Robert Adams' film development technique

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:

@Alex Benjamin: there is another thread on this subject:

Robert Adams' roll film developing technique

I was reading an essay by Todd Papgeorge on Robert Adams, and came across this explanation of his film developing technique for "The New West": http://www.americansuburbx.com/2011/07/robert-adams-missing-criticism-what-we.html It involved the use of shallow custom-made trays and required...

www.photrio.com

Quoting from it:

"It involved the use of shallow custom-made trays and required that Adams make a loop of a single roll of film by taping its ends together and then manipulating it through several trays of photographic chemistry, all in pitch blackness. This procedure, requiring thirty-five to forty minutes start to finish"

Click to expand...

I've considered merging the two threads, but the result would be quite unwieldy. So I'll just repeat Raghu's recommendation to read the other thread.

Alex Benjamin said:

I do wish the subject of agitation and its effects would be discussed more in depth.

Click to expand...

Short answer: with anything other than litho materials in highly specific situations (and even then), anything more than standstill/ nil agitation (which will be hideously uneven) will essentially only affect overall contrast - however people bend themselves into all sorts of strange shapes over struggling to deal with implementing basic time/ temp/ consistent agitation procedures within an alarmingly large set of error bars, instead opting for obsessive defensiveness of strange old agitation procedures that were researched extremely thoroughly by the major manufacturers and essentially found irrelevant by the 50s/ 60s - and rapidly overtaken by modern emulsions that are designed to exploit developer solvency (and other characteristics) to improve sharpness. Rheologically problematic development vessels/ reels/ hangers etc are more of an issue than agitation, if you are giving sufficient agitation to get truly even development. Insufficient, excessively gentle agitation and reels/ tanks with questionable flow patterns are the real problems.

sasah zib said:

Now, it has moved to the small scale user

Click to expand...

99.9% of whom are operating at the 'not even wrong' level. And most of them aren't examining whether the problem is actually the stainless steel reels, tanks and hangers they obsess over the acquisition of (or the social-media marketed, not-very-well-designed devices that are really only useful as future readymades-in-potentia). Wonder what they'd make of the deep tank cages designed to take Paterson reels.

250swb said:

It sounds like Adams used a standard professional lab deep tank probably full of D-76 and instead of having the film on a spiral he joined the ends together. I think the reference to a 'tank' is confusion about a developing tank like a Paterson tank.

Click to expand...

Nope. See 'Landscape Theory' pp.12-14. Adams states that the tanks are '4" wide, 19" long, and 4 1/2" deep.' He used the tape that attached the 120 to the backing paper to form the loop and any of 'undiluted Microdol or D76 or Acufine, replenished'. It seems quite obvious that he was running into what are not unknown issues with stainless steel reels under certain use-case-scenarios.

Pieter12 said:

Robert Adams, not Ansel.

Click to expand...

Thanks I hadn't realised he had a brother

pentaxuser

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:

@Alex Benjamin: there is another thread on this subject:

Robert Adams' roll film developing technique

I was reading an essay by Todd Papgeorge on Robert Adams, and came across this explanation of his film developing technique for "The New West": http://www.americansuburbx.com/2011/07/robert-adams-missing-criticism-what-we.html It involved the use of shallow custom-made trays and required...

www.photrio.com

Quoting from it:

"It involved the use of shallow custom-made trays and required that Adams make a loop of a single roll of film by taping its ends together and then manipulating it through several trays of photographic chemistry, all in pitch blackness. This procedure, requiring thirty-five to forty minutes start to finish"

Click to expand...

I actually have that article! How could I have missed that! Thanks!

Lachlan Young said:

Short answer: with anything other than litho materials in highly specific situations (and even then), anything more than standstill/ nil agitation (which will be hideously uneven) will essentially only affect overall contrast - however people bend themselves into all sorts of strange shapes over struggling to deal with implementing basic time/ temp/ consistent agitation procedures within an alarmingly large set of error bars, instead opting for obsessive defensiveness of strange old agitation procedures that were researched extremely thoroughly by the major manufacturers and essentially found irrelevant by the 50s/ 60s - and rapidly overtaken by modern emulsions that are designed to exploit developer solvency (and other characteristics) to improve sharpness. Rheologically problematic development vessels/ reels/ hangers etc are more of an issue than agitation, if you are giving sufficient agitation to get truly even development. Insufficient, excessively gentle agitation and reels/ tanks with questionable flow patterns are the real problems.

Click to expand...

Thanks for this, Lachlan Young. Clears it up nicely for me. And got to learn the word "rheology", which is an added bonus .

pentaxuser said:

Thanks I hadn't realised he had a brother

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Great... now I'll have the theme song from The Adams Family going through my head all day...

Lachlan Young said:

It seems quite obvious that he was running into what are not unknown issues with stainless steel reels under certain use-case-scenarios.

Click to expand...

Is there something wrong with using stainless steel reels? I have been using them for a long time without incident. Maybe I have a problem I don't know about. Or maybe I have just been lucky. To be honest, I read a lot of these threads and wonder WTF people are doing to encounter all these issues because it pretty much seems like developing film is a dead simple process. Of course, like most things, you can make it as difficult as you want to.

faberryman said:

Is there something wrong with using stainless steel reels? I have been using them for a long time without incident. Maybe I have a problem I don't know about. Or maybe I have just been lucky. To be honest, I read a lot of these threads and wonder WTF people are doing to encounter all these issues because it pretty much seems like developing film is a dead simple process.

Click to expand...

I find myself in agreement, except I still use the plastic reels. In my favor, I do have a modest background in science, so the idea of a consistent, repeatable process with as many variables as possible being controlled (or eliminated), isn't alien to me.

I think I simplified Lachlan's comments down to "Accurate management of time and temperature", and "consistent, effective agitation" as the two key factors for film development, which is exactly what I tend to obsess over. It's possible I oversimplified, though.

Lachlan Young said:

Wonder what they'd make of the deep tank cages designed to take Paterson reels.

Click to expand...

Very nice, but totally impractical for my purposes. And I'd wonder what mechanism they use for moving exhausted developer away from the film.

grat said:

Very nice, but totally impractical for my purposes. And I'd wonder what mechanism they use for moving exhausted developer away from the film.

Click to expand...

I believe commercial dip and dunk tanks use nitrogen burst or whatever for agitation. Maybe if you are using big tanks in your home darkroom you could stick a straw in the developer and blow bubbles. Then we could have a thread about what is the best straw to use.

faberryman said:

I believe commercial dip and dunk tanks use nitrogen burst or whatever for agitation. Maybe if you are using big tanks in your home darkroom you could stick a straw in the developer and blow bubbles. Then we could have a thread about what is the best straw to use.

Click to expand...

I think that would be the last straw for me. The past year, I've barely developed enough to justify a two reel Paterson tank. *sigh*

faberryman said:

I believe commercial dip and dunk tanks use nitrogen burst or whatever for agitation. Maybe if you are using big tanks in your home darkroom you could stick a straw in the developer and blow bubbles. Then we could have a thread about what is the best straw to use.

Click to expand...

Presumably with dire warnings to ensure that once you have emptied your lungs you remember to remove your lips from the straw first

pentaxuser

PS I have always used the Ilford straw rather than the Kodak one. I just prefer the slightly better shadow detail in its darker parts but the Kodak may have the edge if you prefer brighter highlights in a straw

faberryman said:

Is there something wrong with using stainless steel reels? I have been using them for a long time without incident. Maybe I have a problem I don't know about. Or maybe I have just been lucky.

Click to expand...

Most of the problems with stainless reels/ tanks are a combination of mechanical (i.e. loading) and failing to follow the instructions - i.e. fill tank and drop reel(s) in, rather than dealing with the terribly slow filling. I think the potential for evenness problems (such as they are) really relate to the thickness/ shape of the reel sections causing a particular flow effect under certain agitation conditions - and potentially some surge effects in deep tanks, again under some use conditions. Certain styles of sheet film hanger are also called out in the SPSE handbook as being potentially problematic.

faberryman said:

To be honest, I read a lot of these threads and wonder WTF people are doing to encounter all these issues because it pretty much seems like developing film is a dead simple process. Of course, like most things, you can make it as difficult as you want to.

Click to expand...

A lot of the problems I see relate to not getting the film submerged fast enough and/ or getting agitation underway speedily thereafter. A lot is also carelessness muddled through with excessive attention paid to irrelevant hypotheticals rather than getting the fundamentals sufficiently under control to then be able to define whether the issues are actually mechanical component problems or not.

grat said:

"Accurate management of time and temperature", and "consistent, effective agitation"

Click to expand...

I'd add "Reasonably" to both of those statements - it's pretty forgiving after the first agitation cycle. However, there still seems to be an amazingly long list of ways for people to make a mess of it.

grat said:

And I'd wonder what mechanism they use for moving exhausted developer away from the film.

Click to expand...

If you're really bored, you can read up on 3.5gal deep tank agitation in most of the Ilford developer data sheets. Colour processes generally demand a mix of gas burst and manual agitation in sink line/ deep tanks.

grat said:

I find myself in agreement, except I still use the plastic reels. In my favor, I do have a modest background in science, so the idea of a consistent, repeatable process with as many variables as possible being controlled (or eliminated), isn't alien to me.

I think I simplified Lachlan's comments down to "Accurate management of time and temperature", and "consistent, effective agitation" as the two key factors for film development, which is exactly what I tend to obsess over. It's possible I oversimplified, though.



Very nice, but totally impractical for my purposes. And I'd wonder what mechanism they use for moving exhausted developer away from the film.

Click to expand...

I generally assumed that large tank / dip and dunk tank agitation for B&W film, prior to nitrogen burst agitation becoming common (whenever that was), meant lifting the film entirely out of the developer and putting it back. This is how Kodak describes developing film in open tanks in ye olde Kodak publication J-1, for example: https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/j1-1977.pdf They refer to sheet film on hangers specifically, though more generally, when Kodak gives recommendations for "small tanks" and "large tanks" they mean respectively daylight tanks (usually invertible) and larger or deep tanks.

It was my understanding that crazy tall rollfilm tanks, like the 8-reel stainless steel monsters, were intended as vessels for dip/dunking, not really for inversion agitation.

By the way, publication J-1 from 1977 also discusses developing roll film in trays in a U loop, though they don't take the added step of taping the ends together. I think R. Adams was being careful, but not doing something unusually out of line with contemporary practice.

Contortionist acts; doing things the hard way. I've been tray shuffling all kinds of sheet film for the past forty years, and never seem to get streaks or mottling. The only exception would be high activity A&B developers alomng with high contreat lith film. For roll film, I use ordinary Jobo hand inversion tanks (not rotary development); seldom an issue.

Never "stand development". I don't wanna stand around that long. Besides, when one uses a view camera, they view the image upside-down, so have to stand on their head to develop it.

faberryman said:

I believe commercial dip and dunk tanks use nitrogen burst or whatever for agitation. Maybe if you are using big tanks in your home darkroom you could stick a straw in the developer and blow bubbles. Then we could have a thread about what is the best straw to use.

Click to expand...

Stainless steel straw or plastic straw? Makes a difference, you know…..

Trask said:

Stainless steel straw or plastic straw? Makes a difference, you know…..

Click to expand...

No, the important part is to have a mildly rifled straw for perfection, cavitation free flow. Or, have a teflon coated straw so that air doesn't stick unevenly, and form unwanted vortices.

/sniffs drink.... "uh oh...."

I am in a deep dive into RA images and books. I read he would have 90 rolls of film to develop. Most people would use a multi roll stainless steel tank. This is a suspicion but he may have had evenness issues using a 3 to 6 reel canister.

I once had issues with uneven development. It was solved when I developed one roll at a time using a reel for a spacer in a 4 reel canister.

Straw in the developer? Maybe some Southern fast food joint will get interested. Cold iced pyrogallol can't be all that more toxic than Mountain Dew. If it don't get to ya, a premature stroke from all that greasy fried chicken and bacon will.

It's the Addams Family (extra D), and Trish was a dish!

Took me over 3 years, but I finally got hold of the orginal text in which Adams describes in detail the procedure @Raghu Kuvempunagar and others have metioned in this and other threads.

"The bad part with 120, I think, is developing. For a long time I tried to develop on reels, but a percentage of the results would be uneven. Now I develop without reels, in shallow, open tanks measuring 4" wide, 19" long, and 4 1/2" deep. They take a gallon each. The system is messy (you stain your hands) and slow, but it works.

What I do is unroll the film, remove the paper backing, and make a loop of the film, emulsion side out, by binding the end together using the tape that previously held the film to the backing. Then I place the film in the developer (I prefer undiluted Microdol or D76 or Acufine, replenished). During the first 20 seconds I lift first one end of the loop out and then the other, again and again. For the remaining developing time I follow a pattern: at the end of thirty seconds I lift one end of the loop out of the developer and immediately set it back down, after which the film is left motionless in the tank; after another thirty seconds I lift up and set back the other end of the loop; after another thirty seconds I lift the whole loop out and turn it over so that the other edge of the film rests on the bottom of the tank. That one-and-a-half minute cycle is repeated. It's a method I learned from Myron Wood, to whom I'm grateful.

Is it worth it? I think so because I don't see virtue in streaked or mottled skies. That isn't the way the real sky looks."

Interesting, a see saw motion in the tray, flip, and repeat. The film is moving in the liquid rather the liquid moving around the film. Kind of makes sense regarding evenness.

Saganich said:

Interesting, a see saw motion in the tray, flip, and repeat. The film is moving in the liquid rather the liquid moving around the film. Kind of makes sense regarding evenness.

Click to expand...

Is that a see-saw? It sounds as if the entire roll remains quietly submerged in the developer after the first 20 seconds, with one end or the other lifted every 30 seconds. When I hear "see-saw" developing, I think of a continual back and forth movement of the film through the developer.

Alex Benjamin said:

What I do is unroll the film, remove the paper backing, and make a loop of the film, emulsion side out, by binding the end together using the tape that previously held the film to the backing. Then I place the film in the developer (I prefer undiluted Microdol or D76 or Acufine, replenished). During the first 20 seconds I lift first one end of the loop out and then the other, again and again. For the remaining developing time I follow a pattern: at the end of thirty seconds I lift one end of the loop out of the developer and immediately set it back down, after which the film is left motionless in the tank; after another thirty seconds I lift up and set back the other end of the loop; after another thirty seconds I lift the whole loop out and turn it over so that the other edge of the film rests on the bottom of the tank. That one-and-a-half minute cycle is repeated. It's a method I learned from Myron Wood, to whom I'm grateful.

Is it worth it? I think so because I don't see virtue in streaked or mottled skies. That isn't the way the real sky looks."

Click to expand...

Very interesting Alex thanks.

I'm clearly being thick but I don't understand how he would lift 'one end' of the loop if he just said the two ends are joined together? Doesn't this mean he has a film 'circle'?

Or does he mean he's joining one or more rolls together, but leaving the two 'extremities' open for the see-saw motion?

Thanks Alex. An intriguing but obviously messy process.

It's the "emulsion side out" that I find puzzling. Wouldn't that mean that when in the "the film is left motionless in the tank" part of the process it's the emulsion side that is sitting in the bottom of the tank? That seems strange to me. Or am I reading "emulsion side out" the wrong way?