How Does Agitation Frequency Affect a Negative? | Days of Knight 170211.7-044
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 02. 2017
- ABOUT THIS VIDEO
On today's show I answer an old darkroom question: How does frequency of developer agitation affect the negative? Does it affect the contrast or is that a myth?
MUSIC BY
**"From Nowhere" By Bigyarus
/ from-nowhere
**" Maimi Nights” by Aries Beats
/ miami
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
I think the general guideline when doing continuous agitation (like with a machine) is to reduce the development time by about 15% and go for there. The published times are generally based on intermittent agitation. However, the 15% is just a starting point. One has to go from there. Also, generally constant agitation will increase contrast. So, what one ends up as their final will depend upon how one likes to print or if one is scanning. Flatter contrast is generally better for scanning but not for printing.
7:48 - Thanks for setting up the shot in a way to include your cat. Cats are always appreciated 🙏
I am so glad there are people like you on CZcams to challenge these topics - thanks for taking the time to perform these tests A+
I've just bought a kit to develop B/W film, and after watching this video I'll agitate the shit out of my film, the constant agitation looks sooooooo cool, like an already edited in Lightroom version of the picture, amazing! And I prefer to "edit" pictures this way, it feels more fun than in Lightroom...
I agree. The constant agitation looks the best. Very cool experiment!
Thanks for watching :)
Thanks for taking the time and doing this! Well done!
Great video Azriel !!!! Keep it up man :)
Thanks!!
Great work, Azriel!!
Thanks!
Thanks for this video. This is a very good experiment. Nice work. Very useful and interesting. Sold on mo' agitation.
Great video and results, it will urge me to increase agitation. Thank you.
Hey Azriel. I know you recording this a month ago, but wanted to come back in and say thanks again for this experiment. Seems like a little thing, but I've found it very liberating not stressing about agitation with the dozen or so rolls I've development since. Thanks for this video!
That's awesome! I'm glad I could be of some help!
I was going to reply the same thing... the most I got out of these experiments is that it's not so critical as I thought it was. I was afraid too much agitation was just as bad as too little. That if I wasn't gentle I would destroy my negatives. It's stressed by even Ilford to do it a very certain way. Goes to show you... I think this 'standard' information has been passed down from teacher to student for a long time now without ever really questioning why. I think the standard way is just a middle of the road way to get good results. It doesn't require you standing there agitating the whole time wearing you out but it does it enough to still get good negatives. I gotta' say though.. the agitation speed didn't mean much at all. My guess is it's more about getting air bubbles stuck on your film than it is anything else. Aggressively agitating would mix in more air into the solution and potentially cause air bubbles to stick. That's just a guess though.
@@lycosa2000 I just got to third that. Now when I feel like agitating, I can just do it!
Also might there be a way to get TriX to look like the constant agitation one, without constantly agitating? Like increase development time for a minute, or + 2 degrees...
This is amazing! Thanks!
What an eye opener, that is amazing, will go for constant agitation next time for sure. I am really a novice in developing and I have a lot of odd and very old film, some of it very slow indeed, so I am learning all the time all aspects of photography, great fun. Thank you.
Very informative, helpful info. Thank you
Good job, Azriel ! Interesting to see the difference.
Thanks :)
Amazing results!! thanks for sharing!
Thanks Jose!
Thank you! I have asked myself this question a lot of time and finally with your video I've found an answer!
Glad I could help :)
Excellent Azriel, many thanks for this video. I always wondered what the effect would be concerning agitation, and now i know. Many thanks. Liked and subscribed. Keep up the good work.
Thanks Michael, glad I could help.
Thanks for the video Azirel! It's good to know that I don't need to worry as much as I thought about agitation.
Glad you got something from it Ben, thanks for watching :)
Hey, Azriel, and thank you so much for all these great videos! I discovered your channel 4-5 days ago and i think i have watched all you videos. Here is what i really like about your videos:
1. They are long enough so that you can eat something while watching - no need to whipe that chicken off your hands and search for a different video - love that
2. Its so cool that you are experimenting with all factors of analog photography. In the beginning i actually thought there was a "correct" way to develope. Not a chance.
3. You are showing us how one can get great results with dirt cheap cameras. 620, 110, brownies etc. We all have them but i guess we never shoot them. Its easier to grab the working camera. So thanks for putting the spotlight on the old bangers.
Lastly i have a suggestion for this series of developing you got going on. If you search "developing b&w at home" on youtube, open the 20 first videos im sure you will find almost 20 ways of agitating/stirring/whatever its called. I always wonder about that when i develope. Does it matter if i invert, use the stick, rotate while invert, "oooh dont shake it!!""never ever ever ever counter clock wize" (i made that last one up, but you thought it was real, right?). I should do that video my self, but i dont have a proper darkroom to make it scientific, and besides - you have this awsome series going on!
Thank you Tri-X roll, for your noble sacrifice. We appreciate it!
lol, you're welcome :)
I'm glad I saw this. I started aggitating around 5x ever 30sec and loved the results. But of course being new to all this that wasn't "recommended".
Saw this and it makes so much sense now. Thank you.
Glad I could help!
@@AzrielKnight I started developing my own film this year.
You absolutely picked up a new subscriber.
Great video and very useful to help us to understand what many of us do mechanically :)
Thanks man!
Glad you enjoyed it diego!
Great experiment and very helpful, thanks!
You are very welcome :)
Thanks for doing this. You would expect lower contrast from the stand development because the developer close to the developed areas becomes exhausted and works less well. To really compare the different techniques, you have to adjust the stand development time to get good black/highlight areas. Scan at 2400 dpi with the lightest in-scanner sharpening ( I have an epson 4990, and am guessing yours is similar) Give each image the best settings when scanning ( give each its own back and white point ) Or better yet, make the best print you can with each and scan _that_
With stand development, you can expect to get tonal separation in both deep shadows and top highlights, but the overall 'tonality' of the image may be reduced ( I take 'tonality' to mean how real life' the image looks ) It will turn a linear response curve ( things like TMax) into a S-curve (tri-x)
S-curves let you make exposure mistakes and still get decent images. The best 'tonality' comes with perfectly exposed linear response films, but if you screw up it looks awful.
That's a really useful experiment - thanks for going to the trouble to do it and share it.
Thanks Graham!
Dear Azriel, Thanks a lot for your shown experiments. I thought about doing the same before finding your tests on youtube. So I saved not only some time. At the end I was really surprised about the results. brgds Thomas
Glad I could help Thomas!
Dude, thanks for the vid. Special point for you smile when you getting films out of the tanks, i was smiling just as you did, felt like i spent few minutes with a friend doing some good experiment. gg, really
Hey, that's a really nice thing to say, thanks Jean :)
Outstanding test boss. You're an asset to the film community.
Thanks Ray :)
Thank you for this video, very informative!
Glad I could help Marek
I am very appreciated in your effort, that you made very very good knowledge VDO in film processing!
Thanks :)
i think you mean video
Another thing you might try is constant film development while changing the exposer time when shooting the film it will result in changing contrast curve much like the Zone system does with sheet film. I learned this method to use it on roll film so you I could have a roll of film with normal exposer and over exposer or normal exposer and under exposer. The results of this is on over exposer will push the tonal range a lot greater details in shadow details, while under exposer will keep the details in the highlights. Much like what we can now do in digital when shooting to expand or contract the tonal range EV steps.
I tried it and I guess it makes a difference. I will stir the tank uninterrupted every time now on. Thanks !
Interesting experiment! Thank you very much for sharing.
Thanks for watching :)
Excellent and very informative video
Thank you very much :)
40 years of film work and never even thought to question the why... What a great video and test on film agitation. There have been a couple of times over the years where I have just plain messed up my dilution on my developer and have had to take a wild guess on times/agitation. I got lucky, but the agitation was my biggest concern. I see now that I have a lot more lee way in agitation. Great job and I look forward to following more of your videos
Thank you Scott!
Great video Azirel! I've been developing since the mid 70's and we were taught to agitate the entire time and so that's what I've always done with great results. That whole rolling/hand tumbling thing always seemed strange to me. Thanks for proving it out.
so you gently roll the tank around the whole time? i want to learn the methods of the 70s too! 🤗
Thank you so much. After 30 I start to develop my films myself again.Its so nce to see negatives who tell already a story by them self. And afther your movie I move my tank as much I can for super dooper contrast.
Glad I could be of help!
Thanks, very nice info here
You're Welcome Roman.
This was helpful. Thanks
You're welcome!
Excellent video! After 20+ years of shooting digital, I finally dusted off my original F1 and started using it again. Now confident that I remember what I'm doing with the camera, I'm starting to get back into the darkroom. I get the feeling your channel has already answered most of the things I've been wondering about, making my reeducation a breeze!
Congrats on picking up film again!
Standard development times always presume using "normal" agitation. If you change agitation then you have to adjust dev times accordingly.
Good job on this boss, really good to finally see examples rather than reading about Theory, this should be required watching for all film photography students. Respect
Thanks for the compliment :) Glad you enjoyed it :)
Thanks. Now I have to try it for myself 😀👍
so great. going to try higher agitatation freq in my next roll now that i've seen this.
Be sure and let me know how it goes!!
Thank you for going through all the trouble in these experiments, I really appreciate all the info and with such meticulous attention given to the experiment is hard to dislike any of it. Keep it up, thank you again
Thanks I really appreciate that. Let me know if there's an experiment you'd like to see.
Azriel Knight you've earned yourself another subscriber. The fact that you show your set-ups, gear, mistakes, thoughts and ideas along with some advice. You definitely need a bigger audience and more people need a fellow artist/scientist going through what you do to learn together.
Thanks man, always brightens my day when I hear those kind of compliments!
Azriel Knight, Thats awesome, thank you for replying! I believe people should complement not just click a thumbs up button. If you're ever in California we should go shoot together. I do both, digital and analog but I'll take both. My XPAN and A7RII. I love the nerdy 80's theme btw. 👏
love the TNG figures
nice video!!
Thank you!!
I'm still somewhat new to film development and have yet to get the results I was expecting. But I just tried the constant agitation method on 2 rolls using Rodinal 1:50 (7.5min) and 1:100 (20min). And I'm just blown away with the results! In all actuality, I wasn't agitating 100% of the time, but probably more like 80-85%. Took a few little breaks here and there. I also used standard tap water @20 deg. Thanks for taking the time putting this video together! New subscriber!
Hey John, thanks for subbing. The one thing people have said is that some films and devs will give more dramatic results. With that in mind things like auto developers do constant agitation as well do I don't expect any combination to produce unwanted results.
Your conclusion is what is already well published. I think a more interesting test would be to adjust development time for agitation methods so the density is the same from shot to shot. Then compare shadow and highlight detail
link?
Thank you !! Interesting experiment.
No problem :)
Excellent two videos. On a dull day, agitate more, on a really bright day agitate less, all things being equal. Now all I need is a basement darkroom.
lol, well, you don't need one. I don't have this darkroom anymore (spoilers)
Results are more pronounced when doing reversal processing - you can really see the differences in straight positive projection : )
Thanks, very useful experiment
Glad I could help
Great video, I think jobo figured that out since it constantly agitates. But then again without your video, I wouldn't have a reason to consider that. Thank you for that .
Thanks Larry. A realization I came to as well :)
THANK YOU!! I've always wanted to do this but never could be bothered going though all the rigmarole. :)
no problem :)
one thing with Stand development is that you must extend the development time. to do Stand development correctly, you have to pretty much triple the time that the film is in the developer. if you only give the standard amount of time in the developer will never give correct results.
thank you for this video, I thought I was agitating to much ( 5 sec every 30 sec) but every thing worked out fine. I kinda like the look of the constant ag. I will try in on the next roll I develop. thanks much, BTW I am a new subscriber to your channel and I like it very much keep up all my hard work I don't have to do. :)
Thanks Allan, glad I can help!
I'm so glad to have found these videos. I'm curious why you compare them by scanning rather than by printing them in the dark room? I mean, since the scanner does some auto adjusting.
I took all the auto adjusting off. The main reason is because the enlargements adds a host of other variables. Truth is there's no perfect answer.
hey brother
i'm from indonesia and i very like with your content
thanks very much
I bet you can use that technique for making various photography prints to look aged; the non-agitated one appears to be an old style print/negative.
I love this channel and the experiments! Thanks so much dude!!! :)
Question. Do you always use the massive dev chart or the times on the packages? Cheers :)
Gideon Horn Thanks for posting! I'm glad you liked it. Will be doing more in the cold Canadian months ;)
Azriel Knight Raaad!!!
Gideon Horn hehehe. lemme know if you have any ideas.
There was a guy who suggested to do a test between the different dillutions for HC-110. That would be cool! Also maybe one using massive dev charts times and the times on the box. If they differ ofcorse ;)
great video
Thank you :)
That was extremely interesting. The bottom line, for me, is what is the best default method that gives and 'on average' better result. There seems to be a slight trade off in grain but given the neural filters in PS, grain is no longer as influential (should one choose so). I am also led to consider how totally important exposure is. With digital, you can get away with the proverbial murder but film is very, very unforgiving.
Holy crap! I think you've only just started to scratch the surface with your experimentation. You are now going to have to adjust the time, temperature, pressure, etc. The possibilities are endless.
Thanks Tink! Looking forward to checking temp and time!
Very very cool video and experiment! I was surprised by your results which is awesome. I really want to do this same experiment with color film, the instructions say that agitation differences can wildly shift colors. I had some developing issues with my 120 black and white film where the edges were always lighter than the center of the image, across all cameras so not light leaks, I think I narrowed this down to me using the twiddle stick and doing constant or too much agitation, I went back to inverting the tank to agitate and the problem disappeared, I think with the larger film, perhaps the twirling motion created stagnation in the middle of the film vs fast moving fluid on the edges, or something?
Thank you!
No problem :)
I use a JOBO rotary processor, where the tank is constantly rotated there and back. I would say it's pretty much equivalent to constant aggitation in youre case. JOBO says to reduce development times by about -15%, which I do with good results.
You should see an increase in Contrast and Grain with more frequent agitation. In my experience more vigorous agitation didn't seem to have as much effect on either. Changing the direction or style of agitation - twist, figure eight, inversion each time you agitate would help prevent getting directional streaks, usually seen near the sprocket holes.
Interesting experiment and useful to many......
Thanks Harry!
You are awesome !
Thanks for this
Another option would be Crazy agitation like shaking violently the entire time
I don't think I have the muscles for that :P
Just viewed your video, much thanks for your work. I was always worried of agitating too much, it looks like not enough is more of concern.
Glad i could help.
Thank you for this instructive video. I liked your testing procedure and carefulness to the details however you could have pointed out more critical aspects as film speed variation, highlights contrast, grain and sharpness. In theory stand development should create more of a broad shoulder in the highlights I.e. less contrast there, more grain and sharpness. I'm curious about film speed.. you could set the darkest point to black with levels and then see which frame retains the most shadow detail.
Hey
Thanks for that experiment 👍 really nice to see the difference
But I am just guessing, that the results will be different with different Films. But how knows 🤷♂️
Keep on the good work
Very interesting!! Did you also do inverting and agitation with the knob?
the "stick" for the tank? yeah.
This is fantastic! I have always wondered this exact thing. I had heard that constant agitation would cause overexposure issues because you are constantly recycling the solution vs allowing it to naturally exhaust between cycles. It doesn't look like thats the case at all (at least with hc110). Love the experiment!
Thank you! Someone also suggested I try it with a more "fussy" film.
I did a constant agitation with RPX400 yesterday, which many had mentioned is a very flat contrast film. I dont have any previous results to compare to, but definitely see a punchy contrast out of the negs. Im much more familiar with HP5 so Im going to try that next and see if I notice any additional contrast from the scans.
Let me know how that goes?
This is very interesting..today June 21, 2021, I am going to develop a roll of ACROS ii black and white film using much more agitation than normal..perhaps 3 times the agitation..thank you for taking the time to do this experiment..peace brother..from MANHATTAN
What happened?
interesting results.. i use constant agitation with cinestill DF96
Riker... so nice ;-)
So I think the best way for me to develop Agfa scala as negative is to do constant agitation, which will give me nice clear contrast! Thanks Asra! I normally use Rodinal or R09 one shot, so will share my results once done it!
Cool, thanks!
You should do more videos outside. We like seeing Alberta in all her glory.
I agree but its been a cruel winter :)
Good job. I like the way you work. What about using a high acutance developer such as Rodinal and repeating the experiment? I prefer stand development using Rodinal as it increases shadow details and sharpness in my landscape photos.
Thanks for the comment Johnny. I might get better results with what you suggested but I think for me, it was about choosing a versatile developer that was easy to acquire locally, then mastering it. I have yet to master HC-110 to my standards.
I've just tested with agitations here at home and got way less grain when just using the little stir thing instead of doing real inversions of the tank. Developed with Rodinal by the way.
1+25 dilution??
@@philippedubois2005 yeah, something like that
Hrmmmmm this is mind blowing. Im going to try this with some color kodak right now!!!
@@iamtrillahd Black and white negative film is way more prone to grain because of agitations then color negative. But nog subtle agitations will probably make the occurring grain a tad bit smoother with color too. In the meanwhile I discovered that I do have to agitate the fixer well or a get this little cloudy marks where the film touches the spool. So it really needs to get out of there during the agitations.
I only use the Paterson tank twiddle stick. Never had a problem.
I subscribed just cause of the bad ass intro music.
lol, thanks? :)
@@AzrielKnight content is great too. Keep it up!
Awesome, I was looking forward to this video after the last one. I'm really glad I decided to become a patreon. Back to the subject though, to me it seems like grain might have also been affected. Looking at the background it seems like the constant agitation has more pronouns grain than either the stand or normal agitation. All in all quit an interesting test. I'm definitely going to try something similar using my own set up to see if I can improve my current technique
Hi Martijn!
I had a look at the grain again, someone else mentioned it too. I see a change as well in how pronounced the grain is but the image is brighter too. When looking side by side the consistency of the grain appears the same. I never really cared about grain so maybe I got this wrong.
Pozdravujem zo Slovenska , užitočný článok , k uvdenému len toľko , že na trvalé miešanie alebo preklápanie vývojnice som prišiel už v roku 1986 keď som spracovával farebný nemaskovaný film ORWO 21 a ktorý bola dodávaná vyvolávacia sada chemikálií pri doporučenej teplota 30 stupňov celzia .Miešanie nebolo zvlášť uvedené. Súprava chemikálií bola určená na 4 ks filmu 135 alebo 120 a množstvo pripravených roztokov bolo len 400 mililitrov. Vlastnil som vyvolávací tank na 5 ks cievok na 135 film , tak som raz riskol vyvolávanie s trvalým preklápaním a výsledky boli prekvapujúce. Kontrast , sýtosť farebnosť boli prekvapujúco dobré , filmy boli jasnejšie ako v doporučovanom servise .Držím palce v ďalšej tvorivej práci.
Děkuji za zpětnou vazbu. Toto je staré video a měl bych se k tomuto experimentu někdy vrátit.
Interesting and supprising agitation experiment, how about comparing film that has been shot & developed same day ,& shot but developed say a month later, does it make a difference ?. Many say ilford pan f should be processed immediately, is that right? or is it possible to expose then store in fridge to develop later.
I love these experiment videos. It seems like so much in film development is based on old wives tales and tradition; it's hard to separate fact from fiction. This suggestion might be a little boring, but how about an experiment with and without using a stop bath? I always just use tap water as my stop both and have never had any issues, so I'm wondering if there's any real benefit.
Thanks for the suggestion Mark. I might try that someday. I suspect that it wont be much of a difference, but in the case where I leave the tank sitting for 10 or 15 minutes like in the last experiment it would. Water slows development but doesn't totally stop it but I would be curious to see as well.
You might be right roolin. These tips are passed down, but those people used different chems in a different time.
The real thing is when you use a chemicals stop bath your emulsion gets more saturated with chemicals. If you want a better life expectancy for your negatives use water as stop bath.
+Alexeï Girard That's complete horse shit. Out of all the chemicals that you use during the developing process the stop bath is the mildest one and besides you remove all those nasty chemicals during the final wash.
Verdoux007 I have this advice from the Jules Steinmetz develloping method. He was a very famous french printer and film developper he worked for Magnum, HCB, and a lot of french magazines. Call it horseshit all you want, but this guy did not used any stop bath at all, for the reasons I mentionned before. Jules Steinmetz was not a clown commenter from YT, but a true solid professionnal who worked for many decades for the greatest.
I agree that a scanner may auto correct the result, I think that happens with my nikon scanner. I think proper proof wet printing is the absolute best measure to evaluate a negative. then let the scanner do its magic to give you a good image
Late to the party...for my future reference...the girl on the left side of the image has no white smile in either the stand or normal agitation frequency, but on the constant or consistent agitation image the white smile is obvious. in addition, the constant or consistent agitation has a less gray cast over the entire image. It is more 'clear' of cast.
Being that rate of agitation is not a factor (prior video) just keep the 'fresh' developer coming in contact with the emulsion; constantly.
The stand development really needs to go way beyond the usual recipe regarding developing times. Or I should say, now we see the reason :P
Yeah, needs time to percolate.
This video SAVED my roll of HP5 that I accidentally pulled 2 stops instead of pushing. I owe you one... my band is touring through Calgary in September, would love to treat you to some Tubby Dog to repay the favour!
Hey Jody, glad I could be of some help! How'd this video save your film, I'd be curious to know!
mmmm, Tubby Dog, I may have to take you up on that.
+Azriel Knight I gave a Pentax P30 to my bandmate to encourage him to get into photography, but since we are night owls on tour I suggested he push the film. Since the P30 automatically sets the ISO, I took a quick look at the meter and told him how to compensate 2stops... only thing is I got it reversed and only noticed when he was 10 shots in. I told him to keep shooting as is and after watching your video I used constant agitation to regain contrast and not discourage him with flat negs on his first ever roll. worked like a charm! I'm in town on Sept 14. Let me know if you're free and we'll connect for lunch!
That's awesome you're converting the skeptics! I don't know if I can take credit for this though. The contrast would have helped a bit but I've recovered up to 4 f stops on a scanner (with added grain). Plus night time shooting is much subjective. I could be off on this, just my thoughts, I don't want to tarnish your story :)
Hit me up on instagram a few days before and maybe we can set something up.
+Azriel Knight will do!
Very interesting. I might give constant agitation a shot just to see what type of results I get.
Let me know how it goes!
Constant agitation when developing B&W film will yield the minimum apparent edge sharpness because you have no still development time to develop image edge contrast. Many people do not notice the difference. Others know, but they are willing to trade off reduced microcontrast in their images for the convenience of letting a mechanical drum or tank roller (i,e, Jobo) do the work. I tried a drum roller system for a while but went back to periodic hand agitation.
I would have like to see the results of this in relation to how much grain the agitation created in the film, Guess I need to do something similar to find out for myself.
You should do more experiments with film, for example: developing color film in black and white chemicals, trying different Caffenol-C recipes and so on.
I have a few more on my list. Those are good ideas too!
I am astonished, looking back over hundreds of rolls from the past, how much variation I experienced whilst assuming (as I made few notes) that my development times and agitation were relatively consistent. I know however that chemistry played a roll as from time to time I was sloppy in this regard. Even if there was more variation due to agitation and timing I remain puzzled at the variance. Could fixing be the culprit? Or, can black and white negs deteriorate over time? I mostly used Agfa APX 100 and 400. Grain could vary wildly from extremely fine to unusually corse. I’m surprised that increased agitation only increases contrast. Exposure may well be the outstanding culprit. That is what I devote myself to now.
Hey, thanks for doing this. I developed my first film yesterday and the results - despite doing agitation pretty much the 'standard' way - look like your zero agitation example (HP5+) - bland, grey, dark, lacking contrast. More practice needed! I think I'll have to get a stock of cheap film in and shoot it off just to practice my developing skills. I can recover a certain amount from the blandness in Lightroom, of course, Oh; do you 'twizzle' the film with the agitation stick in the tank or put the lid on and invert it? (I also have the Paterson tank.) The other noticeable things was the amount of crap on the negs. I've ordered some swabs and pec-12 so I can clean the frames worth saving. On we go! Yes, it's all worth the effort vs. digital.
Hey Mark. When you are starting out, you're obviously going to see something you don't want or want to change. I would work on one problem at a time. If you change film, you're going to get different results. If I had my time back I would have concentrated on one film and bending it to my will.
@@AzrielKnight Hi Azriel. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Yes, I had the same thought after I postede. In fact, I already have quite a lot of HP5 and Tri-X - my preferred stock - lying around so I decided I might as well use that since a) that wouldn't cost me anything and b) I get to practise with the film I normally use. I've just been out this afternoon with a pair of Nikon F3s and shot off two rolls. I'll develop them tomorrow. Thanks!, mark
Nice test, but ....... You should print the negs with an enlarger.
Which enlarger ?
Three different types.
1. Double condensors. 2, Single condensor. 3. Cold light.
Not satisfied ? Start printing on bromide paper.
Which paper ?
Two different types
1. Single graded paper. 2. Multi grade paper
Which brand?
Good luck !
Thanks for the comment Jaco, I do agree following up with an enlarger for some future experiments. In this case though a digital scan, as long as the negatives are side by side are going to answer my question: How agitation affects a negative, not how different agitations look on paper. I see where you're coming from but I want to control a single variable and by you introducing an enlarger and paper there are several variables added that can only be controlled so far, while a digital scan can be measured. You're also forgetting for the purposes of the video that even if I make paper prints, I have to scan them to show the viewers the difference, and that will have it's own set of problems, soooo yeah.
This experiment was meant to ease peoples tension about getting agitation super exact, when it's not necessary.
Stand gives low contrast and no bromide streaks if you are lucky. 10 sec per minute gives a nice normal contrast DEPENDING ON TIME IN DEVELOPER. CONSTANT AT THE SAME TIME will Require one paper grade softer or a diffusion rather than condenser. Two inversions per 15 sec is same as constant.
Control your contrast by time, never fooling with fast or slow agitation or intermittent vs constant agitation.
I've read about people doing extensive testing, comparing stand development to other minimal agitation techniques. Agitating at regular intervals, while still keeping it to a minimum (preventing bromide streaks, air bubbles from forming, or the developer from exhausting), produces the same results, but with none of the pitfalls of stand development. Also, I can confirm this from my own experience!
I really wish you would’ve filled the gap between the stand and the normal agitation. I would’ve been really curious to see how some intermediate (semi-stand) agitation would’ve worked, let’s say 1 agitation every 5 minutes. I would also expect each to need different times.
P.S. I suspect stand could’ve been a lot better with longer time. Could it be underdeveloped?
I should revisit this, you're right.
Good stuff. From what I've seen, the stand developer should be more diluted, like 1 + 100 and the time extended to like 45 to 70 minutes.