minimalist dip and dunk

[Eric Dolphy]

from an old thread:

I had a container made for dunking the 45 film while in the hanger, it is 3/4 in wide, 6 inches long, and 6 inches deep, it holds 13 oz of developer and when the hanger is in it, it comes about 1/4 inch above the top of the hanger, I develop one sheet at a time and it works very well. Measure the width of your two hanger set and and allow 1/4 inch, the same for depth and length. Pat

casting about for a processing method, one sheet at a time, HP+ w/Ilfotec DD-X,

one part DD-X, four parts distilled water, nine minutes at 20C
the quoted method seems okay but your pov is needed

Q: does it seem too small an enclosure, though ? thx all Eric

[vinny]

Nope that sounds fine.
My 4x5 two sheet tanks are slightly larger but as long as the developer covers and there's a little wiggle room for the hangers to ease re-insertion, you'll be fine.
http://www.vinnywalsh.com/#!products/c2jd

[Jac@stafford.net]

In my humble opinion Dip-And-Dunk should be abandoned for small batches. I can elaborate. Consider constant rotation instead.

Oh, and to put my own feet to the fire, I will post a picture of gigantic drum that does something like 24 4x5" sheets at once. Real soon, now. :)
.

[Eric Dolphy]

[as a newbie, I'm certainly not contradicting anyone here, but seeking a consensus, if possible]

someone had kindly provided the following re the need for agitation with b/w--and, the possible issues stemming from drum rotation (lack of agitation as understood in this publication:


Black and White Processing Using Kodak Chemicals
Eastman Kodak 1985, No. J-1, CAT NO 152 8462, LOC 82-71447, ISBN 0-87985-312-3
Page 12: Agitation of the Developer
Agitation is probably the least understood and the most abused of all the developing controls, even though it is a crucial process that should be used for consistent and uniform results. When agitation is lacking, a stagnant layer of developer and development by-products forms at the interface of the emulsion and the solution. This stagnant layer is partly depleted in the developing agent and is rich in bromide from the developing emulsion. Since bromide is a restrainer that inhibits developing action, the rate of development is retarded unless fresh developer is supplied to the emulsion. On the other hand, if the developing solution is properly agitated, fresh solution is continually brought into contact with the emulsion, and the normal development rate prevails.

Lack of agitation also contributes to another processing problem. Without agitation, the stagnant layer, which is heavier than the fresh developing solution, begins to sink slowly to the bottom of the processing vessel. As it sinks, it tends to leave streaks on the processed negative. Good agitation overcomes this tendency toward uneven development.
Line and point images are subject to several adjacency effects, that can, in part, be traced to insufficient agitation. Such effects often show up as excessively dark edges, or as low-density halos outside dense images. The effects are usually minimized by vigorous agitation throughout development [Note: This doesn’t mean continuous agitation, except in a purpose-designed commercial processor (not rotary) intended for high-volume B&W film processing.]
In general, proper agitation is most important for the initial stages of development. That is the time that the gelatin is swelling and development is just beginning. Unevenness in the distribution of fresh developer at this time usually causes rather severe effects.
Agitation techniques vary, and the particular method used will depend on the manner of development. Agitation should always consist of movements that will not cause a current of solution to flow constantly in any one direction. Such currents are the cause of increased density.

[Tin Can]

Here is X-Ray in ten 8x10 hangers at once in 3.5 gallon tank, stand developed for 1 hour in Rodinal 1/100. Only agitation was first minute, 10 rapid lifts and dunks with raps for bubbles.

Bromide drag is evident at right side dripping off Alek's hat & face. He liked the print and took it with him for his mother 2 days ago. I know it's unacceptable. I am experimenting.

I am working on Gaseous Burst to solve this issue. Look it up, I have posts and there is plenty on the forum about Gaseous N2 Burst development.

My Burst system is not complete, it's summer, I'm fooling around outside these few months.

More next Fall.

136958

[vinny]

Oren, I wasn't promoting anything. Simply linking to my tanks which show that you don't need a big tank or lots of chemicals to process film. You deleted my entire response. Great.

[Peter De Smidt]

I'm with Vinny here. His response was helpful.

Regarding stand and minimal agitation, it's clear that some people, such as Steve Sherman, do wonderful things with them, but this doesn't mean that such techniques are always the best choice. Sure, if you know exactly the print size that you're going to print at, and you know full well what look you're going for, then it makes sense to use methods to achieve the best negative for those purposes. But if you don't know these things, there's something to be said for a low edge effect negative that has fine grain and very even development, especially if one is going to scan it.

[DrTang]

one at a time?

dang

I'd still be processing film from last months shoots

[Oren Grad]

Oren, I wasn't promoting anything. Simply linking to my tanks which show that you don't need a big tank or lots of chemicals to process film. You deleted my entire response. Great.

Vinny -

I've put it back for now.

Even if you intended simply to be informational, the way you did it was by posting a link to a sales page on your site rather than spelling out information in detail here where everyone can see it without the sales component. That makes it difficult or impossible to distinguish the post from a drive-by sales pitch, even if that wasn't your intent.

We've had a few cases like this recently. Sorry for the awkwardness, we will try to define a clearer rule that doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Eric Dolphy]

the initial thirty-second 'agitation' here with d & d consists of--what?--lift from tank, tilt to one side (for draining), drop in, lift and tilt (other direction), drop in, etc., for thirty seconds, then one minute respite

is this correct? will this suffice to avoid the dreaded bromide drag issue? that first 'agitation' being crucial

alternatively, with a Paterson tank, the film is inside and chemicals are added--then begin the initial thirty-second 'agitation'

with d & d, the chemicals are present before the fact--then drop in the film (on hanger) and immediately begin the initial thirty-second 'agitation'

correct?



thx all Eric

[Peter De Smidt]

It's unlikely that 30 seconds of initial agitation, and then nothing else, will lead to even development.

[Oren Grad]

the initial thirty-second 'agitation' here with d & d consists of--what?--lift from tank, tilt to one side (for draining), drop in, lift and tilt (other direction), drop in, etc., for thirty seconds, then one minute respite

is this correct? will this suffice to avoid the dreaded bromide drag issue? that first 'agitation' being crucial

alternatively, with a Paterson tank, the film is inside and chemicals are added--then begin the initial thirty-second 'agitation'

with d & d, the chemicals are present before the fact--then drop in the film (on hanger) and immediately begin the initial thirty-second 'agitation'

correct?



thx all Eric

Eric, it's not possible to specify a hard-and-fast rule for what pattern of agitation will work. There's too much voodoo in the process; what works for some doesn't work for others. At some point you just need to pick a method and, if necessary, work through trying to debug it.

BTW, for rollfilm development I use Paterson tanks as open tanks in the dark - they are filled with the necessary solutions in advance, and then the core with reels is moved sequentially from one tank to the next. As it happens, I use Jobo Expert drums for rotary development of sheet film. But if I were going to try something like a MOD54 to develop 4x5 sheets in a Paterson tank, open tanks is where I'd start, because it's a procedure that I'm comfortable with and have found to be reliable. OTOH, others use pour-in-pour-out and are comfortable with that. Again, you just need to pick something to try.

In general, stand development methods - methods that include very long intervals without agitation - are especially difficult to get right. I would not recommend starting there.

[Eric Dolphy]

for what it's worth, neglected to mention the particulars: Ilford HP+ 4X5 and DD-X

[Eric Dolphy]

It's unlikely that 30 seconds of initial agitation, and then nothing else, will lead to even development.

the initial act

after that first gesture: a ten second agitiation, fifty second respite, ten second agitation, etc., for nine minutes total

Ilford HP+ 4X5 and DD-X


thx all

Eric

[Eric Dolphy]

for HP+ 4X5 and DD-X, how much chemical per sheet (using one sheet at a time d&d tanks) is required before it is depleted?

(pardon any redundant inquiry)

[Oren Grad]

for HP+ 4X5 and DD-X, how much chemical per sheet (using one sheet at a time d&d tanks) is required before it is depleted?

Ilford's data sheet for its liquid developers has a section on developer capacity that addresses DD-X among their other products:

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2011427124733149.pdf

[Tin Can]

The truth is nobody does it right the first or second time.

Basicly you need to get your film wet and learn as you go.

One person somewhere in a school darkroom with an over attentive instructor never made a mistake.

I make lots of mistakes and I do lot's of experiments that go badly.

School never ends. :)

[Michael Cienfuegos]

The truth is nobody does it right the first or second time.

Basicly you need to get your film wet and learn as you go.

One person somewhere in a school darkroom with an over attentive instructor never made a mistake.

I make lots of mistakes and I do lot's of experiments that go badly.

School never ends. :)

+1

m

[Willie]

An Uncle uses tray developing and a Hake brush for one sheet at a time developing. Clean results, no scratches and no edge density variations.
Constant and gentle brushing, up and down and then back and forth. Changing a bit as time moves on so it isn't all the same pattern. Bottom to top, top to bottom - right to left and left to right.
Some of the cleanest negatives I have seen.
He seems to enjoy his time in the dark doing this.

[Peter De Smidt]

Fred Picker talked about brush development in one of his newsletters. He claimed that it was the most even development that you could get in an amateur darkroom.

[Eric Dolphy]

hello


please take a moment to clarify re hake brush on HP+ 4x5 and DD-X

Ilford recommends nine minutes in DD-X with conventional tray developing

any idea how long to keep the 4x5 in the tray while brushing?

thank you