Too Slow Agitation Issue?

wjlapier

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
852
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format


1992 vintage Trix400 shot at 200ISO in a Kodak Flash Bantam. I've used this camera before and last time used it was light tight.

Developer was Rodinal for 1hr--kinda semi stand. 30 second agitation to begin then one quick flip at 30 minutes.

I've used this method before with 70mm film but not 35mm. I was looking around and read this might be too slow agitation. Approximate flip every 3 seconds first 30 seconds.

Thank you for any help.
 

drpsilver

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Messages
690
Location
Los Altos, CA
Format
Multi Format
14 Nov 2020

Looks like "bromide drag", also known as "bromide streaks", to me. These are usually caused by inadequate agitation. Lack of periodic agitation allows developer by-products to build-up and retard development in adjacent regions of the negative.

I have very little experience in stand or semi-stand development, so my only recommendation is to do a little agitation periodically during your 30 min. stand time.

Regards,
Darwin
 

Deleted member 88956

Is entire roll like this or is there a difference along its length? Agitation issue would not leave entire roll with same effect.
 

albireo

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
1,414
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Rodinal works amazingly well in 1+25 or 1+50 dilutions and standard agitation regimes (e.g. constant inversions 1st minute or first 30sec, then 2x inversions every minute).

I'm curious as to why recently "rodinal+stand/semi-stand" seems to have become a popular combination, given the well known issues exemplified above. Almost as if people weren't aware it can be used as a regular developer, too. Odd.
 
Last edited:

bripriuk

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2014
Messages
37
Format
127 Format
Hi
I think the problem is you not using enough agitation, or using too much. For stand development with Rodinal at 1+100 you only need one inversion at the start, with possibly one at 30 minutes, although I've found this makes no difference.
Brian P
 

bripriuk

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2014
Messages
37
Format
127 Format

Stand development with Rodinal has been around since the 1890s!

Brian P
 

Deleted member 88956

Yeah, good point. It appears to me that experimentation is one aspect of current analog culture, so if something is not in line with ages long routine it must be better. I ain't waiting for an hour just to see if I got film totally messed up or it came virtually the same as with 1:50 dilution. If one is not satisfied with Rodinal he ought to switch to another kind. As I have followed logic behind this I have thus far found none. Surely there is a cult thinking tied to this approach and that means a lost argument before it even starts.
 

Deleted member 88956

bripriuk said:
Stand development with Rodinal has been around since the 1890s!

Brian P
Click to expand...
I think his point was that it seems to have gained ground over last few years. It is not on any recommended list I can think of and I don't see any benefits from using it, except wasting a load of time before processing is completed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

albireo

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
1,414
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
bripriuk said:
Stand development with Rodinal has been around since the 1890s!
Brian P
Click to expand...

I mean yes of course, and I can perhaps see its usefulness in special cases (old/unknown film stock; processing 2+ different stocks in same tank; taming extreme dynamic ranges via exhaustion).

My point was that it appears it has, as of late, become the 'default' usage configuration for Rodinal - when other configurations give much better control (and results).
 
Last edited:

DeletedAcct1

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
869
Location
World
Format
35mm
Imho semi stand and stand methods are no-no if you wanna avoid bromide drag.
 

juan

Member
Joined
May 7, 2003
Messages
2,706
Location
St. Simons I
Format
Multi Format
I had similar problems years ago and realized that I was not agitating enough, and by enough I mean vigorously enough. In a tank, gently tipping it over and back was not sufficient. I had to snap it over and back several times for 5-10 seconds, depending on total time of development, to really get the film exposed to fresh developer. Minimal agitation does not mean the agitation itself is minimal, but that the time of agitation is minimal compared to the total time of development.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,972
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
What always puzzles me is there seems to be no reason why with stand development you get bromide drag sometimes but not at other times and for every few people who have this problem there is nearly always another who will appear on such a thread to say he/she has been using stand development for many years and hundreds of times without any mishap?

There has to be a "chemical link" so to speak that is triggered that causes bromide drag and if the conditions are right then shouldn't this occur on every or nearly every occasion? Otherwise isn't is like someone asking the question : "Is this nitro-glycerine dangerous if I shake it?" and receiving the answer: "It depends" When the questioner pushes for something more specific, the answer: "It depends" is simply repeated

It strikes me that this never has been a satisfactory explanation of what the conditions are that are needed to ensure bromide drag or ensure no bromide drag

pentaxuser
 

NB23

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
4,307
Format
35mm
bripriuk said:
Stand development with Rodinal has been around since the 1890s!

Brian P
Click to expand...

Ignorance has been around for thousands of years. It’s still called ignorance today.

And why is “stand development” linked to rodinal? You can stand-develop in any developer and get the same shitty results.
 
OP
OP

wjlapier

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
852
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
That photo was second on the roll and most obvious because of the sky. Later images don’t show it as much but it is also hidden in the background. I’ll upload one of the later images soon.
 
OP
OP

wjlapier

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
852
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format


This was mid role. The rest I was testing the cameras ability to estimate focus distance ( I almost always use this camera at infinity )--those photos are not sharp and doesn't show the issue clearly. This was also a test of the nearly 30 year old film which was sealed in the box and in the tin. I think the film is fine.

Thanks again folks.
 

relistan

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
1,588
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Format
Multi Format
Every time anyone mentions stand development there are people who blame that as the issue. I don't stand dev a lot but I can do it repeatably without issues now when I decide to do it.

In my experience this only happens with stand development if you didn't have enough minimum developer present, or you didn't agitate enough to start. It sounds like you did agitate enough. Yes, agitation is important, but you can also end up with the same drag lines if you under develop the film quite a lot. @wjlapier I assume you are using 1+100? You need to insure that you have at least 6ml of Rodinal present per roll for this to work properly. I don't do this often, but when I do I have to use my Paterson tank instead of the stainless because I can't put enough liquid in the stainless to do 1+100 with 6ml of Rodinal present.

Did you by chance have less Rodinal in the mix?
 

NB23

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
4,307
Format
35mm
It’s always present to an extent, but it’s camouflaged behind the textures of the images. Make it a habit to always waste one frame by shooting the clear sky, on each roll. That shot will be your true reference. It will always look ok when a roll is properly developed, and it will always show unevenness, bad contrast, streaks... when not properly developed (stand).

 

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
11,993
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format
When I semi-stand (in pyrocat-hd 5ml+ 5ml+1200ml in BTZS tubes standing on end filled to the brim), the film gets agitation 5sec every 15m. I can "sometimes" get away with 5s every 20m, but it's risky. I NEVER do full on stand anymore, unless I shoot a backup (I use mainly sheet film). Side-by-side comparisons of stand/semi-stand negs look almost identical to me, therefore for me, no point in doing stand.
I should add, the only reason I do semi-stand is for the extreme edge effects... which is not always appropriate.
 

relistan

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
1,588
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Format
Multi Format
wjlapier said:
I've used this website for guidance for stand developing with Rodinal.

https://www.sheshootsfilm.photography/articles/how-to-develop-black-and-white-film-the-lazy-way

She says 3.5mL per 400mL.
Click to expand...

Well, my experience is that your issue is directly caused by that. Not possible to prove now, but if you want it to work better, try more developer. In long ago Flickr discussions around this it was settled on 6ml of Rodinal per 36 roll of 35mm or 120 roll, and I can tell you that this works for me.
 

NB23

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
4,307
Format
35mm
I’m quite amazed at the bad recomendations you are sharing in the name of what exactly?

Look, 6ml of rodinal per 35mm roll is the classical 1:50 dilution for which agfa had official recomended development times.

Baiscally, what you are presently recomending is that people should start botching their work.

Why would anyone take kodak’s d76 recomended times and propose that you don’t agitate and add 30 minutes to it? This totally looks like con-artistry to me.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…