These videos are AMAZING and fun to follow along. Thanks for all the hard work. It did cross my mind that you could interview an actual film scientist/chemist at the end - because they will likely explain your results with ease and credibility. It often seems like you are trying to reverse engineer the design of the system - when an actual designer or engineer would be able to explain how things work a certain way... and WHY. They usually love to do it also. Just a thought.
I am honestly shocked and speechless! Thanks a lot for this experiment. I was always feeling that harsher agitation would increase grain so I always tried to act extra smooth while agitating. I hope that Mark Przepiora might be right that it does with some developers to not feel like a total noob. I think a higher frequency of agitations only has an effect when the developer is getting weak in short time (high dillution) but with a strong developer there should be no difference if it is fresh to the surface or there for some seconds already. Anyway: Great, great work..thank you!
@@AzrielKnight not sure if affecting your process, but I cannot get my Nikon scanner to work so I could do these comparisons. My nikon seems to 'auto scan' regardless how I try to get 'manual setting' results for comparisons like for this experiment. I'd trust a wet prints with identical times (done immediately after each other so that any electrical fluctuation are minimal. Power voltages can change at different times of day)
Thank you for posting this interesting and informative video! I like to see people still keeping alive the art of film photography and techniques. Very well done,indeed!
I know, I’m late for the party, but I just wanted to leave my regards and thank you for these thorough experiments! I’d love to see more of these, since well-controlled experiments are still scarce on CZcams. Again, thank you very, very much!
Great video thanks! I think the slow agitation gave a little less shadow detail but the others are identical. The super vigorous agitation might reduce sharpness or even microcontrast but these are very subtle things that only a trained eye can see
This is now a dated video but it's one of the most important film photography videos ever made. In my 75 years opinion, agitation is more important than any other aspect of the film development process. How important is it? It's the difference between success or failure.
1/17/21 Welcome to the Zone System to pre determine how film will come out before exposer. Exposer can add or subtract to a film contrast combine with the type of developer used some developers are general film developer giving a normal grain and contrast range level combined with a temperature range and development time when used with the film info sheet to process the film. Other Developers are special for increased or less contrast along with harder or softer film grain again in combo with how the film was exposed. I once had a film developer that develop a roll of film in 1 1/2 minutes with great results along with a 2 minute fixer, giving great looking negatives that equal or better than with the normal film development process. I figure this was used in the News industry for when quick turn around was needed. Imagine being able to develop a film in less than 5 mins that gave normal looking negatives.
Thats so awesome that you did this. I’ve developed hundreds of rolls of film since starting photography 40 years ago ... and I’ve always tried so hard to be careful and consistent in my agitation. LOL 😂👍
I love it when you experiment with film. Much like "Learning with Dave Dugdale" for digital cameras and photos, you are fulfilling the same need / information with analog cameras. Keep them coming!!! :)
You don't know how much I appreciate this video. One of the things I always had doubt was about the agitation I never could see a difference not even in 120 film. I would be looking forward the video for the agitation frequency. I had in my notes from school very precise frequencies for agitation and teachers always remarked about it. Let's see. Regards.
When I was shooting 35mm film, they mostly turned out well when I developed them. Back then I was starting to learn how to develop film, and I tried different agitation method/frequency, I sometimes used the agitation rod to rotate because I through this were supposed to serve this purpose. Later I read from somewhere that said doing invention is the good way or you would have many bad effect so I did that. Nearly all the film turned out the same, they were equally good. However, when I started to shoot 120 film, things got weird. I really had to be careful to what I had been doing. Using the rod ruined the film, too much of agitation seemed ok, fixer not fresh would ruin the film and so on. I guess it just modern film are less sensitive to these changes as they were well made compared to old films. Could you do a similar experiment in 120 film?
Ok I've been looking at a few of your video's from all the ones online you Sir are the man... Now I know the most interesting man who is not drinking a beer.. lol. Keep doing what you do..
I am obsessed with your experimental videos already. Thanks for sharing! Cheers, I'll let you know if I think of other experiments for you to put to the test. happy shooting
I'm interested in time changes with negatives, perhaps with the fixer? What if, (with regards to your agitation frequency video), you agitated the fixer aggressively for a shorter amount of time? Just a thought. Thanks!
I'm currently taking a darkroom class on Mondays where I'll also be experimenting with different methods. Tomorrow I'll be developing a few Neopan 1600 rolls and Kentmere 400 rolls. I'll let you know what I find!
Have you compared styles of agitating? Using the stick compared to the common slow tumbling method compared to making the circling motion with your wrist whilst holding the tank but not tumbling it? I'm genuinely interested how it will turn out, especially the stick v tumbling. I'm amazed you found photographers that don't agree with each other, assuming those doing the developing in your research were photographers.
Thanks for the suggestion Mark. I'm not saying I wont try it sometime, but I feel after the testing on intensity, there'd be very little if any difference. I mean, look how I reefed on that stick, with little to no change. I'm still surprised.
For me this has perfectly sense (sorry for my english). Because if you don't agitate at all, the developer around the light zone, compared to dark zone, is consumed more fast and the negative will finally have less contrast. Agitating, the developer is kept fresh even in light area . But why the agitation method does not make any difference? Because could create any difference only if THE TIME THE DEVELOPER IS CONSUMED IN THE LIGHT AREA is fast enaugh to make difference in refresh when you agitate slow vs high. But it is not. Developer takes some seconds at least to be consumed in that areas, and agitation low garantue a vary good fresh developer in the same way if is high. If you agitate SUPER SLOW, you will probably see a difference (but we need to calculate what SUPER SLOW means).
ah confused this is the state of mind i live in excellent it looks like the low you can see smoke more clear but my mind plays tricks on me keep up the good vids thank you keep your stick on the ice aye
My negatives show a clearly observable difference in contrast between semi-stand development (60-120 mins in Rodinal, 1 x 5 sec inversion halfway) and conventional agitation (12 mins in Rodinal, 2 x 5secs agitation per min). However that's an extreme case. When I started out in photography many years ago, and before I had a clue what I was doing, I would sometimes cocktail shake the tank. As well as giving bubbles on the negative, it resulted in very high contrast negs. I reckon inversion agitation shows more of an effect because of the role of air in supplying new developer to the film surface. Incidentally, I once read an article that showed the relative effectiveness of leaving negatives and prints undisturbed in water as a means of washing. While the water requires replenishment to get rid of residues and ensure permanency, fixative migrated away from the surface of large format negatives without agitation. I wouldn't recommend the method exclusively, but if you're rushed or multitasking leaving negs to soak and changing the water when you have a moment is better than rinsing for a brief period.
Thanks for the insight! The first example you gave supports the current theory which is the frequency makes the contrast. I also agree that inversions vs agitation would probably produce more of a result.
Wow! Ive been believing a lie this whole time! I would be curious to see if more traditional formulas like rodinal, xtol or d76 are what experience the sprocket streaks at high agitation rates. Who knows, anyways thank you for putting this experiment together! I really enjoyed watching and seeing the results!
Please do try the variation of agitation frequency and compare it to a 'normal' method AND stand development. That would be super interesting to see the results of. I only stand dev due to laziness so I have no basis for comparison.
seems i am late to the party... there is no difference because you are rotating the spiral around the vertical axis. the liquid trapped inside the spiral volume is not moving against the film. if you would rapidly invert the tank, the liquid would rush against the film vertically with great speed. the first minute of development is when this would have a devastating effect on uniformity. since your film is sprocketed, the holes would leave very ugly streaks on the emulsion, ruining the photos. in case of 120 roll film, the spiral insert would leave turbulent marks on the photos - same effect, to a lesser degree. never over-agitate if you shoot for uniformity
This is fascinating. But, the film and developer you use might matter -- I understand that solvent developers (like Xtol) physically eat away at grain, so with those a difference in agitation might make a bigger difference (in terms of grain at least)?
A solvent developer, D-76 being the classic example, tends to have a relatively high concentration of sodium sulfite, which will etch or partly dissolve a silver oxide grain. Variation in the physical speed of agitation is not going to have significant effect on that chemical reaction. However, a larger total time of agitation for a given development period would. That is why, for example, Kodak recommends diluting one part of D-76 stock developer with two parts of water to make up your working developer solution if you want sharper grain. The diluted working developer holds one 1/3 the concentration of sulfite in solution.
I develop in a rondix35 tank which, by design, requires constant agitation. I'm happy with the results in grain and contrast, but never havig used any other tank I cannot really compare.
Hehe funny really. I pretty much only develop using hc-110 and if I do continius agitation on those rolls or if I let them stand for hours (like watching a movie or forgetting about tem or whatever) I can see no difference on the rolls, and by now I have developed at least 150 rolls this way. Let me say also that I go on hc-110 a little bit different; I fill the tanks with water until I know the films are below the water limit. Then I add 3,5ml hc-110 for 135(36) or 120 roll, or 1,5ml per 4x5" sheet. Using this method I can develop pretty much any film which is shot at box speed - which means that I mix films alot in the same tank. I would love to make a densiometer test between rolls developed this way and the "right" way, cause I find my negatives just as good as they can get. HOWEVER this works this way with hc-110. I have a feeling that your test would turn out different if you would have used rodinal instead. At least for the grain structure. Great show btw! :-)
@@AzrielKnight Correct. I make sure watertemp is between 20-24C firstly. I find HC far less sensitive to temperature and agitation than ie. rodinal, at least in terms of grain size or structure or general quality. From time to time I use continuous rolling (motor drive) too.
Here I've been not agitating too vigorously to prevent excess grain and contrast, and it's all a scam. I do however change my frequency with different developing combinations. I usually agitate for 5 seconds every 30 seconds, unless the total time longer (longer than 8 to 9 minutes) then I agitate 10 seconds every minute. I have no good reason why I do this. I started with always agitating 10 seconds a minute, don't know why I changed
I like these experiments. I heard different things needs agitation do not require agitation, now I see that it makes no difference. I have another question. I had developed BW only at home. I used before Ilford developer, bath stop and mixer. Do you need to store this chemicals to certain temperature and what is the estimated time that won't work anymore. I recently tried to develop 2 films and had no results. I have no idea if it is the chemicals too old or the film in some way was damaged.
Hi. All the time you are agitating you are getting fresh developer on the negs hence any differences are minor in your experiment. There are benefits to using stand development too. I use the 3 inversions every 30 seconds method. The developer is left standing against the film for roughly 25 seconds of every 30. If you were to try this method, you might end up extending your development times slightly but your negs may benefit. I disagree with your comment about needing to always have fresh developer against your negs. I also think you are more likely to get more even development with the inversion method than rotation but if you have not experienced that issue, it is of no consequence. Keep up the great work.
I am not too surprised at your results, a lack of noticeable differences based on vigor of agitation, as agitation speed will have minimal effect on the ratio of standing development time versus agitation time. Whatever increase in overall contrast you might have expected would be offset by the lower development temperature used for the fast agitation film. The more material debate is between [at their extremes] semi-stand, normal agitation, and continuous agitation, such as on a Jobo roller system. Conventional wisdom would hold that the time of agitation would result [for the same total development time] in more contrast, less grain sharpness and perhaps larger grain, everything else being equal. I'd welcome your test of that issue, but it's a lot of work,and you'd have to stabilize your development temperature. {Put the tank in a larger, temp adjusted water bath during development.]
Have you noticed any difference when using the agitation rod or doing inversions (apart from the mess from leaking)? I sometimes have problems with stripes and can't figure out if it's the chemicals or the agitation that is causing this.
I'll have to give this a try on my own. I shoot 4x5 and 6x6/6x7 and always develop in Pyrocat HD. Have my agitation down to a precise science including the rap on the counter. Have you seen this for divided (two bath) development as well?
Wow, different temps and you expect to see if agitation makes a difference. No . As long as you replenish developer touching film , fast or slow makes no difference. What does make a difference is time defference between agitation cycles which should be kept constant, 5 sec every 15 sec is same a continuous. 10 per 60 will give slightly less contrast than 5 every 30. Add 10% to make them the same. The two variables you can control are time & temp. Be very precise. Always agitate the SAME. Patterson tank agitation is stick only for initial agitation. Cap and invert for all others. Straight from the instructions. The empty volume at top insures vigorous agitation every time. "Surge marks" are from incomplete or uneven agitation. Not too fast. The stick tends to not replenish the middle of the film so you get an underdeveloped area down the center . No manufacturer except Adox years ago recommends presoak. Another internet myth. I hope you have not screwed up too many students.
How do you feel about the Jobo continuous developing method? Stay well clear of stainless steel tanks, they are more trouble that they are worth, I know from experience.
Funny, someone else just recommended the tanks, but I always figured I'd have issues loading the film on, especially expired and mystery film. I love the idea of the Jobo system, and wish I had one, would probably save me some time.
It saves both time and chemicals especially when it is a 200 mile round trip to buy them. I have the steel tanks 35mm and 120 but I never, ever use them, I no longer get half moon crimped negatives and negs. sticking to each other.
Interesting. Maybe shake (invert) instead of stirring? I started out with a similar Paterson tank, but soon switched to stainless steel. Used less liquid, and somehow seemed "cleaner". A little more difficult to load, though. Why prewash? What is the purpose of the prewash?
Thanks for the suggestion Merlin. My logic for pre-wash is to 1. swell the emulsion to better receive the chemicals 2. remove any dust or artifacts that may have got in, as I develop a lot of expired film (if people roll their own film this would be even more important) 3. help bring the tank to the developing temperature. It's 5 Celsius right now in my darkroom, those tanks are cold, and if I had steel ones I'd definitely have to pre-wash to warm them, otherwise when I pour the developer the temp is going to drop drastically. Hope that answers it!
I'm not surprised, you can't call this an accurate test. For instance, temperature control is missing, you are guessing. You are judging by the eye, and later with a loop, but i think you should judge it in the final print. Not on a computerscreen.
I've considered printing, but other factors I thought of were things like, temp change in the developer for each print, the variation on scanning the paper individually, which is the right contrast filter to use with my Multigrade paper, etc. At least with the negatives all on the scanner at the same time it shows the relativity to each other, and let's be honest, most people are scanning their negatives these days.
Hi Azriel, I understand your thought, but it's possible to make a setup/do the test with these variables/factors. I guess there are a lot of hybrid workers but there still is a large crowd making wet prints in the darkroom. Have a nice weekend and shoot some film! Regards, Paul
Just come across this article yesterday: www.diyphotography.net/get-best-contrast-detail-developing-black-white-film/ what you you think about this? Great work. Cheers
If I ever come across one I'll snatch it up. Not sure I would pay full price though :) I like the IDEA of using them, but I'm too accustomed to the easy loading of a paterson.
Steel tanks tend to be a bit more efficient, taking a smaller volume of solution to do the same job. The ones with steel tops tend to leak; the ones with plastic tops do not leak. The steel wire reels they require can be fairly easy to load or a disaster, depending on their quality. They can be re-used immediately if necessary, whereas end-feed plastic reels [i.e., Paterson] must be completely dry to load. Try a 16oz steel tank and Nikor brand reels, the older the better. They are plentiful and cheap on Ebay.
So what about the sprocket holes marks...? I always believed that the cause of those sprocket holes marks was an agressive or vigorous agitation, but this let me speechles... Can anyone tell me why those marks still appearing on mi color negatives? I develop them at mi home. Help me!
I just finnish to develop a 2 Fujii c200 with the Kodak Flexicolor kit. A few taps on the bottom to remove bubble spots, 2 inversions every 30sec, 21 minutes at 21 deegrees. The sprocket holes marks appears on the bottom one in some frames, not in all of them. In the top one there´s any marks... IDK what's going on bad...
Your experimental videos, I've found three, are amazing and I appreciate you sir.
Thanks very much :)
These videos are AMAZING and fun to follow along. Thanks for all the hard work. It did cross my mind that you could interview an actual film scientist/chemist at the end - because they will likely explain your results with ease and credibility. It often seems like you are trying to reverse engineer the design of the system - when an actual designer or engineer would be able to explain how things work a certain way... and WHY. They usually love to do it also. Just a thought.
Hey that is my City! I see the Tower peeking out there. Love your videos!
Thanks Kent :)
I am honestly shocked and speechless! Thanks a lot for this experiment. I was always feeling that harsher agitation would increase grain so I always tried to act extra smooth while agitating. I hope that Mark Przepiora might be right that it does with some developers to not feel like a total noob. I think a higher frequency of agitations only has an effect when the developer is getting weak in short time (high dillution) but with a strong developer there should be no difference if it is fresh to the surface or there for some seconds already. Anyway: Great, great work..thank you!
Thanks for the input. I hope the vid shows just how shocked I was, because man, I didn't expect such a non result.
@@AzrielKnight not sure if affecting your process, but I cannot get my Nikon scanner to work so I could do these comparisons. My nikon seems to 'auto scan' regardless how I try to get 'manual setting' results for comparisons like for this experiment.
I'd trust a wet prints with identical times (done immediately after each other so that any electrical fluctuation are minimal. Power voltages can change at different times of day)
Thank you for posting this interesting and informative video! I like to see people still keeping alive the art of film photography and techniques. Very well done,indeed!
Thanks for watching I'm glad you enjoyed it :)
I know, I’m late for the party, but I just wanted to leave my regards and thank you for these thorough experiments! I’d love to see more of these, since well-controlled experiments are still scarce on CZcams.
Again, thank you very, very much!
Great video thanks! I think the slow agitation gave a little less shadow detail but the others are identical. The super vigorous agitation might reduce sharpness or even microcontrast but these are very subtle things that only a trained eye can see
This is now a dated video but it's one of the most important film photography videos ever made. In my 75 years opinion, agitation is more important than any other aspect of the film development process. How important is it? It's the difference between success or failure.
Even though the results seem a bit mundane Azriel, it's nevertheless valuable info. Thanks a bunch!
Thanks Peter!
1/17/21 Welcome to the Zone System to pre determine how film will come out before exposer. Exposer can add or subtract to a film contrast combine with the type of developer used some developers are general film developer giving a normal grain and contrast range level combined with a temperature range and development time when used with the film info sheet to process the film. Other Developers are special for increased or less contrast along with harder or softer film grain again in combo with how the film was exposed.
I once had a film developer that develop a roll of film in 1 1/2 minutes with great results along with a 2 minute fixer, giving great looking negatives that equal or better than with the normal film development process. I figure this was used in the News industry for when quick turn around was needed. Imagine being able to develop a film in less than 5 mins that gave normal looking negatives.
Thats so awesome that you did this. I’ve developed hundreds of rolls of film since starting photography 40 years ago ... and I’ve always tried so hard to be careful and consistent in my agitation. LOL 😂👍
Thanks :) Some developers may have different results but I don't think it'll ruin the film.
I love it when you experiment with film. Much like "Learning with Dave Dugdale" for digital cameras and photos, you are fulfilling the same need / information with analog cameras. Keep them coming!!! :)
Thanks I appreciate it!
You don't know how much I appreciate this video. One of the things I always had doubt was about the agitation I never could see a difference not even in 120 film. I would be looking forward the video for the agitation frequency. I had in my notes from school very precise frequencies for agitation and teachers always remarked about it. Let's see. Regards.
I'm glad you got something out of it, I was shocked for sure. I think we'll see a difference with frequency, we have to!
Great vid!
When I was shooting 35mm film, they mostly turned out well when I developed them. Back then I was starting to learn how to develop film, and I tried different agitation method/frequency, I sometimes used the agitation rod to rotate because I through this were supposed to serve this purpose. Later I read from somewhere that said doing invention is the good way or you would have many bad effect so I did that. Nearly all the film turned out the same, they were equally good. However, when I started to shoot 120 film, things got weird. I really had to be careful to what I had been doing. Using the rod ruined the film, too much of agitation seemed ok, fixer not fresh would ruin the film and so on. I guess it just modern film are less sensitive to these changes as they were well made compared to old films. Could you do a similar experiment in 120 film?
Ok I've been looking at a few of your video's from all the ones online you Sir are the man... Now I know the most interesting man who is not drinking a beer.. lol. Keep doing what you do..
Thanks Anthony but I'm sorry to say I just released my last video.
wow I am very surprised at your results... Thanks for doing this video. It was very helpful.
Thanks for the comment Scott! Glad you liked it!
I loved the expression when you looked at the developed film. 😅👍
Thanks :)
very interesting. glad you made this video, answers a lot of questions!
Thanks daf!
I am obsessed with your experimental videos already. Thanks for sharing! Cheers, I'll let you know if I think of other experiments for you to put to the test. happy shooting
Thanks Joey! What do you think I should do next? 1. How temperature affects the negative, or 2. How time affects the negative?
I'm interested in time changes with negatives, perhaps with the fixer? What if, (with regards to your agitation frequency video), you agitated the fixer aggressively for a shorter amount of time? Just a thought. Thanks!
I'm currently taking a darkroom class on Mondays where I'll also be experimenting with different methods. Tomorrow I'll be developing a few Neopan 1600 rolls and Kentmere 400 rolls. I'll let you know what I find!
Thanks for the suggestion!
Haha thanks dude to make this expriment ! It is very educative !
Have you compared styles of agitating? Using the stick compared to the common slow tumbling method compared to making the circling motion with your wrist whilst holding the tank but not tumbling it? I'm genuinely interested how it will turn out, especially the stick v tumbling.
I'm amazed you found photographers that don't agree with each other, assuming those doing the developing in your research were photographers.
Thanks for the suggestion Mark. I'm not saying I wont try it sometime, but I feel after the testing on intensity, there'd be very little if any difference. I mean, look how I reefed on that stick, with little to no change. I'm still surprised.
Loved the video!!!! Keep it up, love the content! 🙉💯💪🏼
Thanks so much Joel
For me this has perfectly sense (sorry for my english). Because if you don't agitate at all, the developer around the light zone, compared to dark zone, is consumed more fast and the negative will finally have less contrast. Agitating, the developer is kept fresh even in light area . But why the agitation method does not make any difference? Because could create any difference only if THE TIME THE DEVELOPER IS CONSUMED IN THE LIGHT AREA is fast enaugh to make difference in refresh when you agitate slow vs high. But it is not. Developer takes some seconds at least to be consumed in that areas, and agitation low garantue a vary good fresh developer in the same way if is high. If you agitate SUPER SLOW, you will probably see a difference (but we need to calculate what SUPER SLOW means).
ah confused this is the state of mind i live in excellent it looks like the low you can see smoke more clear but my mind plays tricks on me keep up the good vids thank you keep your stick on the ice aye
I just looked at the negatives again. I think I see what you mean but that's just the shape of the smoke on the tower changing as time goes.
I wondered about this for years but have always been too lazy to test myself. I hope you make the frequency of agitation video. Thanks.
Thanks for the comment Eric!
My negatives show a clearly observable difference in contrast between semi-stand development (60-120 mins in Rodinal, 1 x 5 sec inversion halfway) and conventional agitation (12 mins in Rodinal, 2 x 5secs agitation per min). However that's an extreme case.
When I started out in photography many years ago, and before I had a clue what I was doing, I would sometimes cocktail shake the tank. As well as giving bubbles on the negative, it resulted in very high contrast negs. I reckon inversion agitation shows more of an effect because of the role of air in supplying new developer to the film surface.
Incidentally, I once read an article that showed the relative effectiveness of leaving negatives and prints undisturbed in water as a means of washing. While the water requires replenishment to get rid of residues and ensure permanency, fixative migrated away from the surface of large format negatives without agitation. I wouldn't recommend the method exclusively, but if you're rushed or multitasking leaving negs to soak and changing the water when you have a moment is better than rinsing for a brief period.
Thanks for the insight! The first example you gave supports the current theory which is the frequency makes the contrast. I also agree that inversions vs agitation would probably produce more of a result.
Verrry enlightening!!
Thanks!
Man I love your intro! :D
Thanks :)
Wow! Ive been believing a lie this whole time! I would be curious to see if more traditional formulas like rodinal, xtol or d76 are what experience the sprocket streaks at high agitation rates. Who knows, anyways thank you for putting this experiment together! I really enjoyed watching and seeing the results!
Nick Exposed agreed. id like to retry with a fussier film or dev. thanks for the comment.
Please do try the variation of agitation frequency and compare it to a 'normal' method AND stand development. That would be super interesting to see the results of. I only stand dev due to laziness so I have no basis for comparison.
Thanks Nelson. It's on my short list for sure.
The length of the agitation will make a difference. Agitate for 4 minutes non-stop, for example ;)
That's what I'm hearing now. The frequency makes the difference.
seems i am late to the party...
there is no difference because you are rotating the spiral around the vertical axis. the liquid trapped inside the spiral volume is not moving against the film. if you would rapidly invert the tank, the liquid would rush against the film vertically with great speed. the first minute of development is when this would have a devastating effect on uniformity. since your film is sprocketed, the holes would leave very ugly streaks on the emulsion, ruining the photos. in case of 120 roll film, the spiral insert would leave turbulent marks on the photos - same effect, to a lesser degree. never over-agitate if you shoot for uniformity
This is fascinating. But, the film and developer you use might matter -- I understand that solvent developers (like Xtol) physically eat away at grain, so with those a difference in agitation might make a bigger difference (in terms of grain at least)?
Mark Przepiora might be something to look into.
A solvent developer, D-76 being the classic example, tends to have a relatively high concentration of sodium sulfite, which will etch or partly dissolve a silver oxide grain. Variation in the physical speed of agitation is not going to have significant effect on that chemical reaction. However, a larger total time of agitation for a given development period would. That is why, for example, Kodak recommends diluting one part of D-76 stock developer with two parts of water to make up your working developer solution if you want sharper grain. The diluted working developer holds one 1/3 the concentration of sulfite in solution.
I develop in a rondix35 tank which, by design, requires constant agitation. I'm happy with the results in grain and contrast, but never havig used any other tank I cannot really compare.
That's a nifty looking tank!
Hehe funny really. I pretty much only develop using hc-110 and if I do continius agitation on those rolls or if I let them stand for hours (like watching a movie or forgetting about tem or whatever) I can see no difference on the rolls, and by now I have developed at least 150 rolls this way. Let me say also that I go on hc-110 a little bit different; I fill the tanks with water until I know the films are below the water limit. Then I add 3,5ml hc-110 for 135(36) or 120 roll, or 1,5ml per 4x5" sheet. Using this method I can develop pretty much any film which is shot at box speed - which means that I mix films alot in the same tank. I would love to make a densiometer test between rolls developed this way and the "right" way, cause I find my negatives just as good as they can get. HOWEVER this works this way with hc-110. I have a feeling that your test would turn out different if you would have used rodinal instead. At least for the grain structure. Great show btw! :-)
Let me make sure I have this right. You pour water onto the film, then add the hc directly and start the dev that way?
@@AzrielKnight Correct. I make sure watertemp is between 20-24C firstly. I find HC far less sensitive to temperature and agitation than ie. rodinal, at least in terms of grain size or structure or general quality. From time to time I use continuous rolling (motor drive) too.
Here I've been not agitating too vigorously to prevent excess grain and contrast, and it's all a scam. I do however change my frequency with different developing combinations. I usually agitate for 5 seconds every 30 seconds, unless the total time longer (longer than 8 to 9 minutes) then I agitate 10 seconds every minute. I have no good reason why I do this. I started with always agitating 10 seconds a minute, don't know why I changed
Perhaps I didn't look hard enough for grain difference but man I just didn't see anything, and considering how hard I went....
I like these experiments. I heard different things needs agitation do not require agitation, now I see that it makes no difference. I have another question. I had developed BW only at home. I used before Ilford developer, bath stop and mixer. Do you need to store this chemicals to certain temperature and what is the estimated time that won't work anymore. I recently tried to develop 2 films and had no results. I have no idea if it is the chemicals too old or the film in some way was damaged.
Hi. All the time you are agitating you are getting fresh developer on the negs hence any differences are minor in your experiment. There are benefits to using stand development too. I use the 3 inversions every 30 seconds method. The developer is left standing against the film for roughly 25 seconds of every 30. If you were to try this method, you might end up extending your development times slightly but your negs may benefit. I disagree with your comment about needing to always have fresh developer against your negs.
I also think you are more likely to get more even development with the inversion method than rotation but if you have not experienced that issue, it is of no consequence. Keep up the great work.
Hi Julian, thanks for the comment and feedback. I also disagreed with my comment about fresh developer by the end of the video :)
I am not too surprised at your results, a lack of noticeable differences based on vigor of agitation, as agitation speed will have minimal effect on the ratio of standing development time versus agitation time. Whatever increase in overall contrast you might have expected would be offset by the lower development temperature used for the fast agitation film. The more material debate is between [at their extremes] semi-stand, normal agitation, and continuous agitation, such as on a Jobo roller system. Conventional wisdom would hold that the time of agitation would result [for the same total development time] in more contrast, less grain sharpness and perhaps larger grain, everything else being equal. I'd welcome your test of that issue, but it's a lot of work,and you'd have to stabilize your development temperature. {Put the tank in a larger, temp adjusted water bath during development.]
"stirred nor shaken"...
Bingo :)
I recently heard about
(5)
Cinestill DF96 Monobath for Black & White Film (1L) . have you ever used it?
Have you noticed any difference when using the agitation rod or doing inversions (apart from the mess from leaking)? I sometimes have problems with stripes and can't figure out if it's the chemicals or the agitation that is causing this.
I'll have to give this a try on my own. I shoot 4x5 and 6x6/6x7 and always develop in Pyrocat HD. Have my agitation down to a precise science including the rap on the counter. Have you seen this for divided (two bath) development as well?
Can you explain two bath?
Wow, different temps and you expect to see if agitation makes a difference. No . As long as you replenish developer touching film , fast or slow makes no difference.
What does make a difference is time defference between agitation cycles which should be kept constant, 5 sec every 15 sec is same a continuous. 10 per 60 will give slightly less contrast than 5 every 30. Add 10% to make them the same.
The two variables you can control are time & temp. Be very precise. Always agitate the SAME.
Patterson tank agitation is stick only for initial agitation. Cap and invert for all others. Straight from the instructions. The empty volume at top insures vigorous agitation every time.
"Surge marks" are from incomplete or uneven agitation. Not too fast. The stick tends to not replenish the middle of the film so you get an underdeveloped area down the center .
No manufacturer except Adox years ago recommends presoak. Another internet myth. I hope you have not screwed up too many students.
czcams.com/video/9iDcggT3l0I/video.html
Why not use the inversion method rather than agitation?
why?
I expected a response, not a counter-question.
How do you feel about the Jobo continuous developing method? Stay well clear of stainless steel tanks, they are more trouble that they are worth, I know from experience.
Funny, someone else just recommended the tanks, but I always figured I'd have issues loading the film on, especially expired and mystery film.
I love the idea of the Jobo system, and wish I had one, would probably save me some time.
It saves both time and chemicals especially when it is a 200 mile round trip to buy them. I have the steel tanks 35mm and 120 but I never, ever use them, I no longer get half moon crimped negatives and negs. sticking to each other.
Interesting. Maybe shake (invert) instead of stirring? I started out with a similar Paterson tank, but soon switched to stainless steel. Used less liquid, and somehow seemed "cleaner". A little more difficult to load, though. Why prewash? What is the purpose of the prewash?
Thanks for the suggestion Merlin. My logic for pre-wash is to 1. swell the emulsion to better receive the chemicals 2. remove any dust or artifacts that may have got in, as I develop a lot of expired film (if people roll their own film this would be even more important) 3. help bring the tank to the developing temperature. It's 5 Celsius right now in my darkroom, those tanks are cold, and if I had steel ones I'd definitely have to pre-wash to warm them, otherwise when I pour the developer the temp is going to drop drastically. Hope that answers it!
Azriel Knight Yes, thanks for the explanation and information.
what is the best developer that offers you a nice contrast and less noise? I had only tried Ilford.
I'm not surprised, you can't call this an accurate test. For instance, temperature control is missing, you are guessing.
You are judging by the eye, and later with a loop, but i think you should judge it in the final print. Not on a computerscreen.
I've considered printing, but other factors I thought of were things like, temp change in the developer for each print, the variation on scanning the paper individually, which is the right contrast filter to use with my Multigrade paper, etc. At least with the negatives all on the scanner at the same time it shows the relativity to each other, and let's be honest, most people are scanning their negatives these days.
Hi Azriel,
I understand your thought, but it's possible to make a setup/do the test with these variables/factors. I guess there are a lot of hybrid workers but there still is a large crowd making wet prints in the darkroom.
Have a nice weekend and shoot some film!
Regards, Paul
Just come across this article yesterday:
www.diyphotography.net/get-best-contrast-detail-developing-black-white-film/
what you you think about this?
Great work. Cheers
I think I want to try Fromapan now :)
Did you ever tried stand development?
Recently on some mystery film (expired and exposed). I'm going to try again at some point.
Try a stainless steel reel.
How come?
Azriel Knight more surface area contact with chemicals? not sure but I have better results using them. cleaner. just throwing it out there.
If I ever come across one I'll snatch it up. Not sure I would pay full price though :) I like the IDEA of using them, but I'm too accustomed to the easy loading of a paterson.
Steel tanks tend to be a bit more efficient, taking a smaller volume of solution to do the same job. The ones with steel tops tend to leak; the ones with plastic tops do not leak. The steel wire reels they require can be fairly easy to load or a disaster, depending on their quality. They can be re-used immediately if necessary, whereas end-feed plastic reels [i.e., Paterson] must be completely dry to load. Try a 16oz steel tank and Nikor brand reels, the older the better. They are plentiful and cheap on Ebay.
So what about the sprocket holes marks...?
I always believed that the cause of those sprocket holes marks was an agressive or vigorous agitation, but this let me speechles...
Can anyone tell me why those marks still appearing on mi color negatives? I develop them at mi home.
Help me!
Honestly I'm still confused as well. I feel like it may happen with some film developer combos and not others, but I really don't know either.
Or perhaps it requires inversions.
I just finnish to develop a 2 Fujii c200 with the Kodak Flexicolor kit. A few taps on the bottom to remove bubble spots, 2 inversions every 30sec, 21 minutes at 21 deegrees. The sprocket holes marks appears on the bottom one in some frames, not in all of them. In the top one there´s any marks... IDK what's going on bad...
Camera light leak sounds like.