Stearman Press 810 & Temperature Film Reticulation

[jurgenestanislao]

So my SP810 has finally arrived and I put it to the test.

I developed a sheet of 8x10 Ilford HP5 in a solution of Pyrocat HD 1:1:200 with the intention of developing semi-stand. Keeping chem temperatures at 20C, I did my pre-wash, development (60m) with gentle agitation during the first minute, and another minute of gentle agitation on the halfway mark, did my water stop bath, and went on to proceed with my fixing and washing.

At first glance, the negative looked nice and evenly developed, however, upon close inspection, what I noticed are these stretchmark-like or worm-like imprints on the sheet, which I would believe to be temp shift reticulation from temperature changes.

What are your thoughts? The only non-temp sensitive step I can think of that I did was the final wash.

203570

[Alan9940]

That looks like bromide drag; perhaps from doing this style of development with the film in a horizontal position? I've done minimal and EMA agitation in tanks/hangers and my own homemade tanks, but both those setups orient the film vertically. I'll be very interested to hear what others say.

[jurgenestanislao]

That looks like bromide drag; perhaps from doing this style of development with the film in a horizontal position? I've done minimal and EMA agitation in tanks/hangers and my own homemade tanks, but both those setups orient the film vertically. I'll be very interested to hear what others say.Oh really? I haven't seen bromide drag in sheet film, I've seen it a whole lot with 35mm.

This though looks like bacteria under a microscope if you know what I mean.

Now I'm baffled if it's reticulation or bromide drag as you pointed out. Thanks for the tip.

Developing another sheet exactly the same way to see what is up.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[Alan9940]

Developing another sheet exactly the same way to see what is up.


If you see the same result, I'd suggest developing a sheet using normal agitation and see what you get.

[jurgenestanislao]

If you see the same result, I'd suggest developing a sheet using normal agitation and see what you get.So the same result came about, this time made sure temp is consistent to remove reticulation as an issue. I also checked the sheet after fixing, and noticed that the patterns were there already, cancelling out wetting agent issues.

Now I guess I'm isolating agitation and or amount of chemistry (been using 400ml).

Now to try normal agitation.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[Alan9940]

Now I guess I'm isolating agitation and or amount of chemistry (been using 400ml).


FWIW, I always use 1L of solution with the SP-8x10. But, I don't do any style of minimal agitation with this tank.

[blue4130]

So my SP810 has finally arrived and I put it to the test.

I developed a sheet of 8x10 Ilford HP5 in a solution of Pyrocat HD 1:1:200 with the intention of developing semi-stand. Keeping chem temperatures at 20C, I did my pre-wash, development (60m) with gentle agitation during the first minute, and another minute of gentle agitation on the halfway mark, did my water stop bath, and went on to proceed with my fixing and washing.

At first glance, the negative looked nice and evenly developed, however, upon close inspection, what I noticed are these stretchmark-like or worm-like imprints on the sheet, which I would believe to be temp shift reticulation from temperature changes.

What are your thoughts? The only non-temp sensitive step I can think of that I did was the final wash.

203570
Reticulation looks like cracks, think dried mudbed, not likes stretches. And reticulation is really quite difficult to induce with modern films. I've done 15'C temp shifts and not been able to get it to occur.

[AuditorOne]

So far the only problems I've noted with my SP810 is with Harman Direct Positive Paper and that was caused by failing to pre-wet in the beginning.

I agitate continuously and use 500 ml of chemistry. Sometimes I just use 300 ml of water for the initial pre-wet but I always develop, stop and fix with 500 ml. I think that is also the recommendation from Stearman Press.

Of course I'm not sure that has any bearing on your issue or not. It may help to touch base with Tim to see if they have noticed this issue during their testing.

[tim48v]

jurgen,
What you're seeing is almost certainly an artifact of stand development with pyro, which is always tricky.

For the record, we've had customers report excellent results with as little as 200ml of chemistry but with "normal" agitation. (Personally, I never use less than 300ml.)

Others have successfully done stand development but with other developers. I don't think their dilution was quite as extreme as yours.

Summary: anything that works in a regular tray, can be made to work in the SP-8x10.

Tim

[jurgenestanislao]

Thanks.

After discussing with fellow photographers, it is indeed caused by artifacts and/or bromide drag from lack of agitation.

I am currently developing another sheet with adjusted times, and a more regular agitation routine, not to mention, decided to use 500ml of developer v.s. 400ml initially.

Will update.

[jp]

That might not be enough developer for an 8x10... You've got it diluted to 1:1:200 which is half dilution and only using 300-500ml might not be enough. Be generous with the developer quantity.
(I've seen bromide drag with pmk but not with pyrocat hd.)

[esearing]

I think you need at least 3Ml A in 500ml water to do any type of minimum agitation for a sheet of 4x5. For an 8x10 I would use minimum 4A:3B:500W, 3minutes initial agitation for the large open areas you have, and then 20second agitations at the 1/4 points. If you want to stay at 1:200 replace developer at the midpoint with fresh developer but little additional agitation. I also have read that tubes are better for stand rather than trays because of vertical vs horizontal orientation.

[jurgenestanislao]

So I decided to adjust my development time and add more to my agitation frequency.

Negative looks much better but with some fogging on the edges https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200511/5084e6301c4288e00dfe82c0b685bbf2.jpg

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[Duolab123]

Any very dilute developer, bromide streaks can ge a problem. I've run into the same problem with XTOL developing in a drum. Increasing the developer concentration worked for me.
FWIW, Best Regards Mike