Rapid stand development

Hmm.

I still can't figure how you can fill and drain even a Paterson tank, much less a Nikor, fast enough and consistently enough to get consistent results, over and over, with 80 second development time. Part of the reason I like dilute developer is that it gives me enough working time I don't wind up accidentally developing N-1 or N+2 if I have trouble getting the cap off the tank or don't get the timer started at exactly the same point in filling. Ten seconds of draining time more or less is trivial in a nineteen minute development -- it's halfway to N+1 when the dev time is 80 seconds.

However, I'm interested in your "rubber band technique" -- are you rolling the sheets into tubes secured by rubber bands (i.e. tube development with the film serving as its own tube)? If so, how do you keep the film edge from slipping during agitation and overlapping?

When using tank development, I would fill the tank first, then drop in the film. This will preclude any filling issues and make time easier to track.

If 80 seconds is "stand" development, how fast is constant agitation with this stuff? Perhaps you should contact NASA about this formula, they may need a more active fuel.

noseoil said:

When using tank development, I would fill the tank first, then drop in the film. This will preclude any filling issues and make time easier to track.

Click to expand...

Well and good if you have a darkroom -- but Jay uses the tanks to do daylight processing of his sheet film, same reason I have my daylight fill ABS tubes.

I usually open film in the dark. I've found that opening them in the light reduces contrast and creates long printing times. YMMV. Quido

Jay, you're breaking every rule in the book! Come to my arms!

Sounds like a winner to me. The consistency issue is perhaps the most important you have raised. Acid stop vs. water stop is moot. As long as the procedure is the same each time (printing or film), the results are going to be the same.

This shoots a bunch of holes in the theory that for even development, you MUST have at least 4 minutes. Not necessarily so, is it?

jdef said:

I think that the key to these short development times is consistency. As long as I'm consistent, the fill and dump times used for determination of development times will be the same for every session, and constitute an integral part of the process. In other words, the 80 second development time is contingent upon the fill and dump times of the tank used in the determination of that time. If my fill and dump times varied greatly, my results might be less predictable, but they don't. These tanks have very repeatable fill and dump rates, and that's more important than the actual rates themselves, to a point. If these tanks didn't fill fast enough, I might get uneven development, but apparently they do fill fast enough, because I'm getting perfectly even development.

Click to expand...

Well, and that's the key, no argument -- if you do it the same every time, and then adjust to get the results you want, you're done fine tuning development and can get on with making pictures.

However -- I'm inclined to think the kind of consistency you need with 80 second development is impossible with any kind of tank other than a Paterson. You can, with suitable graduates and a slight disregard for splashes, fill a Paterson tank in about five seconds; the funnel is large enough you can simply *dump* a graduate containing a full tank load of developer into the top; by the time you can put down the graduate, pick up and snap on the inversion lid, the developer is all in the tank. Additionally, the core of the Paterson ensures that the film is immersed from bottom up, rather than having the developer drip down over the outer edge of whatever film configuration you use after negotiating the slow-flowing light trap of a stainless tank.

It seems me your RUD is likely to give much less wonderful results undiluted for anyone NOT using a Paterson (and likely for anyone unaccustomed to working so rapidly). For someone like me, who finds a nineteen minute cycle relaxing because it doesn't require dumping at a specific second to allow exactly consistent drain time and stop fill, it may not be suitable undiluted.

On the other hand, the fact it works at up to 1:10 suggests it would likely accommodate my habits with a cycle time well over ten minutes at highest dilution -- and of course, like any developer, it's cheapest at the highest dilution that will still develop the film consistently.

In years gone by when I played with 2 bath developers I used two Paterson tanks and did it in the dark without lids. One could do the same here with alkaline fixer in the second tank. At 1+3, TF4 stops development right now. I seldom use stop bath these days.

jdef said:

Since I have no way to measure objectively, I can't say how much sharper these negatives are than negatives developed with continuous agitation, but they do indeed appear sharper.
Jay

Click to expand...

Jay - Are you going to show us some prints?

Is there any + or - capability with this or do you get what you get?

jdef said:

I use my Nikor tank without problems, with undiluted developer. I don't believe that I possess any special gift when it comes to film processing, just consistent procedure. I developed four sheets of 3x4 film in my Nikor tank, consecutively, and proofed them on a single sheet of 8x10 paper, with no discernable differences between films. I've convinced myself that using undiluted developer in either kind of tank, is practical and repeatable, by doing the work, and seeing the results. You might never be convinced if you don't try it for yourself. Even diluted 1:10, film development times are in the 10-15 min. range, which might be considered on the long side of normal. 19 min. might be possible with further dilution, but I haven't tried that.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't have a problem working in the 10-15 minute range -- and my reduced agitation might let me push that out a little further without getting excessive contrast (though with the film speed you're getting, I'm not at all sure I'd gain anything by that kind of extension as I do with HC-110 -- you may already be getting all the toe sensitivity there is). I'm using nineteen minutes with HC-110 G and TMY because, at my dilution and low agitation, that's what gives me normal contrast.

Since I found my reloading scale recently, I can measure easily in sub-gram quantities -- I'll have to think about sending off an order to Photographer's Formulary for some chemicals and giving de Fehr Rapid Universal a try.