Too Slow Agitation Issue?

[relistan]

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.

What are you even talking about? Where did Kodak's times for D76 enter the discussion? I _never_ even mentioned a dev time. What I did say was that you need a minimum of 6ml of developer. If you can do math, you can see that you need 600ml of water to do 1+100 with 6ml of developer. But that's cool, let's turn from discussion to attacks! Very productive and cool.

 

[relistan]

For anyone who is reading this who wants to know the full procedure that works for me it's:

Rodinal 1+100 1 hour semi stand. Agitation continuously for first 30 secs to 1 minute. Two inversions at 30 minutes. You need 6ml of developer present. That means you need 600ml of water, so you can't do it in a stainless tank that only holds 450-500ml. I use a Kalt tank that uses Paterson-style reels for this.

If that's not what you do, great! It's also not how I normally develop film. I don't think is produces the best results by far. But it does work for me repeatably and when I've wanted to do that it always works.

 

[NB23]

d76 entered the discussion because basically d76 is as random (and ridiculous) and exactly as effective as using rodinal, for dumbed down development methods.

Believe me, take any developer, don’t shake and extend it for 30 minutes, and you’ll have what you’re having with rodinal. Absolutely no magic involved, only bad technique mixed with a lot of magical thinking.

What are you even talking about? Where did Kodak's times for D76 enter the discussion? I _never_ even mentioned a dev time. What I did say was that you need a minimum of 6ml of developer. If you can do math, you can see that you need 600ml of water to do 1+100 with 6ml of developer. But that's cool, let's turn from discussion to attacks! Very productive and cool.

 

[relistan]

d76 entered the discussion because basically d76 is as random (and ridiculous) and exactly as effective as using rodinal, for dumbed down development methods.

Believe me, take any developer, don’t shake and extend it for 30 minutes, and you’ll have what you’re having with rodinal. Absolutely no magic involved, only bad technique mixed with a lot of magical thinking.

You realize I'm not the OP, right? He asked what happened with his semi-stand development in Rodinal, I said I am pretty sure what happened is that he didn't use enough Rodinal, that less than 6ml is not enough chemistry to develop the roll properly. I am not sure where all your angst is coming from. I am not even recommending that he develop it stand. That's what he's already doing. It's clear you think it's a bad way to develop film. Well, a lot of people disagree with you. The good thing is that everyone gets to do what they like and don't have to listen to what anyone else says. But, if someone is troubleshooting and asking for advice in an area I have a lot of experience, I will give it.

Is Rodinal stand/semi-stand the best way to develop film? In my opinion it is not. Does it work reliably if done properly? My experience is that it does. You and anyone else who disagree are free to do so, but personal attacks reveal your own character more than they say anything about mine.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

You realize I'm not the OP, right? He asked what happened with his semi-stand development in Rodinal, I said I am pretty sure what happened is that he didn't use enough Rodinal, that less than 6ml is not enough chemistry to develop the roll properly. I am not sure where all your angst is coming from. I am not even recommending that he develop it stand. That's what he's already doing. It's clear you think it's a bad way to develop film. Well, a lot of people disagree with you. The good thing is that everyone gets to do what they like and don't have to listen to what anyone else says. But, if someone is troubleshooting and asking for advice in an area I have a lot of experience, I will give it.

Is Rodinal stand/semi-stand the best way to develop film? In my opinion it is not. Does it work reliably if done properly? My experience is that it does. You and anyone else who disagree are free to do so, but personal attacks reveal your own character more than they say anything about mine.

Bromide drag is NOT caused by low developer level, it is caused by LOW turbulent flow of developer around sprocket holes.
It means that you have to agitate more frequently, agitate more vigorously, use the specified amount of developer solution recommended by the manufacturer. All in all it means that you have to abandon the stand method altogether.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

You know who never mentioned or suggested or recommended stand development with Rodinal? Agfa. If you think you know more about film development than Agfa did you are deluded.

Just don't do it.

I am really tired of good people, especially beginners, taking the bad advice of the jabrones on the internet who think it is a good idea.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

You know who never mentioned or suggested or recommended stand development with Rodinal? Agfa. If you think you know more about film development than Agfa did you are deluded.

Source?
Please prove it with a verifiable link.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It always cracks me up when the self anointed experts make their claims that they know more about film, paper, ... than Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, Agfa ... and then come back to complain about the products or development wasting our time and soaking up the bandwidth.

 

[NB23]

Source?
Please prove it with a verifiable link.

A verifiable link about someone not mentioning something?

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Source?
Please prove it with a verifiable link.

Are you serious?

How can I provide a link to something that never happened.

On the other hand you could find somewhere, anywhere, that Agfa recommended stand development. You'll never find it. Good luck wasting your time.

 

[cliveh]

Stand development is useful when developing lithographic material for recording fine detail, For general panchromatic material you need to agitate.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Are you serious?

How can I provide a link to something that never happened.

On the other hand you could find somewhere, anywhere, that Agfa recommended stand development. You'll never find it. Good luck wasting your time.

See, I will not waste my time since I never ever used the stand method. Nor I will.
But since there are some users here who continue to advocate the use of the stand method despite all the evidences that isn't going to work well, I posted such a request.
Call it a provocation.

 

[relistan]

See, I will not waste my time since I never ever used the stand method. Nor I will.
But since there are some users here who continue to advocate the use of the stand method despite all the evidences that isn't going to work well, I posted such a request.
Call it a provocation.

LOL. You don't even have to provide a provocation to some of these folks. They are just looking for anything to fight about!

"Someone on the Internet is wrong!"

 

[NB23]

LOL. You don't even have to provide a provocation to some of these folks. They are just looking for anything to fight about!

"Someone on the Internet is wrong!"

This is a serious forum, and a lot of connoisseurs decide to share their knowledge.

This is not a place to advocate, to recomend, stand development. It’s very bad advice.

 

[relistan]

This is a serious forum, and a lot of connoisseurs decide to share their knowledge.

This is not a place to advocate, to recomend, stand development. It’s very bad advice.

Good thing the forum cop is here!

 

[Sirius Glass]

<< Put on Snark Mask protection>>

 

[pentaxuser]

This is a serious forum, and a lot of connoisseurs decide to share their knowledge.

This is not a place to advocate, to recomend, stand development. It’s very bad advice.

As a forum we know there are serious advocates of stand development who appear to have complete success with it and we also know many who advocate against it on the basis that anything less than unmitigated disaster is sheer one-in-a-million luck. We know exactly the same about no pre-wet and always pre-wet. Surely both sets of parties are entitled to put forward their views? However what a forum might be able to do that is unique to a forum is to try and work out what the dangers might be and what the circumstances are that might result in the likes of bromide drag.

As I said there has to be a clear demonstrable reason for the likes of bromide drag that is backed by scientific evidence. If there is a source for then I can't recall anyone ever citing it.

There might be a case for using stand, for instance, in circumstances in which things have gone wrong at exposure etc that means bromide drag is worth the risk. If so then a summary of such circumstances would be helpful for anyone contemplating stand/ semi-stand

If all a forum can do every time a question is asked is to divide into parties who simply say "its the greatest or it's the pits and there is no discussion of any meaningful kind then a forum loses a lot of its raison d' etre, doesn't it?

pentaxuser

 

[DeletedAcct1]

As a forum we know there are serious advocates of stand development who appear to have complete success with it and we also know many who advocate against it on the basis that anything less than unmitigated disaster is sheer one-in-a-million luck. We know exactly the same about no pre-wet and always pre-wet. Surely both sets of parties are entitled to put forward their views? However what a forum might be able to do that is unique to a forum is to try and work out what the dangers might be and what the circumstances are that might result in the likes of bromide drag.

As I said there has to be a clear demonstrable reason for the likes of bromide drag that is backed by scientific evidence. If there is a source for then I can't recall anyone ever citing it.

There might be a case for using stand, for instance, in circumstances in which things have gone wrong at exposure etc that means bromide drag is worth the risk. If so then a summary of such circumstances would be helpful for anyone contemplating stand/ semi-stand

If all a forum can do every time a question is asked is to divide into parties who simply say "its the greatest or it's the pits and there is no discussion of any meaningful kind then a forum loses a lot of its raison d' etre, doesn't it?

pentaxuser

If only PhotoEngineer could be alive again...
Bromide drag HAS scientific evidence, isn't like a conventional drugs vs homeopatic debate...

 

[NB23]

Well... first; look at the op. I suspect that he chose stand development as a “bullet proof method”, a recommendation which he probably pulled out from the internet. Not from the manufacturer’s recommendation.

Secondly, stand is not recommended by manufacturers. They clearly recommend agitation.

There’s nothing to add to this. And yet, as the best possible example, you keep doubting and questioning.

Does Ilford recomend it? No? So?

As a forum we know there are serious advocates of stand development who appear to have complete success with it and we also know many who advocate against it on the basis that anything less than unmitigated disaster is sheer one-in-a-million luck. We know exactly the same about no pre-wet and always pre-wet. Surely both sets of parties are entitled to put forward their views? However what a forum might be able to do that is unique to a forum is to try and work out what the dangers might be and what the circumstances are that might result in the likes of bromide drag.

As I said there has to be a clear demonstrable reason for the likes of bromide drag that is backed by scientific evidence. If there is a source for then I can't recall anyone ever citing it.

There might be a case for using stand, for instance, in circumstances in which things have gone wrong at exposure etc that means bromide drag is worth the risk. If so then a summary of such circumstances would be helpful for anyone contemplating stand/ semi-stand

If all a forum can do every time a question is asked is to divide into parties who simply say "its the greatest or it's the pits and there is no discussion of any meaningful kind then a forum loses a lot of its raison d' etre, doesn't it?

pentaxuser

 

[relistan]

Well... first; look at the op. I suspect that he chose stand development as a “bullet proof method”, a recommendation which he probably pulled out from the internet. Not from the manufacturer’s recommendation.

Secondly, stand is not recommended by manufacturers. They clearly recommend agitation.

There’s nothing to add to this. And yet, as the best possible example, you keep doubting and questioning.

Does Ilford recomend it? No? So?

Someone asks for advice about how to do something better and one response is "don't do that". Which is what you said. Great! Another response is "Here's how you might do it better if you want to do that". It's then up to the original person to decide which advice they'd like to follow. I'm not sure why you continue to argue the point. But somehow you want to not just make your point but to also lay down a rule about what other people can say or do. That's just not on, man.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Someone asks for advice about how to do something better and one response is "don't do that". Which is what you said. Great! Another response is "Here's how you might do it better if you want to do that". It's then up to the original person to decide which advice they'd like to follow. I'm not sure why you continue to argue the point. But somehow you want to not just make your point but to also lay down a rule about what other people can say or do. That's just not on, man.

While I agree with general sense of what you said, stand high dilution development has to me a lot of logical gaps so I choose to ignore the idea altogether. And in that sense, if someone is asking about how to stand and another disagrees with the method, then it is valid 100% input and on the topic.

So to continnue in that direction, given the 99%+ of zero controlling activity from user in stand approach, I see too many things not being controlled at all. No doubt people have been successful using this method, many failed for likely exact same reasons others managed to succeed. Is it worth it? For this reason ... I`m out.

 

[relistan]

This will be my last comment in this thread. Folks should do what they want. If you don't like stand development don't do it. I almost never use this method any more because I prefer my results with other methods. Agfa, Ilford, Kodak all make(made) recommendations about how to best develop their products. If you want the best results, just do that. Don't experiment, just follow the paved path. If you want to try other things you should do it. Lots of people have had very good results with stand development. I had a couple failures early on, but what I posted works reliably for me. So do what you like.

Here are lots of results (not perfectly filtered, but 99% are correct) showing what people got with 1+100 stand. Some folks use Rodinal, others HC-110.

Flickr Search — “rodinal 1+100 stand”

www.flickr.com

 

[NB23]

Showing a link to people’s photos of results with stand development @1:100 only supports the fact that they have done that.
Just as young kids show videos of drifting with their cars. They do it, so it’s good? Not sure.

Besides, if you’re so keen on experimenting and making it a point on its validity, why don’t you use your pee? It’s been done and it’s on flickr, therefore it has to be good.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dskley/sets/72157630248791124/detail/

This will be my last comment in this thread. Folks should do what they want. If you don't like stand development don't do it. I almost never use this method any more because I prefer my results with other methods. Agfa, Ilford, Kodak all make(made) recommendations about how to best develop their products. If you want the best results, just do that. Don't experiment, just follow the paved path. If you want to try other things you should do it. Lots of people have had very good results with stand development. I had a couple failures early on, but what I posted works reliably for me. So do what you like.

Here are lots of results (not perfectly filtered, but 99% are correct) showing what people got with 1+100 stand. Some folks use Rodinal, others HC-110.

Flickr Search — “rodinal 1+100 stand”

www.flickr.com

 

[pentaxuser]

NB23 , from what little evidence I have seen I believe we do not attract any newcomers in any number and of those we do attract we need to address their questions a little less stridently. We do have newcomers who belong to a generation that want to experiment and learn by such experiments They are bound to want to try things and might learn from that even if it results in failure. Yes if they want to try what we may regard as downright nonsensical we should point it out but there is a way of pointing this out which doesn't put them off staying with us.

I have no idea how old you are but all I can say is that when I was in my late teens and early twenties the worse response for me was the one that said either "it can't be done or that's not how it is done and never has been with little or no attempt to explain what the pitfalls might be and how these might be mitigated.

The real coup de grace in terms of alienating me was always the stern "I told you so but you stupidly chose not to listen " When that was said either in more or less those words or words with that meaning I was tempted to reply to that person "Do you mean not listening while you were talking at me instead of to me?"

Did you react any differently at that age? I suspect not.

Do we each of us end up resembling our fathers, including me ? Probably and more than we should but it does, in my opinion, need guarding against

pentaxuser

 

[NB23]

I think it is important to be strict at the development stage if you want your efforts to be relevant in the least.

An improper development flushes down the drain everything: your choice of film and your careful exposure. Any analysis regarding film becomes totally Irrelevant if you develop in a sloppy way.

How can you judge tri-x if it’s not well developed? Is the grain you’re looking at really as it should be? The tones, are they as they should be? The contrast, is it optimal?

No, really: if you want all your efforts to be worth something then rigidity during development stage is paramount.

I’m all for creativity, but the development stage is not the place. No artist create art with stand development. That’s not where it’s happening.

This will be my last comment in this thread. Folks should do what they want. If you don't like stand development don't do it. I almost never use this method any more because I prefer my results with other methods. Agfa, Ilford, Kodak all make(made) recommendations about how to best develop their products. If you want the best results, just do that. Don't experiment, just follow the paved path. If you want to try other things you should do it. Lots of people have had very good results with stand development. I had a couple failures early on, but what I posted works reliably for me. So do what you like.

Here are lots of results (not perfectly filtered, but 99% are correct) showing what people got with 1+100 stand. Some folks use Rodinal, others HC-110.

Flickr Search — “rodinal 1+100 stand”

www.flickr.com

NB23 , from what little evidence I have seen I believe we do not attract any newcomers in any number and of those we do attract we need to address their questions a little less stridently. We do have newcomers who belong to a generation that want to experiment and learn by such experiments They are bound to want to try things and might learn from that even if it results in failure. Yes if they want to try what we may regard as downright nonsensical we should point it out but there is a way of pointing this out which doesn't put them off staying with us.

I have no idea how old you are but all I can say is that when I was in my late teens and early twenties the worse response for me was the one that said either "it can't be done or that's not how it is done and never has been with little or no attempt to explain what the pitfalls might be and how these might be mitigated.

The real coup de grace in terms of alienating me was always the stern "I told you so but you stupidly chose not to listen " When that was said either in more or less those words or words with that meaning I was tempted to reply to that person "Do you mean not listening while you were talking at me instead of to me?"

Did you react any differently at that age? I suspect not.

Do we each of us end up resembling our fathers, including me ? Probably and more than we should but it does, in my opinion, need guarding against

pentaxuser