PDA

View Full Version : Most consistent developer method



Richard Littlewood
9-May-2009, 06:29
Just doing a bit of research into what - if any - is the most consistent way to develop 5x4 b+w sheets to give even results. I've been rotary processing for years, and now and again I get such lovelies as edge build up that can crop an image too much. I'm leaning towards trays (of some sort) as being possibly the least unsuccessful method, but is it possible to get edge to edge consistency with any method? I mean the sort of quality where it would be possible to print a neg taken in fog, with plenty of sky, and have the proper density right over the surface of the neg, without using elaborate nitrogen systems or using a digital back.
Cheers
Richard

Bruce Watson
9-May-2009, 07:39
Constant agitation is the clear winner. Read Haist. Henry. The other researchers.

I get consistently excellent and perfectly even development for 5x4 using a Jobo 3010 tank on a Jobo CPP-2. TMY-2 (and before that many hundreds of sheets of Tri-X) in XTOL 1:3, 20C, 30 rpm, reversing. I've put well over a thousand sheets through this system and without fail get perfectly even skies, (http://www.achromaticarts.com/big_image.php?path=joshua&img_num=6)[/URL] and even perfectly smooth fog (http://www.achromaticarts.com/big_image.php?path=smokies&img_num=14) on those rare occasions when I'm able to shoot in fog (only when I make a trip to the mountains and get lucky).

I started with trays and moved to BTZS tubes looking for more even development. BTZS tubes weren't the answer for me either, but the 3010 tank and the Jobo were. It's so good it lets me forget about it completely so I can concentrate more the art, and that's a good thing.

sanking
9-May-2009, 07:41
Phil Davis developed and promoted development in tubes, with agitation carried out by turning the tubes in a tray of water. The agitaiton is constant but random and gives perfectly even negatives if done correctly.

Davis used tubes for ilm testing at BTZS workshops. At one time he used tray develoment but found that this method lacked sufficient accurcy.

For the maximum in even develoment I would recommend that you use a combinatin of developer/dilution/tempreature that allows develoment times of over 8-10 minutes.

Sandy King



Just doing a bit of research into what - if any - is the most consistent way to develop 5x4 b+w sheets to give even results. I've been rotary processing for years, and now and again I get such lovelies as edge build up that can crop an image too much. I'm leaning towards trays (of some sort) as being possibly the least unsuccessful method, but is it possible to get edge to edge consistency with any method? I mean the sort of quality where it would be possible to print a neg taken in fog, with plenty of sky, and have the proper density right over the surface of the neg, without using elaborate nitrogen systems or using a digital back.
Cheers
Richard

Andrew O'Neill
9-May-2009, 07:57
You are the most consistent developer method. Keep all variables the same. Sandy's suggestion of using a combination that allows development times of over 8-10 minutes is sound advice.

Pete Watkins
9-May-2009, 09:06
I doubt if you'll be lucky enough to find one in the States but the Patterson Orbital developing tanks are just brilliant. Four 4x5's, two 5x7's (or half plates), one 8x10.
Best wishes,
Pete.

jp
9-May-2009, 09:10
I would also second the recommendation for a developer mix and temp that allow at least 8 minutes. I use patterson reels and tanks for 35mm, and can do 4x5 in either tray or hp combiplan tank with good results.

Greg Blank
9-May-2009, 11:14
In any system there has to be a Zen like state of mind or shall we say Zazen :)

No mind, it works-however it has to be a watchful no mind state. However, its the times the mind drifts away and you find your watch stopped or the chemicals weren't quite tempered, the agitation cycle didn't match your established norm,etc that produces inaccurate results. Then there's other stuff- like inside/or outside the camera problems.

That said, the ISO method was established for a reason. Bi directional agitation. I made a sheet film holder for use in a tray using plexi and plastic screws. The stainless tray itself has welded pivot points to allow the tray to be placed inside another stainless tray the contains an submersible heater and pump.

Any developer will do :) just mix it the same each time.




Just doing a bit of research into what - if any - is the most consistent way to develop 5x4 b+w sheets to give even results. I've been rotary processing for years, and now and again I get such lovelies as edge build up that can crop an image too much. I'm leaning towards trays (of some sort) as being possibly the least unsuccessful method, but is it possible to get edge to edge consistency with any method? I mean the sort of quality where it would be possible to print a neg taken in fog, with plenty of sky, and have the proper density right over the surface of the neg, without using elaborate nitrogen systems or using a digital back.
Cheers
Richard

Henry Ambrose
9-May-2009, 11:52
I've tried most every way there is to develop sheet film and I've had good results with most. There really is a lot to the part about you and how well you refine your technique, whatever method you use.

Longer times, good temperature control, plenty of developer and gentle regular agitation work for me. Get your process tuned and then do it the same every time.

I think the least troublesome and best results for me have been hangers and tanks. Pick up and set down the hangers once each minute, alternating the corner I drop to let drain.

Definitely go for longer developing times as stated previously. I use Xtol 1:3 with (mostly) HP5 for 16 minutes and its always perfectly even. I get very good results with roll film in small tanks with reels using the same developer and technique.

Use plenty of developer. The idea is to develop your film to perfection, not to see if you can save a few ounces of developer.

Control the temperature. If that's difficult in your situation use a chart that gives times for different temperatures.

Pay attention and agitate the same every time.

You're probably already doing most of this but stop and think our process through and write it down and tape it to the darkroom wall. To make sure you are really consistent follow the written instructions each time.

Become a robot.

Bruce Watson
9-May-2009, 12:09
Become a robot.

Agreed. Or... just use one.

That was the problem I had with most of the popular development methods. I couldn't become a sufficiently good robot. Then it dawned on me that I couldn't be the first person to have this problem. When I started doing research looking at it from that perspective I found that people like John Sexton were using Jobos. I eventually landed a good deal on a used CPP-2, and finally reached the level of consistency for which I had been striving.

What makes the Jobo system work is that it's like a robot. Does the same things in the same way, each and every development cycle. Which is what leads to consistent results.

jb7
9-May-2009, 12:18
After ironing out some teething problems,
I'm starting to get consistent results using a slosher-
a sheet of perspex with stainless steel screws to hold 4 8x10's,
developed in a 20x16 tray.

Next thing to concentrate on will be to develop without fingermarks on the edges,
but I think that might be the same problem with any method, for me-

Must get some cotton gloves already-

Peter De Smidt
9-May-2009, 12:36
Here's another vote for developing sheet film in a Jobo with an expert drum. This method is very consistent.

ic-racer
9-May-2009, 14:08
I bet everyone that has posted a technique has a access to a densitometer, yet no one has posted an edge-to-center density difference for their favorite agitation technique.

jb7
9-May-2009, 14:19
I don't have access to a densitometer.

I haven't been developing with a slosher for long,
but my first batch showed greater density around the edges closest to the sides of the tray-
that was with D76 1:3, continuous agitation.
I reckon the reflection of the waves of developer around the edges caused that.
Also, the less quantity of developer used, the more pronounced the effect.

Next I tried HC110, intermittent agitation.
Lifting each edge of the tray once, twice a minute.
That one seems to be going ok, but could still be improved.
A slightly larger tray might help...

And Henry's observation about using plenty of developer is correct...

I'm new to developing larger negs, so I haven't any other method to compare to, apart from developing 4x5 in a Nikor tank, or home made tubes in a Paterson tank,
which also worked ok-

Again, without any densitometry to back it up-


joseph

mandoman7
10-May-2009, 00:19
I have a densitometer but I don't use it to test for even development. I think the preferred method is called a flash test, where you expose a sheet to a very evenly lit piece of wood or whatever (zone VII). I had a setting with my enlarger to produce a comparable even exposure to the film. A totally even exposure of a highlight rather than shadow level, as that is where the problems are found.
This evenly flashed sheet, when developed and proofed, will clearly show the areas of uneven development. I developed film for years commercially before doing this test and wished I had done it earlier. Tanks with metal holders, nikor and yankee tanks, and certain tray methods all produced uneven negatives in my tests. Also sheet development with the emulsion up and developer sloshing over the film edges.
Its important to realize that the problem won't show in images with a lot of texture and shadows. Its when you have a clear blue sky that it can really get you. The problem doesn't show itself with a lot of subject matter. You can be thinking its fine when it isn't, really.
If you're developing a lot of film and and starting to get serious, I advise doing yourself a favor and testing your procedures. You don't want to find out after shooting a year of great negatives that they could've been way better. I believe AA's "the Negative" describes a procedure.

Doremus Scudder
10-May-2009, 02:43
Uneven development is usually an agitation issue. Too regular agitation builds standing waves or patterns and increases density in those areas. More agitation at the edges, caused by more rapid movement or turbulence of the solution around the sides of the film, gives dense edges. Insufficient agitation causes mottling and bromide drag...

Rotary processing in one direction can be a problem. Developing film in hangers can cause uneven edge developmen (more turbulence around the hanger frame) and bromide drag (from insufficient agitation). Tray processing often causes dense edges due to the extra turbulence around the edges caused by pushing the sheet down into the solution. There are more causes as well.

All of these can be ameliorated/eliminated by an agitation scheme that prevents the defect. The trick is to come up with an agitation scheme that gives gentle, sufficient, and even,but not regular, agitation. Jobo's that change direction work well (but constant agitation reduces edge effects, which are so prized by many of us). Hanger processing needs a practiced touch, as does tray processing, to avoid defects. In the end, all the methods can work well, but the skill requirements increase appreciably for the simplest and most manipulative methods. Some workers find it easier to go with more secure and predictable methods to achieve evenness; Jobo, sloshers, single-negative in a tray, etc., in order to eliminate the skill factor from the equation. Indeed, this is a good choice for those who do not practice a lot or who have dexterity issues. Others of us rely on our experience and skill to deal with the agitation problems.

I get very even negatives tray processing, but that was not always so. I had to learn to immerse the sheets singly, not push them down into the solution too fast when shuffling, turn them during processing, and otherwise "chaoticize" the process a bit through lots of little detailly things that defy easy description. I am constantly working on honing my agitation technique.

I, too, like the "flash test" mentioned above. (However, this must be contact printed. Enlarging it simply adds the light fall-off of the enlarger to the mix.) An occasional test neg mixed in with the regular negatives is a good way to monitor the processing. Use an N+ negative for the most telling results.

The main issue seems to be (to me, anyway) to find an agitation scheme that fits one's abilities and personality and that delivers good results. This is a highly personal choice, but understanding the problems, options and one's proclivities really helps in choosing and refining the most-suited method.

Best,

Doremus Scudder

uhner
10-May-2009, 04:14
I suppose I have had some beginners luck. When I started out with large format two years ago I was somewhat intimidated by tray development and hence bought a Combi Plan tank. Since I did not like the long times it takes to fill and empty the tank, and the possible effects this can have on negatives when using short development times, I settled on a minimal agitation regime heavily influenced by the writings of Sandy King and Steve Sherman. This has worked very well, and I have had no issues with uneven development.

I have recently started to use rotary development with BTZS tubes as well. My initial impressions are that the tubes are easy to use and so far all negatives show even development.

Bruce Watson
10-May-2009, 05:09
...(but constant agitation reduces edge effects, which are so prized by many of us).

I have never been able to find any science to support this (oft made) claim. Haist talks about it some in his Modern Photographic Processing, but he seems to conclude that agitation has no effect on the creation or not of Mackie lines (edge effects). I don't believe Henry found any evidence tying agitation to edge effects either, or at least he didn't publish it. It seems to be a theory without any actual scientific evidence. And without the science it's impossible to know the truth.

So if you have any published data or scientific evidence to back up this claim please give a citation and/or a URL. I'd love to find the truth about this once and for all.

Richard Littlewood
10-May-2009, 06:30
Doremus
Couldn't agree more. There is nothing like photographing an even surface made on an N+ neg then contact printed on G3 to reveal density nasties.

Bruce
I have come to understand that some developers (Rodinal for one) will increase the Mackie line effect with lesser or no agitation. I look foreward to someone coming through with the science part, but I'm sure many folks will have some practical experience.

mandoman7
10-May-2009, 07:07
So I'm not alone, but I am, sort of.

Kirk Keyes
10-May-2009, 07:09
Some developers have better pH buffering than others. Development releases acidic by-products (halide ions) and a poorly buffered developer will decrease in activity (in the very local environment of the emulsion) and that will help form these edge effects with dilute developers using stand development techniques. Rodinal has little buffering (it uses hydroxide as the base) so that's why it's popular for this. Developers with borax or carbonate will tend to have better buffering than one made with hydroxide.

Bruce Watson
10-May-2009, 07:10
Bruce
I have come to understand that some developers (Rodinal for one) will increase the Mackie line effect with lesser or no agitation. I look foreward to someone coming through with the science part, but I'm sure many folks will have some practical experience.

No doubt. Just as there are many who have practical experience who believe that agitation increases graininess. The science says otherwise; we know now that agitation has no direct effect on graininess. But if you increase agitation while keeping everything else constant you normally increase density somewhat. And density is directly related to graininess. So while there appears to be a link between agitation and graininess, in fact the increase in graininess is caused by a corresponding increase in density, and agitation has nothing to do with it.

One of the things that science is really good for is separating belief from fact. That's why I really want to see the science on Mackie lines. What I normally do is look stuff like this up to verify and/or correct my thinking, and it's frustrating to run into the edge of knowledge like this.

sanking
10-May-2009, 10:32
There is absolutely no doubt but that some developers when used with reduced agitation will produce greater adjacency effects than when used with constant agitation. There is plenty of good science on this. Start with Grant Haist, Modern Photographic Processing, Volume I, pp. 408-14, and references.

Some experts, Richard Henry for example, found no evidence that type of agitation had any effect on adjacency effects but closer reading of his methods show that his method of testing did not allow the film to rest long enough. Moreover, the issue can be clouded by the fact that some types of developers better than others at producing the line effects.

If one is printing directly from a negative in the wet darkroom, either by contact printing or by enlargement, development for the proper edge effects is an important tool. However, if one is developing film to scan the issue is less important because the use of unsharp mask in PS can increase sharpness in the same way that edge effects increase sharpness.

Sandy King

Bruce Watson
6-Jun-2009, 10:48
There is absolutely no doubt but that some developers when used with reduced agitation will produce greater adjacency effects than when used with constant agitation.

After more research I think I can confirm that this is in fact the case. Sandy, how could I ever have doubted you? Sigh... I can drop my stubborn stance with respect to this phenomenon, with some qualifiers.

What I found is that agitation alone isn't enough. There are at least two other factors. One is silver iodine content in the emulsion. The other is low bromide content in the developer. Apparently a developer with low bromide content can cause the formation of Mackie lines in a film with low silver iodide levels, but at considerably lower levels than it would with a film of higher silver iodide content.

So... more modern faster films with higher silver iodide content are more likely to show edge effects. Older developers with less bromide are more likely to show edge effects. And neither will show much in the way of edge effects without stand or semi-stand development.

It was explained to me that there's a thin line between edge effects and bromide drag and that both are considered to be "agitation defects" caused by insufficient agitation. Bromide drag is actually considered to be the "smearing" of Mackie lines due to insufficient agitation.

Apparently, if you really want to see Mackie lines on your film, you should use a modern fast film and an older low bromide developer, and a stand development technique. You'll likely get other agitation defects too, like halos around fine details and who knows what else.

Finally, I speculate the reason that research into this phenomenon isn't well represented in the literature is that it's considered a defect due to improper agitation techniques. The "cure" is proper agitation, and this is hardly worth the writing and publishing of papers in appropriate scientific journals. IOW it's the users who want to exploit this particular "defect" who are interested in this, the researchers themselves know about it and mostly dismiss it.

sanking
6-Jun-2009, 12:13
Bruce,

Very good summary. I agree with your comments about the importance of silver iodide content and the significance of that for modern emulsions. I have been able to get very enhanced adjacency effects with Tmax-100 film developing in either Pyrocat-MC or -HD at a dilution of 1.5:1:200 with agitation every three minutes, after initial agitation of one minute. I also got really impressive adjacency effects with HP5+ and TMY.

On the whole adjacency effects are more useful for people who contact print LF and ULF negatives with a wet process. I don't consider edge effects to be a "defect" but it is very easy to go from edge effects to bromide drag which will cause streaking between areas of tonal extremes. BTW, one of the persons who has really mastered semi-stand development and edge effects is Steve Sherman, who published a couple of articles on the subject a few years ago in View Camera. There were a few very informative threads on the subject about three or four years go on Michael Smith's AZO forum.

If you scan it is likely that you won't pick them up with a consumer type flatbed but I think you might with a drum scanner used at high resolution.

Sandy

ki6mf
6-Jun-2009, 13:32
I would opt for a diluted developer that mandates longer development times. I use D76 1:3 and normal development time is 14 minutes (I know sit in a chair). I keep 2 minutes difference per zone/stop. The diluted solution avoids problems when your shortening development times. With straight developers and shorter development times its to easy to overshoot a shortened development times and end up with over developed highlights.