Can I ask: what is it about stainless steel that makes it OK for avoiding bromide drag that does not apply to plastic reels and what is the effect of the reel being adjustable, i.e. if you have a non adjustable plastic reel does this change things or is the secret solely in the stainless steel?
Is the secret of your success the height of the reel above the bottom of the tank, if so then presumably an empty reel below the reel with film would work? If it doesn't work then what is it about a lower reel that differentiates it from the success of the inverted cone
Just as an interesting aside The ShootFilmLikeABoss(SFLAB) presenter appears to have made a success of what appears to be almost non existent agitation i.e. 2x one inversion agitations in an hour ( one at the beginning and one at 30 mins)
Is this pure luck? I don't suppose we'll ever know unless someone were to do this at least several dozen times to see what the success rate was?
That's what causes my puzzlement as I said We just don't seem to know what determines success or failure I admit that I'd be nervous about only 2 inversions in an hour and maybe that's why the negatives look a bit flat but as SFLAB says it might be fixed in the darkroom. He doesn't say how but I assume he thinks that a higher grade of paper would work.
He is the sort of person who may well make prints from D23 and Rodinal negatives in a future video
Thanks
pentaxuser
All techniques are misguided if one does not take the time to master them. It took me the better part of a year to find and control for the things that drive bromide drag.
For the first time I tried stand developing a roll of 120 HP5+ in Rodinal 1:100 fo 60 minutes. I agitated for 30 secs at the beginning and again after 30 minutes. The film has an uneven line down its entire length with slightly more development one side than the other. All I can think of is that the developer and water did not properly mix and the developer 'sank' to the bottom of the tank in some way. Any thoughts, please?
Andrew, can I ask: In what ways was Rodinal no match for Pyrocat HD
Thanks
pentaxuser
I fail to understand why anyone would want to throw that kind of technical challenge into their workflow when the effects sought can be far more easily accomplished with a different developer - Like Pyrocat HD, which doesn't have the same issues.
Is this HP5+ in Rodinal 1:100 stand a combination you are familiar with? It doesn't seem to be one of the modes of use recommended by the manufacturer, eg
Lacking any specific needs (eg unknown film; very expired film; experimental processing of multiple different film rolls in the same tank; emergency processing in conditions of difficult temperature control) I'd avoid stand and semistand development altogether, as I've only seen very mediocre results being produced with it. And yes, gradients of uneven development, lines of various kind, overdeveloped borders are a common artefact.
As a parallel example, no auto manufacturer "recommends" boring out the heads, blueprinting the engine, and tweaking the control software.
Pyrocat-HD can also bugger up your negatives with stand development, if you are sloppy. Again, no matter how experienced you are with this technique, things can still go sideways. Semi-stand (with at least one agitation cycle halfway...I prefer two, a third of the way as the differences are very subtle) is safer. And... I only employ this technique when I want to emphasise texture. I still shoot a back up just in case, which is much easier with sheet film.
That's because car makers need to manufacture a carefully balanced product that responds to the need of a well designed, ideally large, user base, with stringent requirements in terms of described performance, maintenance requirements, planned average usage, and safety. In general, mainstream automobiles and are not manufactured and marketed to squeeze ultimate performance from the electronics and mechanics, but excellent, repeatable performance for the vast majority of users.
For many of said users, the purpose of buying a car is to provide a means to reliably commute to work with the smallest possible number of failures, or to e.g. reach the Amalfi Coast in safety and comfort and allow the owners to enjoy the destination once there.
Mass produced cars, again in general, are not designed for the obsessive tinkerer to race with their friends on a Nascar track and brag about the car's performance and telemetry later at home - too small a user base to be commercially interesting.
Similarly, with film and processing, personally I think the purpose of the medium is to get out of the way as much as possible and provide a reproducible means to fixing an idea onto paper or in a scanned file.
When the light is great, and the composition works, the magic is there, so personally all I want from the film and the developer is to do their work reproducibly and reliably. Adding stochasticity in the workflow, attempting to seek the minuscule technical advantages stand/semistand development may give, at the expense or introducing several other technical issues, is misguided for my use case.
Of course, it is perfectly understandable if someone wishes to make stochasticity and randomness an important part of their art. Plenty of fascinating examples in music.
So .. you have a strong view on this, which I respect.
FWIW, I really like the results I’ve been getting with stand development. Both with Rodinal and 510-Pyro.
That's great and at the end of the day, it's what truly matters.
FWIW, I really like the results I’ve been getting with stand development. Both with Rodinal and 510-Pyro.
If I may - it sounds like you have strong views on this yourself - as you've chosen to address my own post on this topic directly. Something I've not done with yours. And it goes without saying, I respect your views, too!
I agree and you even showed us the result of it with the now famous dog picture and look at what trouble that got you into
pentaxuser
I actually don't have that strong a view. This is just one of many techniques I use. I'm just curious if the people who do not care of this technique have actually tried it, that's all.
I agree and you even showed us the result of it with the now famous dog picture and look at what trouble that got you into
pentaxuser
I don't know about everyone else but I've tried stand development many times using Rodinal
Extreme edge effects, if that is what one is after.
Thanks, Andy. I have a feeling that I may have read your answer wrongly I thought of "no match" in your reply as meaning Rodinal was unable to produce as good edge effects as Pyrocat HD. I had never thought of Pyrocat HD producing better edge effects than Rodinal but it may be that you meant in fact that Pyrocat HD does not match Rodinal in its effectiveness at producing edge effect.
In other words Rodinal is in fact better at extreme edge effects than Pyrocat HD. Is that the correct interpretation of what you wrote?
Thanks
pentaxuser
Thanks for your answers,chuckroast. I asked about the 2 reel solution as I have a 120 Jobo tank that will take 2 135 reels and if the film were to be 135 then the lower empty reel will give me the kind of space underneath of which you speak Trying a 120 film in the 120 tank will not afford me that luxury of space underneath. There would be some space but I'd need to devise something
I must admit that I do wonder if as little as 1 inversion at time zero and one at 30mins is enough to avoid bromide drag though SFLAB managed it but then again instinct tells me to give an extra 5 inversions in the Ilford wash method even though all tests seem to indicate it is. Proof perhaps that instinct and a feeling for what is needed may not always be right
pentaxuser
Sorry for not being clearer. I meant pyrocat-hd is better at emphasising edge effects than Rodinal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?