use the same method every time and it had been working. I'm attaching the negative on a light box and a straight print (no burning, no dodging). It's more obvious in the print (yes, a darkroom print).

So, do I need to be better about starting the agitation or is it too much or too little during the rest of development? Or should I just not shoot skies?

Bethe

this is classic case of not agitating fast enough, I would suggest trying an grey lab and starting the timer and count in your head the length of time it takes
you to fill the tank with developer, Start the timer add lets say 10 seconds (this should be the time it takes no more to get your developer into the tank) immediately do inversion and do not forget the twist. (its easy to subtract the 10 seconds on the greylab once you are well into the process. You also may want to try using distilled water for your developer, different regions have higher lower mineral contet in the water and sometimes this content slows the ability for
the developer to reach all areas of the film... In you sample the problem goes away when you get into the highly detailed building areas , but jumps out exactly in the skys... This is
the common problem all high end labs fight with agitation dispersion over the entire areas of film, really is a PIA and expensive for good labs to figure out.

For home tank use I always differ to the quick agitation, inversion and twist to combat the problem you are getting.

fast, distilled, inversion and twist- these are the four main, by not worrying about the timer you can free your hands. This is something all technicians
that worked for me needed to practice and once done no more uneven skys.

On APUG the most common problem we see IMHO with film development is solved by these simple ideas.

winger · May 21, 2017

Thanks again all! I'm glad I'm not the only one who's faced this. I'm going to try a different timer next time and find a way to start it and agitate more quickly. If anyone has a video of inverting plus a figure 8, please let me know. I've been inverting quickly enough to hear the reel hit the lid then back, then turn the tank a bit before then next inversion - this way, it isn't the same spot of the reel that keeps getting more motion.

Bob, I do use distilled to make my developer, stop, and fix for film. Our well water is practically sludge before it goes through the softener and iron removal tanks. So at least that's one of your four main things.

I know pre-soaking is one of those hate or love things, but I've not done it in years. I wonder if Acros works better with one than without?

Our next expedition is going to be a family trip to the Tetons and Yellowstone, so here's hoping I don't mess those up (we're driving so I'm taking more than one format).

MattKing · May 21, 2017

Inversion with a twist:
Hold tank right side up with bottom of tank in the palm of one hand, top of the tank in the palm of the other hand. One hand will be above the other.
Rotate your hands so that the top hand is now on the bottom, and the bottom hand is now on the top. Note how the natural movement of your wrists caused the tank to rotate at the same time as it was inverted.
Reverse the above - your tank will turn in the opposite direction while you are turning it upright.
Now reverse both of the foregoing so that the order that the rotations took place is reversed. Someone watching your hands while you do this will see them first rotate in one direction (counter-clockwise?), then return, then rotate in the opposite direction (clockwise?), then return.
You don't have to use two hands to do this - you can mimic the movement with a tank held in just one hand. But it is easiest to see the movement you want when you use two hands.
The tank should be almost full, but not filled to the brim. Your actions should be sufficiently energetic as to cause the developer to tumble through the film and reels - I can feel and hear the movement.

Pioneer · May 22, 2017

Thanks Winger, this has been fun.

I just love these agitation threads. There are so many ways that people agitate their film that it just amazes me that anything gets developed at all.

- roll it across the darkroom sink

- tilt it back and forth

- roll it completely over

- turn it while you roll it

- do a mobius strip (that one almost sounds a bit suggestive)

- do a figure eight

- fill it partway

- fill it all the way

This could be a dance or maybe a party game.

winger · May 22, 2017

Pioneer said:
This could be a dance

Yes! But it needs a good name. You're right, as simple as agitating should be, we do make it complicated.

Pioneer · May 22, 2017

winger said:
Yes! But it needs a good name. You're right, as simple as agitating should be, we do make it complicated.

As scientific as all this can be, there is still a large serving of human error to keep things confusing.

I often think that at times our errors cancel each other out and everything turns out well. But occasionally, the errors become additive and then we are left with something that does not make sense.

Meanwhile the photo imps are standing around grinning, waiting to see what we will try next. I have decided for myself that if I have 200 successes, one oops is not worth changing my methods to accommodate.

thuggins · May 22, 2017

winger said:
This is from near the top of the Mon incline and probably 11am-ish - good eye, thuggins. I have an idea for an alt print and this was really a test shot. The real ones will be on 4x5 or 5x7 - I'm just trying to pick my best spot.

The best spot is from the top of the Duquesne Incline. There used to be a restaurant on top of the apartment building on the highest spot on Mt. Washington. The whole corner was floor to ceiling glass about 30 ft high. You paid for the view.

I think you're getting too agitated about your mixing technique. From manufacturer's published info and my own testing, it takes about a 50% increase in dev time to overdevelop one stop and I would think time is at least as critical as agitation.

Over or under agitation?

winger

Attachments

AgX

MattKing

Moderator

thuggins

Kevin Caulfield

Peter Schrager

Slixtiesix

SasquatchQB

tokam

pentaxuser

bdial

bvy

winger

winger

photog_ed

studiocarter

removed account4

takilmaboxer

Bob Carnie

winger

MattKing

Moderator

Pioneer

winger

Pioneer

thuggins

Over or under agitation?

Attachments

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency