Too Slow Agitation Issue?

Are we beginning to argue between "everybody is a winner" vs. "only those up on stage actually won the tournament"?

I'm with @NB23 on need to control development and as I mentioned not long ago, I see no logic in claiming that stand development has any controls in that process, it is more like pour and prey approach. Nothing wrong with experimenting, until one hears "all I do is stand develop". Was standard development so bad to take such a drastic turn, or is i just so exotic it must be better?

I do not believe those who are so vocal about stand development have enough tries of long-standing controlled development, where every part of it can be controlled by user even, if not completely, but at least a lot can be done to ensure consistency of the process, key component.

With stand approach, after initial agitation, whatever that is chosen to be, there is an hour of nothing, just stand there and prey. Why is this so argumentatively good way of getting those hard earned images? I actually kind of laugh when one of the "benefits" of stand development is ... different kinds of film can be processed in same tank. It's like - I give up.

I am not a proponent of stand development in particular, and reduced agitation development in general.
However, my concern regarding discussing reduced agitation development regimes isn't centred on those regimes themselves, but rather that there seem to be many who advocate using them as general purpose techniques.
They are special purpose techniques. They risk some behaviors and sacrifice some benefits, in exchange for other benefits such as enhanced edge effects.
The OP started this thread by showing examples of one of the potential downsides of a reduced agitation technique.
I know that Andrew O'Neill makes very good use of semi-stand as a special purpose technique when he has a subject that benefits from enhanced edge effects. It would be great if he or someone else who uses these techniques profitably had an example that they could show us of two test shots - one showing the effects of semi-stand, and the other developed normally.

All I know is that it takes at least 10 seconds of agitation (invert and twist) to replenish the film's surface area.

I think a lot of this thread is over the top but I can't let inaccuracies go - this is the ad for Rodinal in the 1909 edition of the Brirish Journal of Photography Annual, and it clearly shows it recommends 1+100 stand development.


Brian P

Saganich said:

All I know is that it takes at least 10 seconds of agitation (invert and twist) to replenish the film's surface area.

Click to expand...

Is this from personal experience, a personal belief or a source based on an actual scientific test? If you are right it would tend to indicate that the Kodak recommended agitation regime for Xtol does not replenish at least not completely the films surface, being only 5 secs every 30 secs

Thanks

pentaxuser

michael_r said:

There is more to effective agitation than 10s vs 5s. There are variables involved.

I once posted the sensitometric results of a somewhat controlled test of Rodinal stand. It didn't generate much discussion, if I remember correctly.

Anyhow, while OP might be long gone by now, I'd ask if the same pattern is visible near the bottom sprocket holes (difficult to tell from the posted photo). I ask because while stand development problems can look like this, these also resemble the effects of developer "surge".

Click to expand...

If your reference to OP is to the original person/poster then you may well get an answer as he only started the thread yesterday but unless his agitation regime of 30 secs at the start is enough to create developer surge then it doesn't look as if surge is likely. I have an original Rodinal instruction sheet and it says 30 secs agitation initially.

So the crucial remaining question is: Is 30 secs agitation at the beginning enough for surge marks if carried out sufficiently vigorously and how vigorously does this have to be? Would the normal inversion and return be enough. If not then does it have to be the "cocktail waiter's shake"?

Perhaps the OP will now tell us what his agitation consisted of?

pentaxuser

I suspect that if you could gather data about failed film processing/undesirable artifacts and defects, you would find a strong correlation between buggered up film and stand processing.

Some people seem to get away with it, but most who attempt it find they are looking at film with bromide drag problems and other unwanted density defects. For some reason this "technique" has developed a mythology it doesn't deserve, and far too many photographers find themselves dealing with poor results quite opposite to what they expected.

The pseudo magic bullet that people want out of stand development would rather be to use Rodinal 1:10 for 3 minutes.
Boom! 3 minutes! 10 seconds agitation per minute! Done! Quick!
Development from start to finish in under 8 minutes! Boom!

The funny thing is that this method seems to be overlooked because “development under 5 minutes leads to uneven development”.
Which is an absolute Paradox: if you accept stand development, you accept uneven development. End of story.

bripriuk said:

I think a lot of this thread is over the top but I can't let inaccuracies go - this is the ad for Rodinal in the 1909 edition of the Brirish Journal of Photography Annual, and it clearly shows it recommends 1+100 stand development.
View attachment 259574 View attachment 259575

Brian P

Click to expand...

At that time 35mm wasn't invented so no risk of bromide drag!!

There is an interesting and possibly instructive article on IlfordPhoto about what article's author calls the Mortensen semi-stand method. I quote what he says about it below:
THE MORTENSEN METHOD.
Dilute ID11 stock at 1+3.
Get the temperature to 20ºC.
Pour into the tank, start clock and agitate for 30 seconds.
Agitate three gentle inversions each 30 seconds for the first ten minutes.
Leave standing, untouched for 50 minutes.
Agitate every minute for the next ten minutes.

So out of 1 hour 10 mins there is more or less normal agitation for 20 mins divided into 10 at the start and 10 and the end but there is 50 mins of stand in the middle. He shows his negs and there is no bromide drag that I can see. So was he lucky or is a long stand period of 50 mins OK provided that there is a "before and after" normal agitation. Does this indicate that a long period of stand is not by itself a problem as long as there is more agitation than occurs in stand development at the beginning and the end?

Does the beginning and end agitation have to be as long as 2 x 10mins or might it be shorter and still avoid bromide drag?

The author also compares the above Mortensen method with normal time development with in ID11 and the 1 hour stand development with Rodinal. I could see little difference in the prints from the 3 sets of identical negatives but the author concluded that by a short head the Mortensen semi-stand came out the best. I thought that by the smallest margin the print from the Rodinal stand negative looked the best but that might be just me

There was no sign of bromide drag in the Rodinal 1 hour stand method either nor does the author make any mention of this possibility in the article. While he does not say what he agitation regime was I think it unlikely to have been more that was done by the OP in order to label it stand development

The article may be worth a look by all those interested in this subject. The film was HP5+ and in all cases rated at 1600 so it indicated to me that stand as well as semi stand is capable to coping with two stop underexposure. As it was stand it is fair to believe, isn't it that there is some ground for the view that stand does allow films of different speed to be developed together or one film shot at different speeds

I should just add the the author is Andrew Sanderson and here's what Ilford say about him


Andrew Sanderson
A professional photographer for over 30 years, Andrew Sanderson has established an international reputation as a photographer, master printer and teacher of the medium of film photography. He works with many different techniques and formats, but always with images which are strong on observation and composition. His three books: ‘Night Photography’, ‘Hand Colouring and Alternative Darkroom Processes’, and ‘Home Photography’ all received excellent reviews all over the world and have sold out. He has a self published book currently for sale on the Blurb site, on the subject of Paper Negatives.

Andrew has published countless articles in all the top UK photography magazines: Ag+ Photographic, Amateur Photographer, Black and White Photography, Camera and Creative Photography and Photo Art International. His work has inspired many photographers over the years.

I include the above just in case anyone wonders about his pedigree

pentaxuser

MattKing said:

I am not a proponent of stand development in particular, and reduced agitation development in general.
However, my concern regarding discussing reduced agitation development regimes isn't centred on those regimes themselves, but rather that there seem to be many who advocate using them as general purpose techniques.
They are special purpose techniques. They risk some behaviors and sacrifice some benefits, in exchange for other benefits such as enhanced edge effects.
The OP started this thread by showing examples of one of the potential downsides of a reduced agitation technique.
I know that Andrew O'Neill makes very good use of semi-stand as a special purpose technique when he has a subject that benefits from enhanced edge effects. It would be great if he or someone else who uses these techniques profitably had an example that they could show us of two test shots - one showing the effects of semi-stand, and the other developed normally.

Click to expand...

A challenge that I'll happily take up when the weather fines up!

Alessandro Serrao said:

At that time 35mm wasn't invented so no risk of bromide drag!!

Click to expand...

Well....
In modern times, we are more likely to notice bromide drag because of the more obvious patterns it forms near sprocket holes.
But it can also show itself near areas of high density in a negative, and that isn't dependent on there being sprocket holes in the film.
I wonder if films of 110 years ago were more or less or equally subject to the problem.
It is true that we are less likely to observe surge effects due to excess agitation in films without sprocket holes.

Andrew O'Neill said:

A challenge that I'll happily take up when the weather fines up!

Click to expand...

I look forward to the results!

I’m a sucker for accuracy.

But please refresh my knowledge... this ad is from a time when smoking Tobacco was recommended for its “well known health benefits”, yes?

bripriuk said:

I think a lot of this thread is over the top but I can't let inaccuracies go - this is the ad for Rodinal in the 1909 edition of the Brirish Journal of Photography Annual, and it clearly shows it recommends 1+100 stand development.
View attachment 259574 View attachment 259575

Brian P

Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I think the ad was posted in response to those who think that stand development is a "new" thing and that it has never been recommended by manufacturers.

MattKing said:

Well....
In modern times, we are more likely to notice bromide drag because of the more obvious patterns it forms near sprocket holes.
But it can also show itself near areas of high density in a negative, and that isn't dependent on there being sprocket holes in the film.
I wonder if films of 110 years ago were more or less or equally subject to the problem.
It is true that we are less likely to observe surge effects due to excess agitation in films without sprocket holes.

Click to expand...

Well Matt, that answers my obvious question of why in the "perils of stand development" we never seem to see any reference that film other than 35mm is not susceptible.

Thanks

pentaxuser

MattKing said:

I could be wrong, but I think the ad was posted in response to those who think that stand development is a "new" thing and that it has never been recommended by manufacturers.

Click to expand...

This is an ad, not a manufacturer's recomendation

I played around with severely diluted Rodinal many years ago after reading about 'edge effect'

35mm FP4 @ 200, Rodinal 1:400 (0.75mls in 300ml), 20C, 90mins with agitation : 1st 30secs, 1min, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40.





35mm HP5 @ 320, Rodinal 1:400 (0.75mls in 300ml), 20C, 90mins with agitation : 1st 30secs, 1min, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 (film was underexposed in general)




detail of above (her left arm).




I stopped experimenting at that point.

However I would like to add, when I used Rodinal, I generally used 1:100 (3ml in 300ml) for 20mins with agitation every 2 mins. Examples below.

Alessandro Serrao said:

This is an ad, not a manufacturer's recomendation

Click to expand...

From the "Sole British Agents".
Which I read as the importers and distributors.
Sort of like Fuji USA.

MattKing said:

From the "Sole British Agents".
Which I read as the importers and distributors.
Sort of like Fuji USA.

Click to expand...

Doesn't imply that Agfa gave these directions

Alessandro Serrao said:

Doesn't imply that Agfa gave these directions

Click to expand...

No but their sole authorized agents did, which has the same effect in the world of 1909.

Nige, so the film was processed in only 0.75ml of Rodinal. I am no chemist but it suggests to me that 3ml or 4 times as much is certainly more than enough and 5-6 mls is taking the idea of a safety margin way beyond what may be required

A supplementary question if I may. When you mention the agitation method and times is that one inversion at each time you mention?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Yes, 0.75ml. Although this was many years ago, I remember using a medicine 'eyedropper' thing to measure the amount (plus I recorded the amount in my film development database so I'm positive that was accurate). I didn't record my agitation method but it would have been 3 inversions with some axial rotation between each (I invert, rotate a bit, invert, rotate.... if that makes sense!). I've read the 6ml min recommendation but always used whatever was required to make the ratio desired in 300ml since I use a Paterson tank and only put in enough liquid for one film if that's all I'm developing (inherit cheapskate).

You can probably see that the FP4 seemed to develop fairly evenly but the HP5 was uneven (although the underexposed studio lighting probably contributed). Just had a look at other frames and I can see a bit of unevenness on a few of the FP4 frames (was only 10 frames as that was a 'short roll' from a bulk roll). All the HP5 frame have some unevenness.

I don't suggest anyone doing this with anything important. I stopped my experimentation after these two rolls!

Thanks, Nige so that's 3 inversions at each time interval based on your memory of a one-off experiment? I can't see much if anything wrong with the pics

pentaxuser

yep.