Is this uneven development?

[jamgolf]

https://jawad.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p2391732868-5.jpg
To test developers, I exposed four identical 8x10 sheets of FP4 and developed two of the sheets. The one on left in Pyrocat-hd (1:1:100 at ~68 F for 20 minutes) and one on right in Perceptol (1:1 at ~68 F for 15 minutes). This has been my first time ever trying Pyrocat-hd.

While I am not quite sure which one I prefer in terms of picking as my main developer, I see these weird uneven shades on the left and bottom left of Pyrocat-hd sheet, while the Perceptol sheet looks clean. Is this "uneven development"?

I developed both sheets in two separate Stearman Press 810 trays, I used distilled water for a 2-minute pre-soak (for both sheets), I used distilled water for stop bath (for both sheets), I used Stearman Press SP-Fixer #7 (for both sheets, 5 minutes).

How can I avoid these types of artifacts in the future?
I have two more undeveloped sheets that are identical, I was thinking about trying semi-stand/minimal-agitation with Pyrocat-hd and perhaps develop the fourth sheet in DD-X for a 4-way comparison. But I would like to try to get a clean Pyrocat-hd result, so maybe I can skip the DD-X and give normal Pyrocat-hd (not semi-stand) another try. If I can't get a clean result then I suppose I'll just not use Pyrocat-hd going forward.

Pyrocat-hd I am using is from photo-formulary and came in 2 small A and B bottles of liquid.

Any help/guidance would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance!

[jamgolf]

For context, here is the setup of this 4-sheet experiment:
https://jawad.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p2391889163-5.jpg

[Vaidotas]

There is some threads accordind Pyrocat HD development problems, I found useful this:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?122808-Pyrocat-HD-semi-stand-uneven-dev&highlight=Pyrocat+semi+stand

[Ulophot]

I haven;t used the Stearman 8x10, only the 445. It appears from your images that the bottom of both was cut off in camera, i.e., no image of the figurines' bases, so I'll leave that out. The other unexpected density variations appear to be a combination of uneven development and, on the left neg, a significant light leak. Note that the heavy density goes all the way into the film margin which should be clear, lower left.

Where the density is less than expected could also be uneven development, but the shadows that appear in the set-up photo are not evident in the negs, and although it seems unlikely from direction and angle, could these be the shadows? If so, you may may have fairly even development.

The one remaining artifact is the sharp-edged extra density strip on the right of the negs, which appears to be from an added fold of a clear neg envelope during your scan. If not, that needs to be traced as well.

[jamgolf]

Thanks. I actually read that thread last night before falling asleep. It talks mostly about semi-stand butt perhaps there are some bits that apply to normal development also. I will read it again. The side by side I posted is normal development for both Pyrocat and Perceptol.

[jamgolf]

Where the density is less than expected could also be uneven development, but the shadows that appear in the set-up photo are not evident in the negs, and although it seems unlikely from direction and angle, could these be the shadows? If so, you may may have fairly even development.


That's an interesting observation ... yeah it could acttually be the shadows from the figurines, which perhaps have more contrast in the Pyrocat-hd sheet. In such case the that would mean it is evenly developed.


I
The one remaining artifact is the sharp-edged extra density strip on the right of the negs, which appears to be from an added fold of a clear neg envelope during your scan.
Yes- it's the fold of the negative protective sleeve.

[jamgolf]

The other unexpected density variations appear to be a combination of uneven development and, on the left neg, a significant light leak. Note that the heavy density goes all the way into the film margin which should be clear, lower left.


There is a light leak I am dealing with, notice the tape at the bottom of the rear standard in my setup photo, but I thought I am just experimenting and any effects of light leaks would be evident in both sheets and I'll just use the good parts to make my choice of developer.

[Roger Beck]

"How can I avoid these types of artifacts in the future?"

There are several issues none of which look like uneven development. On the left is a light leak, on the right side of both negs is a lighter strip, and another strip on the bottom, not sure what that is but something preventing exposure or development in that area. The rest of the negs look evenly processed.215335

[jamgolf]

"How can I avoid these types of artifacts in the future?"

There are several issues none of which look like uneven development. On the left is a light leak, on the right side of both negs is a lighter strip, and another strip on the bottom, not sure what that is but something preventing exposure or development in that area. The rest of the negs look evenly processed.215335

Negatives were in a sleeve, so the right side is the fold of the sleeve. We can ignore that.
I just noticed the differences on the bottom left and left edge, which are not present (or as clearly obvious) in the Perceptol sheet. So I was wondering if that's uneven development.

[jamgolf]

Thanks, everyone for your input. I will probably do another different experiment. And will still do my 4-way comparison as originally intended.

I am a newbie and making mistakes is part of the learning process. But I am having more fun making these mistakes than I have had in a long time :)

[Dugan]

I propose that the bottom of the figurines being cut off is due to bellows sag/front rise.

[jamgolf]

The only movement I employed was the forward tilt of the rear standard, to get the figurines in focus from top to bottom. I think I was too concerned about the faces and bodies and perhaps failed to pay attention to the bases being cut off. Oops :)
At least that's what I think happened to the bases .. I could be wrong though.

[Roger Beck]

what tripod head is that? unusual design

[jamgolf]

what tripod head is that? unusual design

It's Luland LD115. It's similar to Ries A200. The reason I got it instead of Ries is that it came with a custom fast plate, to attach to the camera base with 3 screws.
I posted info in this thread:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?162037-Tripod-Head-For-8x10-Arca-Cube-Ries-J250-Luland-LD115-Acratech-GXP/page3

[paulbarden]

"How can I avoid these types of artifacts in the future?"

There are several issues none of which look like uneven development. On the left is a light leak, on the right side of both negs is a lighter strip, and another strip on the bottom, not sure what that is but something preventing exposure or development in that area. The rest of the negs look evenly processed.215335

Looks like the dark slide was not pulled all the way out.

[jamgolf]

Looks like the dark slide was not pulled all the way out.

Darkslide was actually in my hand. I don't leave it inserted because I want to flip it after taking the shot to indicate the sheet has been exposed.

[Chauncey Walden]

Sagging bellows is a definite problem. If you have old time strap and hooks on your bellows, use them to shorten the back ens to straighten the bellows. If not, you'll have to support the bottom of the bellows or add a top bar from camera to frame and dangle the bellows from that. I good look at the stopped down iris of the lens from the ground glass corners could help in preventing problems also. It is always good practice to cover the camera with a darkcloth to prevent light leaks around the film holder, especially into the darkslide slot if the darkslide is totally removed (the slots will eventually develop leaks).

[jamgolf]

Sagging bellows is a definite problem. If you have old time strap and hooks on your bellows, use them to shorten the back ens to straighten the bellows. If not, you'll have to support the bottom of the bellows or add a top bar from camera to frame and dangle the bellows from that. I good look at the stopped down iris of the lens from the ground glass corners could help in preventing problems also. It is always good practice to cover the camera with a darkcloth to prevent light leaks around the film holder, especially into the darkslide slot if the darkslide is totally removed (the slots will eventually develop leaks).

All good points and suggestions. I will try to follow this advice. Thanks!

[jamgolf]

So, I continued with my plan and developed the remaining 2 sheets also. The third one in Ilfosol DD-X (1+4 at 68 F 10 minutes) and the last one in Pyrocat-HD (1.5 : 1 :150 at 68 F 48 minutes) Extreme Minimal Agitation method. Vigorous agitation for ~2 minutes at first then for 15 seconds at minute 17 then another 15 seconds at minute 34 and then stop in distilled water at 48th minute mark.

I can clearly see the difference in fine detail offered by Pyrocat-HD EMA but I also see what I think is "uneven development". Is it?

Pyrocat-HD EMA (Left) vs Pyrocat-HD Normal (Right)
https://jawad.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p2395194807-5.jpg

I see this weird pattern in the Pyrocat-HD EMA sheet, on both sides of figurines
https://jawad.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p2395195011-5.jpg

Really like the detail in the extreme minimal agitation (EMA) sheet but these swirl marks are worrisome.
Other than the swirl marks, the sheet looks evenly developed and quite nice.
What could have caused this?
How may I avoid them?

[jamgolf]

And for completeness, here is the DD-X (Right) sheet next to Perceptol (Left):
Between these two I prefer Perceptol. It appears to have more detail.

https://jawad.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p2395194830-5.jpg

[Michael R]

I’m not a pyrocat stand/semi-stand user but I believe the consensus has generally been that when the film is developed in a vertical orientation rather than in a tray, the process is somewhat less prone to these kinds of artifacts/problems.

Off topic but I looked at your linked site - some really beautiful photos there.

Michael

[Ulophot]

Swirl marks: These (and the ones on the right) are on the neg itself, not a scanning artifact? They don't look anything like fluid swirl marks to me.
RE: uneven development -- I think you need to eliminate the light leak and then try afresh. It may be easier to see from a positive print.

[jamgolf]

Swirl marks: These (and the ones on the right) are on the neg itself, not a scanning artifact? They don't look anything like fluid swirl marks to me.
RE: uneven development -- I think you need to eliminate the light leak and then try afresh. It may be easier to see from a positive print.

Hi Philip
Yes, swirl marks are on the negatives. Not due to taking the photo with my phone. I do not have a scanner.

I took my camera into a dark room at night and inserted a film holder and removed the lens, then checked for any light leaks on the rear standard and seems my tape job is light sealed and I do not see any hint of light inside. This tape job is definitely temporary. A permanent fix will take a few weeks. So in the meantime, I am just doing some experiments. But your point is well taken.

[jamgolf]

I’m not a pyrocat stand/semi-stand user but I believe the consensus has generally been that when the film is developed in a vertical orientation rather than in a tray, the process is somewhat less prone to these kinds of artifacts/problems.

Off topic but I looked at your linked site - some really beautiful photos there.

Michael

Hi Michael, I might have read somewhere about the vertical orientation thing you mention. It's a shame, if I can't use trays for semi-stand, the SP-810 trays have been working well for my needs. I will look into tubes that can be held vertically.
And thank you for your kind words about photos on my website.

[jamgolf]

I contacted Steve Sherman and he was very kind to offer some input. He suggested that streaks/swirls are most likely caused by bromide buildup or Bromide Drag which can happen with reduced agitation, especially in large even-toned areas. The cause stems from the developer has exhausted for too long a period of time. Tray development may have contributed as well.

[Greg Y]

Jamgolf, There's nothing particular about Pyrocat HD that would promote uneven development. I've used it for many years, as my main developer for 35/120 in small tanks and 4x5,5x7,8x10 in trays with clean results. You might find this thread interesting, it's about uneven development problems with Stearman Press tanks/trays.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?160888-Uneven-Development-5X7-s-in-Stearman-Press-8X10-Tray/page2

[Jim Noel]

Hi Michael, I might have read somewhere about the vertical orientation thing you mention. It's a shame, if I can't use trays for semi-stand, the SP-810 trays have been working well for my needs. I will look into tubes that can be held vertically.
And thank you for your kind words about photos on my website.

I have followed Steve Sherman's directions as closely as possible when developing my recent 5x12's. I stand the tubes on one end until the mid agitation, then stand them on the other end. I have not perfected Steve's methods, but i don't have any unusual marks from fluid flow on my negatives.

[jamgolf]

Thanks, Jim, for sharing your experience with developing in tubes. I will try that myself.

[jamgolf]

Jamgolf, There's nothing particular about Pyrocat HD that would promote uneven development. I've used it for many years, as my main developer for 35/120 in small tanks and 4x5,5x7,8x10 in trays with clean results. You might find this thread interesting, it's about uneven development problems with Stearman Press tanks/trays.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?160888-Uneven-Development-5X7-s-in-Stearman-Press-8X10-Tray/page2

Greg, I read several threads, including the one you linked, before buying SP-810 trays. I have developed a few sheets in Perceptol and all of them have come out looking pretty clean and even. But a few sheets is probably not enough. I think about 50 to 100 sheets is what it will take to say if SP-810 trays are working reliably for me. But for now, I am happy with what I am getting from them. I don't have a darkroom, so I appreciate the convenience of SP-810s.

[jamgolf]

Someone else experienced the exact same squigly/swirl marks with Pyrocat-HD in SP-810:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?156055-Stearman-Press-SP-810&p=1550875&viewfull=1#post1550875

And Michael Kadillak's respoonse:
"In order to properly execute sheet film stand or semi stand development you must use have the film in the proper sized tube and the film must be standing vertically to properly accomplish the development objective. Trays using this technique have been proven to introduce any number of unacceptable artifacts and are not the correct tool for the stated objective."

[jamgolf]

Since SP-810 trays are convenient for me, I really wanted to see if I could get evenly processed sheets in them with reduced agitation. So I did my experiment with 4 sheets again. First N development with two different Pyrocat-HD dilutions and the next two using the preferred dilution from the first step. All 4 sheets were evenly developed.

N Development:
215506

N+2 Development:
215507

N+4 Development:
215508

Just wanted to share that it is actually possible to get evenly processed sheets in SP-810 trays, using reduced agitation method. Tubes probably make it essentially foolproof, but getting 4 out of 4 clean results is very encouraging to me because I don't have a dark room and this means I can continue to use SP-810 trays.

[andre1960]

I had similar issues with the sp810.
I found that reducing the agitation a little bit solved it. I agitate the first 60 seconds and then 10 seconds every 30 seconds. I agitate as if I’m working with an open tray were you normally prevent the liquid from going over the edge. So pretty careful. If the sheet in the tank starts to move it might be too much agitation.
Also I reduced total developer solution to 300ml. Coming from 475ml.
I use ID-11 1:1 for 12:00 minutes. 20 degrees celcius and a 3 minute presoak.
Regards Andre


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

[Jim Noel]

Jamgolf - The shadow at the bottom is caused by the sagging bellows.