Shaken, Not Stirred

[Snapshot]

No, I am not talking about a vodka martini (it should be gin and vermouth anyway) but do people advocate inversions or stirring for B&W development agitation. I have always stirred/swished my developer rather with the tank twist rod than inverting/shaking the tank, with the thinking being that I do not have the film partially out of the developer for the moment it is inverted and to reduce foaming or frothing that may occur.

Anyone care to share their thoughts?

 

[ericdan]

My Patterson tank has a little rod that let's me rotate the reel inside.
I figured that circular motion is still the best to get the developer to move around inside. Never saw the need to invert. My film comes out alright I guess.

 

[yulia_s_rey]

I also take mine stirred rather than inverting. The main reason is that the Paterson tank I use leaks when inverted. Now that this thread has popped up, perhaps a question that's had me curious for a while could be answered. I usually stir in one direction (CW) would this affect the negs, otherwise would a "directional current" cause "micro-streaking" or is it better to alternate (CW, CCW)? I know it seems silly, and I as of yet haven't noticed any difference when printing/projecting/scanning, but then again, I figured why not ask.

 

[jp498]

Some developers need a little more randomness than the stirring rod provides, so inversion works better. for me, I've seen better results from inversion with caffenol-c and PMK. But I invert everything just to be consistent as the amount of motion is more repeatable.

 

[Snapshot]

I also take mine stirred rather than inverting. The main reason is that the Paterson tank I use leaks when inverted. Now that this thread has popped up, perhaps a question that's had me curious for a while could be answered. I usually stir in one direction (CW) would this affect the negs, otherwise would a "directional current" cause "micro-streaking" or is it better to alternate (CW, CCW)? I know it seems silly, and I as of yet haven't noticed any difference when printing/projecting/scanning, but then again, I figured why not ask.

When I stir, I do a "back and forth" action. The goal is to get fresh developer to the emulsion. However, a single direction flow is not desirable. Someone was kind enough to supply me with a portion of a Kodak publication and from it it states...

"Agitation should always consist of movements that will not cause a current of solution to flow constantly in any one direction. Such currents are the cause of increased density."

So, it's best not to create a "whirlpool" in your development solution if you want even, consistent development.

 

[baachitraka]

Good question, I personally should try stirring than inverting.

Second bath in DD23 is 500ml only. So, I do not want to loose it through leaking.

 

[GRHazelton]

I shake, rather than stir, in reference to film. Yes, there's a little leak, but no matter. As far as using the stirring rod with the Paterson tanks, a little thought suggests that the outer film surfaces will receive more agitation than those close to the center. I can't imagine that it would make any real difference, but still.... My guess is that CW versus CCW or alternating the two modes would make absolutely no difference, but YMMV.

Now, for Martinis. Agreed, the only proper Martini is gin and vermouth. I like mine on the rocks. I measure out the vermouth, then add the gin, kept in the freezer, BTW, to the vermouth. The pouring of the gin furnishes enough agitation for proper "development." Then add the rocks, and garnish with a twist of lemon, being certain to express some of the essential oils onto the rocks and the Martini. As the glass frosts up, enjoy.

BTW, any fellow devotees of Hendricks gin? Marvelous stuff.... but rather costly.

 

[Snapshot]

Now, for Martinis. Agreed, the only proper Martini is gin and vermouth. I like mine on the rocks. I measure out the vermouth, then add the gin, kept in the freezer, BTW, to the vermouth. The pouring of the gin furnishes enough agitation for proper "development." Then add the rocks, and garnish with a twist of lemon, being certain to express some of the essential oils onto the rocks and the Martini. As the glass frosts up, enjoy.

BTW, any fellow devotees of Hendricks gin? Marvelous stuff.... but rather costly.

Finally, someone that knows their martini. Yes, Hendricks is nice and quite tasty. Plymouth gin was great bargain for a while before they got pretentious, changed the bottle and nearly doubled the price for the same stuff.

 

[fotch]

inverting the tank is not shaking it. Never had any problems doing it this way, no better no worse the rotary processing or turning a rod connected to the reel.

 

[GRHazelton]

Finally, someone that knows their martini. Yes, Hendricks is nice and quite tasty. Plymouth gin was great bargain for a while before they got pretentious, changed the bottle and nearly doubled the price for the same stuff.

I am appalled to see what many restaurant menus call Martinis. Horrid sweet concoctions of ... whatever they got on sale, apparently. How can these be called Martinis? Another sure sign of the impending collapse of Western Civilization, as we know it.

I rarely order a Martini when I'm eating out. Having to define what the drink is, the proportions I want, and then seeing the completed "drink" sit awaiting the return of my server.... It sits on the counter, ice melting, flavors being diluted.... So, I usually order a single barrel Bourbon, rocks in one glass and liquor in another, so it isn't watered down....

Ah, the trials of an epicure....

 

[yulia_s_rey]

BTW, any fellow devotees of Hendricks gin? Marvelous stuff.... but rather costly.

+1. We usually get Hendricks on the holidays around my house. My friend owns a Spanish/Portuguese bar here in NJ and many times I'd help behind the bar. I find it funny how there's all these "choco-martinis" and what nots, when they order those I rush and am a bit sloppy. Now when someone asks for a true gin martini, I take my time "for this man/woman knows how to drink." (Confessions of a PT bartender

edit: on the subject of stirring/inverting dev, where could I find the publication?

 

[jp498]

I am appalled to see what many restaurant menus call Martinis. I rarely order a Martini when I'm eating out.

Coffee is the drink I can get appalled about. I rarely order it when I go out.

I think those old "Secrety switched tasters choice at this fine restaurant" ads say less about tasters choice and more about bad coffee that is often served.

 

[Terry Christian]

The operative word for film agitation is gentle, no matter which style of agitation you prefer. The object is to move fresh developer around the film. Your tank is neither a cocktail shaker nor a washing machine.

 

[hdeyong]

I agree. Five gentle inversions every 60 seconds has left my film evenly developed, with no streaks or other issues. When I'm finished the inversions, I tap the bottom of the tank on the counter a couple of times to dislodge any air bubbles, which probably aren't there, anyway.
Tanqueray gin, a little vermouth, and I mash the lemon peel into the bottom of the glass a few times to release the oils in it.
Heaven.

 

[Vaughn]

The operative words for SS tanks and reels is a couple sharp and hard inversions - bringing the tank from in front of me to just over the shoulder, then back down, then over the other shoulder. Shoot that developer completely through the winds of film. No streaks, bubble issues, etc. It is a film tank, not a goldfish bowl.

 

[GRHazelton]

... Tanqueray gin, a little vermouth, and I mash the lemon peel into the bottom of the glass a few times to release the oils in it.
Heaven.

Hmmm. I'll have to try the lemon mash.

Wouldn't it be nice if liquor stores carried as wide a variety of vermouths as they do of gins?

 

[gone]

Had to pitch the stirring rod that came w/ my tank. It was unusually good at making dark spots by the film sprocket holes. Went to simple, gentle, swirly agitations and never had that problem ever again.

I mix my martinis with straight gin or vodka and whisper the word "vermouth" gently over the glass rim before stirring w/ a glass rod. Then drop in an olive.

 

[MattKing]

I just happen to have the instructions for Paterson tanks right here

They recommend as follows:
"After pouring in the first solution, immediately insert the agitator and twist sharply back and forth three or four times, then lightly tap the bottom of the tank on the bench to dislodge any air bubbles which might form on the surface of the film. Now push the cap on and make sure that it fits all the way round.At the end of the first minute and of each subsequent minute, invert the tank, at once returning it to the upright position, and tap the tank on the bench as before."

Note that Paterson recommends twist agitation only at the very beginning. I personally don't think that twist agitation is random enough - I just use inversion agitation throughout.

 

[Black Dog]

Shake it shake it baby

I just happen to have the instructions for Paterson tanks right here

They recommend as follows:
"After pouring in the first solution, immediately insert the agitator and twist sharply back and forth three or four times, then lightly tap the bottom of the tank on the bench to dislodge any air bubbles which might form on the surface of the film. Now push the cap on and make sure that it fits all the way round.At the end of the first minute and of each subsequent minute, invert the tank, at once returning it to the upright position, and tap the tank on the bench as before."

Note that Paterson recommends twist agitation only at the very beginning. I personally don't think that twist agitation is random enough - I just use inversion agitation throughout.

Me too-I also love Hendricks

 

[GRHazelton]

Had to pitch the stirring rod that came w/ my tank. It was unusually good at making dark spots by the film sprocket holes. Went to simple, gentle, swirly agitations and never had that problem ever again.

I mix my martinis with straight gin or vodka and whisper the word "vermouth" gently over the glass rim before stirring w/ a glass rod. Then drop in an olive.

A friend of mine kept what he called "Martini rocks." These were small smooth river rocks, perhaps an inch in largest dimension, they were kept in the fridge in a capped jar filled with vermouth. He'd fish one out and drop it in the gin (he was a purist, as am I) and at the end of the drink return it to the jar to be "recharged."

Another friend would nod in acknowledgement to the vermouth bottle, which was generally empty. This was his "hint" of vermouth.

Oh, yes. Agitation. I "shake" a few gentle inversions with my capped Paterson or SS tank, if I've somehow loaded the SS tank successfully. Back in the day I used a Kodak tank with aprons, transparent strips which looked like lasagne noodles, with crinkled edges to separate the film from the apron. No cap on the tank, no way to use a rod, so it was moved in a mystic pattern on the counter for agitation. Sort of a twisting motion in a figure eight pattern, IIRC. Worked okay, I did lots of BW and Ektachrome, back when the reversal was done with a photoflood lamp! Yes, indeedy.

I forgot to add that I bang the tank of whatever variety on the counter when first filled, and after every agitation. Gotta let it know who's master!

Hmmm. Bout time for a Martini!

 

[yulia_s_rey]

Being one who likes to follow directions to the 'T,' I've done inversion in the past, but when I mean my Patterson (Tank System 4) leaks, it really leaks. More so I switched over to using the stirrer because of this issue, and although I use gloves and apron, I'm not as worried about contact w/ chemicals as much as losing chemistry during processing. Perhaps the model I have is faulty or too old? In a way I wish I could invert, specifically because I often use Tetanal's Press Kit (when I do color) and its instructions recommended inverting. Btw, I always give it a nice bang-nasty air-bubbles.

As far as "Martini rocks" I've tried them before, it's a whole different experience: cold, but not watered down...oops, I just made myself thirsty. I'm afraid "Well's Gin" is all I got in the cabinet, at least I got Cizano.

 

[MartinP]

The Paterson Super System-4 tanks (with the full width "Tupperware" style lids) don't leak in my experience when the lids are "farted" like a sandwich box, but the older System-4 ones are by now pretty ancient and the soft old fashioned plastics of the lid-seals are usually no longer soft and they probably drip or dribble a bit.

I don't bother with the twiddle stick, just using inversions. After each set of inversions I put the tank down with about a third of a turn rotation on the vertical axis, so that the next inversion always runs the chemicals through a slightly different part of the reel - balancing out the flow effect one might otherwise see. Similarly, short dev times can leave little room for error (either timing or agitation) so I aim for nothing under six minutes.

I always thought Martini was the sort of rifle loading-mechanism seen during the Zulu film . . .

 

[wombat2go]

With C41 I have recently changed from stirred to slow inversions.
Too early to tell if it is more consistent, as it was getting mostly good results anyway.
With the plastic tank, pressing the cap on leads to bubbles coming out which is a bit more messy

007 never took Pink Gin.
In '90's I stayed regularly at a small boo-kay hotel in Taipei. I enjoyed the Martinis they made, no matter how late we returned for dinner.
One time some ex Pusser's arrived and we had to try Pink Gin made their way. But I forgot the exact recipe.

 

[mfohl]

I shake, rather than stir, in reference to film. Yes, there's a little leak, but no matter. As far as using the stirring rod with the Paterson tanks, a little thought suggests that the outer film surfaces will receive more agitation than those close to the center. I can't imagine that it would make any real difference, but still.... My guess is that CW versus CCW or alternating the two modes would make absolutely no difference, but YMMV.

I used to use the little twirler thingy, and it worked OK for 35mm film. But I wrecked a couple of rolls of 120 because the outer edges were much more agitated than the center. This resulted in the prints being dark and flat in the center. After that, I inverted with all my film. Continuous for the first minute, 2 inversions every 30 seconds afterward. I've been doing that for probably close to 20 years.

 

[Bill Burk]

I was sitting in my comfortable chair reading Todd-Zakia Photographic Sensitometry tonight, and re-read the part where the purpose of agitation is described as it relates to standard processing for sensitometric testing.

To paraphrase...

Agitation has nothing directly to do with the diffusion that takes developer into the emulsion and byproducts out of the emulsion. But it does maintain the quality of the thin layer of developer immediately next to the film. The problem of agitation is that a thin layer of developer is adsorbed to the surface of the film and held by an appreciable force.

To remove this adsorbed layer requires vigorous agitation and considerable effort.

As I looked over this thread, most comments minimized the importance of agitation. If you are practicing stand processing or divided development, then deliberately less agitation is the idea. But most of the time, I'd think vigorous agitation would be the best plan.