print agitation in a dilute Farmer's Reducer

[David Lyga]

Oftentimes I will purposely expose my print a bit more and then, after fixation, will immerse it into a VERY dilute Farmer's Reducer in order to slightly enhance overall contrast through the 'cutting' action of the reducer. This works well and I can readily understand why this reducer is colloquially called 'liquid gold' by many old timers.

My method of such agitation is to continuously rock the tray back and forth in order to promote even 'cutting' reduction. However, I have noticed that when doing this for an extended period of time, maybe a full seven or eight minutes due to the print being quite dense, the edges of the print achieve more reduction than does the center. The edges turn out to be a bit too light.

This has to be a result of my agitation. Apparently, what I had long presumed to be the BEST way to achieve uniform reduction turns out not to be so. And, maybe there is an analogy to be derived: Are there any sheet film users who develop film sheets in trays (with continuous rocking) who experience an increase in density with such method of agitation.

I want to know if this method of agitation is with flaws. Apparently, it is, but I would appreciate comments. - David Lyga

 

[MattKing]

FWIW I've always agitated trays by picking up one corner and letting it down, which sets in motion one wave. I then pick up an adjacent corner and do the same thing. I then pick up the corner opposite from the first, and do the same thing. I then pick up the final corner, and do the same thing.
And then repeat as long as necessary.
Watching the various waves intersect and interact can be hypnotic.

 

[David Lyga]

FWIW I've always agitated trays by picking up one corner and letting it down, which sets in motion one wave. I then pick up an adjacent corner and do the same thing. I then pick up the corner opposite from the first, and do the same thing. I then pick up the final corner, and do the same thing.
And then repeat as long as necessary.
Watching the various waves intersect and interact can be hypnotic.

OK, but let me put you out of your trance long enough to state that your agitation is identical to mine, in that it seems to be continuous. I want to know why my corners are 'over' bleached while the center is not. Matt, did your corners become a bit more dense as a result of your 'continuous' agitation? - David Lyga

 

[MattKing]

Not to my knowledge David.
I don't think the continuous nature of the agitation is the reason for your uneven results.
I think it is the pattern of the flow of liquid that results from rocking a tray back and forth.

 

[David Lyga]

OK, that pattern obviously favors the edges and I want to know why. This is so simple a concept that I am intrigued by not understanding it fully. Why does that pattern favor the edges and how can that result be mitigated? - David Lyga

 

[Larry Bullis]

I think what's happening, and this is something of a guess on my part, is that when the wave hits the side of the tray, there is a turbulence producing an accelerated exchange. I have experienced that sort of thing.

 

[MattKing]

And the advantage of initiating the fluid movement from different parts of the tray is that the various sets of turbulences tend to break each other up.

 

[Larry Bullis]

I process my sheet film in a tray. I don't rock it, so I can't speak to the problem you are having. I shuffle the sheets, rotating the tray from time to time so I'm not just using the same corner. I've done it this way for probably thirty years. When I first started doing that I worried that the warmth of my fingers would accelerate the development in the corners, but it doesn't seem to. I can comfortably do 6 sheets at a time. I don't think I would be comfortable doing any more than that at a time.

One thing you might try would be to agitate by flipping the print over. Of course, there would be some risk of damage but I flip all the time when I'm developing two prints that I want to be identical, so I'm sure you could do it.

 

[David Lyga]

Thank you. I think that this is all good advice. Matt says that the turbulence causes 'special' flows which, essentially, over-agitate. That is something worth pondering. And bowzart's elimination of rocking, altogether, in favor of simply turning the print also has merit. - David Lyga

 

[jvo]

wow - like the pill adverts on tv, this is an issue i never knew i had!

i've always agitated by using the same corner - only. 40 years! who knew

 

[pentaxuser]

wow - like the pill adverts on tv, this is an issue i never knew i had!

i've always agitated by using the same corner - only. 40 years! who knew

Begs the question then which is why David's prints and not yours? Makes one wonder if the more "sophisticated" tilting is the cure especially as David's tilt regime is already quite sophisticated

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

The secret may be in using the corner, rather than rocking the tray.
When you use the corner, it sets up a more complex wave-form than rocking the tray from the side.
It isn't that some types of turbulence flow are special, it is that they aren't random. When parts of a print or negative get more agitation than others, they end up being developed more.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

David,

I've had similar problems with exactly the same thing; bleaching-back prints to either deal with slight fog or snap-up the image a bit. Tray rocking does indeed seem to bleach the edges more. I've taken to doing one of two things, either immersing the print and letting it sit, untouched, for 30-45 seconds (often, that's enough bleaching for me), or, if I need more time in the bleach, I'll agitate by immersing the print gently, face down, then waiting 30 seconds and then flipping it over, face up, immersing it gently after a slight drain. Sometimes I still ruin a print by overbleaching the edges...

This is really the same problem that people have with tray developing; hot edges. My sheet-film agitation scheme involves shuffling, lifting, draining, turning and gently re-submerging the negative. The same should work on prints.

Best,

Doremus

 

[David Lyga]

wow - like the pill adverts on tv, this is an issue i never knew i had!

i've always agitated by using the same corner - only. 40 years! who knew

Maybe you DO know and maybe I DON'T know. I want to see whether there is any legitimacy with my 'problem' or whether this is in my head. I notice the sky becomes very pale ONLY AT THE CORNER and wanted to see if someone else had experienced the same. Maybe the sky in that portion of the print is somewhat lighter to begin with. Maybe the taking lens and the projection lens both allowed a little less density at the corner of the image (both print and negative, as is quite normal), making the sky's density at that point a tiny bit less to begin with. Maybe the universal answer here is to ALWAYS burn in the edge areas of the print in order to mitigate this rather recondite, hidden problem. I wonder what Ansel Adams would have said?

I say this knowing that what I just said might fall on its face, because if there is a tiny bit of vignetting on that original negative, a tiny bit of vignetting from that enlarging lens should be able to cancel out the effect. I am just throwing conjectures out here, in order to see if anything I have said makes any sense. - David Lyga

 

[ic-racer]

Your symptoms are similar to developer exhaustion (lack of central development) and I suspect the reducer is nearing its end of life during your 8 minutes. You might want to try a larger and deeper tray (more solution volume).

 

[Murray Kelly]

Is the reducer in the centre of the image going back and forth and exhausting but the edges get some replentishment from the back of the print and bleach that bit more?

 

[Vaughn]

OK, that pattern obviously favors the edges and I want to know why. This is so simple a concept that I am intrigued by not understanding it fully. Why does that pattern favor the edges and how can that result be mitigated? - David Lyga

Get bigger trays -- this is a common problem when developing or treating anything in trays. Use at least one size bigger -- 11x14 for 8x10 prints. Edges and sides of a tray get more agitation due to waves bouncing off the sides of the tray. Just observing the water movement in a rocking tray shows a heck of a lot more activity/movement along edges and corners than the center.

--- or greatly increase agitation to get all the solution moving quickly.

 

[pentaxuser]

Get bigger trays -- this is a common problem when developing or treating anything in trays. Use at least one size bigger -- 11x14 for 8x10 prints. Edges and sides of a tray get more agitation due to waves bouncing off the sides of the tray. Just observing the water movement in a rocking tray shows a heck of a lot more activity/movement along edges and corners than the center.

--- or greatly increase agitation to get all the solution moving quickly.

Makes sense to me Vaughan and yet I cannot recall this phenomenon being commented on when it comes to print developing. It might of course be that none use the same size trays as that of the sheet being developed or the print dev time is too short for it to reveal itself compared to the reducer time or a lightening effect just reveals itself to the naked eye more than a slight extra development does in a print.

Ironically a kind of a crash, bang, wallop agitation would seem, in theory at least, better than a slower more gentle rocking.

pentaxuser

 

[Vaughn]

It is the Golden Rule for sheet film processing in trays. At least one size bigger.

Print developing is sometimes carried to completion...might make a difference. And the over-developing on the edges and corners might counter drop-off by the lens...and perhaps one automatically corrects it when determining how much one has to burn those edges and corners to correct for that drop-off.

Reducing is a pretty harsh process on the negative -- even diluted...easy to go too far and it makes sense that it would be even more suscepatible to uneven bleaching...as is negative developing compared to print processing, in general.

I would place the negative emulsion up in a dry tray one size bigger than the negative and quickly pour the FR over the negative. Then agitate briskly the entire time. Wet or dry negative to begin with...I have to think on that. My first thought is a wet negative as the FR would slide over the whole negative that much faster.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Back in the day, instead of agitating, I brushed the print gently with a hake brush as it sat at bottom of full tray of reducer...and sometimes brushed locally to give certain areas a bit more reduction.

 

[john_s]

When I use FR to brighten up a print that's a bit dark overall, I use a stronger version than the OP, immerse the dry print for around 10 sec, then place it on an angled sheet of plexiglass and I have a running water hand held hose to rinse the FR off quite quickly. If the effect is insufficient then do it again.

I did a Tim Rudman workshop and he recommended that to use what he called a "sparkle bath" one should not use a very weak FR to make timing less critical because it affects deeper tones as well.

 

[David Lyga]

Makes sense to me Vaughan and yet I cannot recall this phenomenon being commented on when it comes to print developing. It might of course be that none use the same size trays as that of the sheet being developed or the print dev time is too short for it to reveal itself compared to the reducer time or a lightening effect just reveals itself to the naked eye more than a slight extra development does in a print.

Ironically a kind of a crash, bang, wallop agitation would seem, in theory at least, better than a slower more gentle rocking.

pentaxuser

PENtAXUSER: You just helped answer your own question!!!! OF course you do not see this phenomenon with print developing. WHY? Because print development is a function which is done to COMPLETION. Reducing with Farmer's is NOT. Even if the print is receiving more development at its edges, due to increased agitation, that DOES NOT MATTER because that edge development stops after it gets as much as it can, whereas the mid portions are STILL DEVELOPING. That is NOT the case with Farmer's reduction. - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

Back in the day, instead of agitating, I brushed the print gently with a hake brush as it sat at bottom of full tray of reducer...and sometimes brushed locally to give certain areas a bit more reduction.

Quaint but believable: The old British manuals stated that prints could be developed by brushing them with developer. - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

When I use FR to brighten up a print that's a bit dark overall, I use a stronger version than the OP, immerse the dry print for around 10 sec, then place it on an angled sheet of plexiglass and I have a running water hand held hose to rinse the FR off quite quickly. If the effect is insufficient then do it again.

I did a Tim Rudman workshop and he recommended that to use what he called a "sparkle bath" one should not use a very weak FR to make timing less critical because it affects deeper tones as well.

I think that you would be far better off putting the print in a HIGHLY dilute (1 + 19) FR and let it sit. The increased timing would not force you to act so quickly. i have NEVER seen blacks hurt with the increased dilution. The effect is the same: "cutting" reduction whereby all tones are affected in the same matter. In other words, the lighter tones have JUST AS MUCH silver being removed as do the dark tones. As a result, contrast is somewhat (and nicely) increased. - David Lyga

 

[DREW WILEY]

I use a tray just like you do, David, always one nominal size bigger than the sheet film itself, gently lifting one tray corner after another - all four. But I rarely use Farmers for film reduction more than one or two minutes. If deep reduction is needed, I figure my exposure was way off to begin with. Overuse of it would indeed risk mottling or unevenness.