Robert Adams' roll film developing technique

[jim appleyard]

Yup, you've got good points. If it works for Adams, cool. If it's repeatable for him, go. Yeah, I use tanks and pour the chems in thru the top and there is that time gap. Some folks fill the tank to the brim with chemstry and dunk the loaded reel into in the dark and then put the lid on. Makes sense that way. That's how Kodak suggested you dev Tech Pan.

 

[dwross]

Submitted for your consideration:

http://www.thelightfarm.com/cgi-bin/htmltutgen.py?content=27Jul2013

d

 

[mfohl]

Yup, you've got good points. If it works for Adams, cool. If it's repeatable for him, go. Yeah, I use tanks and pour the chems in thru the top and there is that time gap. Some folks fill the tank to the brim with chemstry and dunk the loaded reel into in the dark and then put the lid on. Makes sense that way. That's how Kodak suggested you dev Tech Pan.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and here is my conclusion. On the one hand, when you pour developer into the tank, the bottom part has more time in the developer as the level rises. However, after you empty out the developer and pour in the stop bath, the stop bath starts from the bottom also. So the top of the film has a little extra time before the developer is stopped.

Having said all that, I use D-76 1:1, and my development times are almost never less than 9 minutes, so the few seconds of unevenness are small, percentage wise.

Just my .02,

-- Mark

 

[CatLABS]

Why do you consider this method imprecise and not repeatable? If you think about it, it is very similar to develop sheet film in trays. What is the difference?

I guess when you are a master like either of the adams might have been, then you can tray develop and have fair results. However, for the most of the rest of the world, tray developing and consistency, repeatability or reliability cannot fit in the same sentence...

As for the time it takes to pour in chemistry and the the fact the bottom of the tank gets more developing time - that has been overcome by rotation processing, where the chemistry is introduced while the tank is already rotating, like with a Jobo processor equipped with a lift.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I guess when you are a master like either of the adams might have been, then you can tray develop and have fair results. However, for the most of the rest of the world, tray developing and consistency, repeatability or reliability cannot fit in the same sentence...

As for the time it takes to pour in chemistry and the the fact the bottom of the tank gets more developing time - that has been overcome by rotation processing, where the chemistry is introduced while the tank is already rotating, like with a Jobo processor equipped with a lift.

Really? You pull a length of film through a tray of developer. Back and forth. How much easier can it get?

Rotary processing is a fine tool, but usually very expensive. I know I couldn't afford a JoBo, but am perhaps also a bit reluctant to rely on one. But I am a highly skeptical individual, so I may fit poorly into a group discussing rotary processors. All I know is I've seen some fabulous negs come out of them, and they cost a lot of money.

 

[cliveh]

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 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 sounds like stand development, right? Anyone know for sure, and why he taped the roll in a loop rather than use tanks? I wonder if he was doing development by inspection.

Completly bonkers, he should get himself a tank.

 

[erikg]

Tray processing or this seesaw can work great if you are willing to work at it. It didn't work for Adams because he is a master but because he did it over and over and over. 500 times for one project. If you can practice something that much, practice not only until you get it right but until you can't get it wrong you'll have good consistent results. Good pictures? That's another problem.

 

[CatLABS]

Really? You pull a length of film through a tray of developer. Back and forth. How much easier can it get?

Well - a machine could be doing that for you

Rotary processing is a fine tool, but usually very expensive. I know I couldn't afford a JoBo, but am perhaps also a bit reluctant to rely on one. But I am a highly skeptical individual, so I may fit poorly into a group discussing rotary processors. All I know is I've seen some fabulous negs come out of them, and they cost a lot of money.

Expensive is a relative term, though no one can say Jobo is cheap, when compared to a tray, or a 5$ SS tank and reels.
On the other hand as you say its a great too, that for some is worth the expense

 

[Vaughn]

Developed sheet film in trays for decades with excellent results...and I still see-saw roll film through photo-flo.

Whatever works!

Vaughn

PS -- I love my Jobo Expert Drums (3005)...but if I have large areas of even tonality and it is a very important neg, I fall back to tray development.

 

[MattKing]

Rotary processing is a fine tool, but usually very expensive. I know I couldn't afford a JoBo, but am perhaps also a bit reluctant to rely on one. But I am a highly skeptical individual, so I may fit poorly into a group discussing rotary processors. All I know is I've seen some fabulous negs come out of them, and they cost a lot of money.

Depends what you consider to be expensive.

The setup below is with steel reels in a plastic tank.

I can also use it with an AP tank that works with plastic AP reels designed to be usable in Paterson tanks.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Depends what you consider to be expensive:

I've thought about doing that. There are a couple of Those rotary developers on the shelf, but so far I've only done sheet film.

How much chemistry do you use?

 

[MattKing]

I've thought about doing that. There are a couple of Those rotary developers on the shelf, but so far I've only done sheet film.

How much chemistry do you use?

Not much.

I generally half fill the tank, as long as that gives me enough "stock" to avoid developer exhaustion.

I don't use rotary development all the time - especially since I transitioned to mostly using HC-110 replenished.

I do use it for stop bath, fixer and hypo clearing though.

 

[JamesMorris]

I tray develop sheet film, and have no issues with unevenness. Continuous agitation as required with a Jobo is not always the desired approach. I agitate 10 seconds every 60 in Pyrocat HD, for example, and do not want to agitate more.

The main benefit I'd see personally with rotary processing is using 1/5th of the chemistry, and also perhaps more consistency of temperature & agitation time, assuming a tempered water bath.

 

[Trask]

Matt -- your picture is food for thought. Heck, you could even fill the plastic tank with water at a specific temperature if you wish. I'd been thinking of how to make a hand-cranked device that would both rotate a tank and invert it at the same time, using parts from an old hand egg beater and bicycle parts or something. Yours is a bit easier!

 

[CatLABS]

Matt -- your picture is food for thought. Heck, you could even fill the plastic tank with water at a specific temperature if you wish. I'd been thinking of how to make a hand-cranked device that would both rotate a tank and invert it at the same time, using parts from an old hand egg beater and bicycle parts or something. Yours is a bit easier!

This machine rotates AND inverts at the same time!! small capacity and i dont think its cheap - but still its cool:
http://www.fototv.de/gekippt_nicht_gerührt

http://heilandelectronic.de/tas_filmprozessor/lang:en

 

[Trask]

Well, shoot! I was gonna make a million bucks from my contraption -- and here this fellow makes a better product than I could imagine! Guess I'll concentrate on my anti-gravity boots...

 

[MattKing]

Matt -- your picture is food for thought. Heck, you could even fill the plastic tank with water at a specific temperature if you wish. I'd been thinking of how to make a hand-cranked device that would both rotate a tank and invert it at the same time, using parts from an old hand egg beater and bicycle parts or something. Yours is a bit easier!

About the plastic tank ....

It is there to keep the counter clean and dry, and to provide a better contact surface for the rollers on the base (the tanks are a bit slippery).

 

[CatLABS]

Well, shoot! I was gonna make a million bucks from my contraption -- and here this fellow makes a better product than I could imagine! Guess I'll concentrate on my anti-gravity boots...

Sorry to bust your hopes yet again:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=WewGuG69M_RvC1Bf-77c8A&bvm=bv.51495398,d.cWc

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Matt, is that a Uniroller base? I find that on mine the distance between the support wheels and the drive wheels is too great for the tank to touch both, so it doesn't spin properly.

A friend of mine has done largely what you do, but has basically invented a larger cylinder into which the stainless tank fits, so to increase its diameter. Your invention does the same, but adds some random behavior to the agitation, which I believe could even be a good thing.

I've been playing with the idea of simply making something that fits snugly to the tank, so that it's easier to fill and drain, because I don't have to remove the tank from another container, but I can just remove the lid in normal order. An added benefit to me, because my darkroom is about 50 degrees F in the winter, is for the insulation and temperature stability it would provide.

 

[MattKing]

Matt, is that a Uniroller base? I find that on mine the distance between the support wheels and the drive wheels is too great for the tank to touch both, so it doesn't spin properly.

A friend of mine has done largely what you do, but has basically invented a larger cylinder into which the stainless tank fits, so to increase its diameter. Your invention does the same, but adds some random behavior to the agitation, which I believe could even be a good thing.

I've been playing with the idea of simply making something that fits snugly to the tank, so that it's easier to fill and drain, because I don't have to remove the tank from another container, but I can just remove the lid in normal order. An added benefit to me, because my darkroom is about 50 degrees F in the winter, is for the insulation and temperature stability it would provide.

I have used several bases over the years, including Beseler and Uniroller ones.

I like the ones that automatically reverse, but have used the unidirectional ones as well.

The outer container is big enough to span the distance between the support wheels and the drive wheels - I had to haunt the Dollar Stores until I found just the right size .

The lid clips on - it is quite quick to handle. I'd rather have that because it is easy to clean.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I have used several bases over the years, including Beseler and Uniroller ones.

I like the ones that automatically reverse, but have used the unidirectional ones as well.

The outer container is big enough to span the distance between the support wheels and the drive wheels - I had to haunt the Dollar Stores until I found just the right size .

The lid clips on - it is quite quick to handle. I'd rather have that because it is easy to clean.

Thanks, Matt, for your reply.

I'm primarily interested in this solution for color film. With black and white I use agitation as a tool to achieve the tonality that I want, so can't do rotary there. In the future it will be handy with the uniroller too if I wanted to make color prints.

I'll think of something.

 

[AJH]

Ansel Adams died in 1984. Were these technologies available then?

Digital amateur cameras were not. Professional was limited tot defense and space.

The workflow for print-press printed reproduction was very much digital already. Purpose built computing machines cost considerably more then one can comprehend now. Print numbers were much bigger then
I clearly remember reading about his thoughts about the future distribution and he expressed to have no difficulty with distribution through digital means and on computerscreens.