PDA

View Full Version : Better result with tray or tank developing?



jvuokko
16-Apr-2010, 23:46
Hi,

I have noticed that I can't get evenly developed negatives with my preferred methods; Paterson Orbital and Jobo 2523 + 2509.

The result is somewhat acceptable when there's no really dominant sky in the negative. If there is, then especially bigger edge density is too visible.


As I haven't found any solutions for that, I am thinking to return back to tray development. However I also bought some hanger frames for dip'n'dunk and I think that it's easier to develop with tanks and hangers.

After the initial struggling with too slow agitation with hangers I am able to get somewhat good result, but I am still bit tentative.


So I would like to hear experiences and opinions, which one is easier to use in the long run. Dip'n' dunk or tray processing?

Oren Grad
17-Apr-2010, 08:56
Why not consider rotary processing as well?

jvuokko
18-Apr-2010, 02:07
Because I already use rotary with jobo and it seems really hard to get even result.

Jobo and Paterson Orbital, both has problems with too dense edges :(

Doremus Scudder
18-Apr-2010, 03:05
I've been putting off replying to see what others recommendations are, but since responses seem few, I'll give my experience and opinion.

First, I have little experience with other methods of developing than tray developing. Quite early on, I decided that the low-tech, low-cost and high flexibility of tray developing suited my style. Also, in researching developing methods, I found that not only did many of the photographers I admire use and recommend tray developing, there seemed to be a consensus that tray developing, when done correctly, yielded the best, most even results. Ctein mentions specifically (somewhere in his books) that tray developing gives the best evenness. I too believe that tray developing can yield wonderfully even results.

That said, I have had my share of uneven development problems with tray development over the years, all of which I have identified and solved. Perhaps a run-down of the problems will help you make your decision.

First, agitation in the tray is important. Both too little and too much agitation can give uneven results (not unlike most other development methods). Although some recommend developing single sheets and rocking the tray, I quite early discovered this type of agitation to be completely inadequate. Lifting the negative out of the solution and re-immersing it is the best way for me. Also, this limits one to one sheet at a time.

I develop a number of sheets at a time (up to 8) and use the shuffling method. One agitates by taking the sheet from the bottom of the stack and placing it on the top, working through the stack. I have found that the way one immerses and then pushes down the sheet of film affects evenness of development. Pushing down too fast with the film flat causes a lot of turbulence around the film edges resulting in increased density around the edges. The film needs to sink gently, with just enough help from the fingertips to get it into position in time for the next shuffle. I agitate once through the stack every thirty seconds, altering the time between shuffles accordingly. I also turn each sheet 180 each shuffle. Both these contribute to evenness. With some developers, once through every minute is adequate, but with staining developers and/or shorter developing times, this agitation scheme is to slow and can cause mottling.

How one begins development is also important. A good 3+ minute water presoak helps fill the emulsion with water and helps prevent streaking and mottling. When ready to develop, I fan the stack in my hands, start the clock and immerse each sheet one at a time into the developer over a period of thirty seconds. This gives each sheet a little time to start absorbing the developer before the next sheet covers it. I used to just drop the entire stack into the developer and shuffle through it quickly, but found that occasionally a corner or edge of one of the bottom sheets stuck out from the stack and got more development at the very beginning, causing striping. When ending development, I use the same scheme immersing the sheets into the stop bath, to ensure each sheet gets the same time.

Longer development times contribute to more even developing. We would all like to be done in five minutes, but longer is better for evenness. My developing times range from 6 1/2 to 18 minutes depending on developer and contrast, but most of my times are in the 8-12 minute range. I think shorter than about 6 minutes in a tray is asking for trouble. One can choose developer and dilution to optimize developing times. Too short of developing times can result in mottling. Again, a water pre-soak and correct agitation will do wonders when developing times are rather short.

Some recommend developing sheet film face-down in the tray. I threw away 40 or so negatives that I developed this way as a test due to uneven development caused by turbulence around the ridges in the bottom of the tray, which caused striping across the negatives. I prefer and recommend developing negatives face-up.

Finally, tray developing is a skill that has to be learned and practiced. There are multiple opportunities for damaging your negatives with tray development, since you are moving them around a lot in the dark. One of my mottoes is, "The simplest tools require the most skill." Tray developing definitely falls into this category. Scratches are easy to get if you are not really sure of yourself. Some films have softer emulsions and backing layers than others and scratch easily (these are generally the cheaper, "traditional" films like Adox, Bergger, etc.). Sticking with films that have pre-hardened emulsions at first will minimize your damage while learning (Kodak, Ilford, etc.). I advise you to spend some time with scrap sheets with the lights on first, then with the lights out and gain confidence before you try test exposures. You will find and solve problems along the way as you learn the skill.

I now very, very rarely scratch a sheet, and my development is extremely even.

To summarize, tray development can yield excellent results, possibly better than most other methods, but it takes skill and a bit of time and patience to learn. Those who do not have one or the other of these requirements usually opt for other development methods. Tray developing has the advantage of being extremely flexible: One can add sheets at different times for example, thus developing negatives for different times in the same batch. The disadvantages are all related to the fact that the negatives get handled a lot: There is always a risk of damage, no matter how small, it is rather labor-intensive, you have to do it in the dark by feel, and you need to keep your wits about you the whole time. Other developing methods have their inherent problems too, however (scratching negs getting them in and out of hangers in the dark is a big one...).

Hope this helps you in your decision,

Best,

Doremus Scudder

jp
18-Apr-2010, 04:37
Thanks for the detailed howto on tray developing!

I'll try what you've learned about that sometime soon.

jvuokko
18-Apr-2010, 08:01
Doremus, Thank you for the instructions.
I Think I'll going with the tray developing :)

I have pile of bad film to use for polishing my skills :)

Bob McCarthy
18-Apr-2010, 08:32
The only thing I might add is to use an oversized tray, 10x12 for 8x10 is what I use and use plenty of developer, 2 liters in my case. I use a rhythm of pull a sheet from the bottom and 2 gentle rocks by lifting a corner (I alternate from left to right corner to break up any wave patterns) then pull the next sheet and so on....

I also utilize a dip and dunk in 4x5 with no issues, Gemsinger taught me the drain alternate corners when agitating. Works, my negatives, both 4x5 and 8x10 are very even.

bob

Brian Ellis
18-Apr-2010, 08:47
What size film?

If 4x5, the BTZS tubes always worked great for me, I don't recall ever having an unevenly developed negative and IMHO they're infinitely easier and safer to use than trays - safer in the sense that you don't have to stand over trays inhaling chemical fumes, also safer in the sense that I never got a scratch whereas scratches happened occasionally when I used trays for 8x10 (always with the best images of course : - )). And I found it more pleasant to do everything in room light once the tubes were loaded rather than standing over trays in the dark.

They also worked well for 8x10. I drew the distinction only because the 8x10s used to be harder to find after The View Camera Store stopped having them made. They may be back in stock, you'd have to check if you do 8x10. Otherwise they appear occasionally for sale here and also ebay.

Rory_5244
18-Apr-2010, 12:34
Developing stuff in a tray in the dark would drive me nuts. :p

Gem Singer
18-Apr-2010, 12:55
The dark doesn't hurt you. It just gets in your eyes so that you can't see.

Jim Burk
18-Apr-2010, 14:26
Once I learned how to tray process I do not want to change to anything else. As mentioned, get your own method determined, then keep it exactly the same every time. Repeatability is the key to consistent results.

I like to do 4x5 in 5x7 trays. The pre-soak really helps too.

Merg Ross
18-Apr-2010, 21:54
Doremus has given you detailed and excellent instructions on how to tray develop sheet film. My procedure of fifty years is very similar to his. The pre-soak is an important part of the procedure, as is time of development and tray size. I prefer times in excess of ten minutes, and use an 8x10 tray to process 4x5 sheets, up to 12 at a time; some prefer a smaller tray.

You may wish to look at the wonderful work that Doremus has produced as proof of his skills with film. Superb images on his website, however, in need of more recent work! Doremus?

Doremus Scudder
19-Apr-2010, 05:19
Merg,

Thanks for the complimentary post! High praise coming from you.

As to the web site: I've been kind of busy with doctoral dissertation, etc. this last few years and have neglected updating the website for a time. Now that I'm done with the schoolwork, I can turn to printing my backlog of several years' worth of negatives and getting some new stuff up on the website. It won't be long now, I'm photoshopping the printing session from last summer for the web this month and hope to get some new work up in a month or so.

Best,

Doremus Scudder

Merg Ross
19-Apr-2010, 10:02
As to the web site: I've been kind of busy with doctoral dissertation, etc. this last few years and have neglected updating the website for a time. Now that I'm done with the schoolwork, I can turn to printing my backlog of several years' worth of negatives and getting some new stuff up on the website. It won't be long now, I'm photoshopping the printing session from last summer for the web this month and hope to get some new work up in a month or so.

Best,

Doremus Scudder

Doremus, this is indeed good news! I await the new work.

Regards,
Merg

Frank_E
19-Apr-2010, 11:05
I'm far from an expert, since I have only shot less than 50 sheets in my total LF career.

but I will jump in anyways

actually the developing part of the film has been the only part that has gone smoothly for me. It has been shooting (light leak and exposure problems) and darkroom printing where I have found the challenges.

I have both setups which you describe, both the Jobo and the Paterson Orbital.

When using the Jobo I only load in 4 sheets to avoid any possibility of the sheets touching. Don't have a sheet loader so find it easier just to load the 4 sheets in a changing bag. I use an electric rotator device. It is a different brand (can't remember make). I reverse directions every 30 seconds (ie flip the tank to the opposite side).

For the Paterson I have the electric orbitor which rotates the tray (converted to 110voltage). I have had great results with both methods but prefer the Paterson because it is so much easier to load. I scored the base of the Paterson tray so that the film lifts out more easily. Use 150ml of fluid for each developing cycle. Some say you should/can use more or less than this amount but this really works well for me.

Should add, I presoak (when using either method) in plain water for about 30 seconds (while agitating) prior to pouring in the developer.

Not sure if any of this helps but wanted to point out that both have worked well for me. Don't know what you might be doing differently that makes your results so different.

jvuokko
23-Apr-2010, 06:40
Frank E, I too like orbital more than jobo because it's so easy to load and you can quickly develop another sheet (or sheets) of films without waiting that the orbital tank is dry.

The easiest developing device I have used!


Perhaps the amount of developer or the activity of developer causes some uneveness in my process?

I have noticed that with Fuji Acros and Pyrocat-HD I get really good results. But with HP5+ and XTOL 1+1 I got negatives which has clearly more density at the edges.

The Adox CHS 50 Art film with Pyrocat-HD seems to have same problem.

I use usually 250ml of developer per cycle and develop one or two, sometimes three sheets together.

BetterSense
23-Apr-2010, 06:48
An experienced astrophotographer at a university advised me that the only truly satisfactory way to obtain perfectly even development of large format negatives was to use brush development. After having evenness problems of one form or another with every other form of developing I have tried, I believe her (although I still use tanks and hangers for now).

William McEwen
23-Apr-2010, 08:48
Yes, Doremus has given a terrific rundown on tray processing.

I tray process and have never tried other methods.

Let me add (or confirm) that a pre-soak is necessary. Give the negs plenty of time to get evenly wet.

Don't skimp on solution. I use over a gallon in a 12x16 tray.

All negs face up at all times.

Agitation: Doremus does exactly what Ansel did... no rocking the tray, just moving the negs constantly from bottom to top.

I find that I need to rock a little. But not a lot.

Doing all this in the dark is no biggee. Everything is right in front of you and you aren't moving around.

Frank_E
23-Apr-2010, 13:56
Frank E, I too like orbital more than jobo because it's so easy to load and you can quickly develop another sheet (or sheets) of films without waiting that the orbital tank is dry.

The easiest developing device I have used!


Perhaps the amount of developer or the activity of developer causes some uneveness in my process?

I have noticed that with Fuji Acros and Pyrocat-HD I get really good results. But with HP5+ and XTOL 1+1 I got negatives which has clearly more density at the edges.

The Adox CHS 50 Art film with Pyrocat-HD seems to have same problem.

I use usually 250ml of developer per cycle and develop one or two, sometimes three sheets together.

I never mentioned my film and developer, maybe that accounts for the difference also. All of my experience has been with FP4 and HC-110.

David Woods
23-Apr-2010, 22:45
Guys

Just a question I have wondered about, does it matter how long you wash your film for, before dipping it in the developer?

David

Ari
24-Apr-2010, 13:41
A quick question, out of curiosity:
Do you use bare hands to handle the film in the developer, gloves, or tongs?

And as an aside, I've had the JOBO 2551 tank with two reels for a year now, it processes 12 sheets at a time. It has worked perfectly for me since the very first try and I've never noticed any problems with my film.
Before that, I'd been processing rollfilms in SS tanks for 10 years; maybe it gave me a leg up, who knows?

Jerry Bodine
24-Apr-2010, 18:09
"does it matter how long you wash your film for, before dipping it in the developer?"

David, look at post #4 again; Doremus suggests 3+ minutes soak (not wash) and explains the technique very well. AA mentions in his book "The Negative" to soak about a minute, but I've always soaked longer as it's not really critical to do that.

"Do you use bare hands to handle the film in the developer, gloves, or tongs?"

Ari, I've always used bare FINGERS in the developer, but if one has skin sensitivity issues it would be good to use thin nitrile gloves (not the powdered variety) available in stores like NAPA. Warming up the developer can be minimized by using only the fingers. Gloves would also protect against film scratching by rough fingers/fingernails.

David Woods
25-Apr-2010, 00:13
"does it matter how long you wash your film for, before dipping it in the developer?"

David, look at post #4 again; Doremus suggests 3+ minutes soak (not wash) and explains the technique very well. AA mentions in his book "The Negative" to soak about a minute, but I've always soaked longer as it's not really critical to do that.

"Do you use bare hands to handle the film in the developer, gloves, or tongs?"

Ari, I've always used bare FINGERS in the developer, but if one has skin sensitivity issues it would be good to use thin nitrile gloves (not the powdered variety) available in stores like NAPA. Warming up the developer can be minimized by using only the fingers. Gloves would also protect against film scratching by rough fingers/fingernails.


Hi Jerry

I was really asking but didn't ask it the right way was, if you washed it for say 10 minutes, is it better for the film, or would it damaged the film, or is there no real benefit after a couple of minutes.
David

Doremus Scudder
25-Apr-2010, 04:12
Greetings again,

I thought I'd post again to address a couple of the questions that have come up in the last few posts and give my humble (but hopefully informed) opinion.

As to water pre-soak times: I's like to clarify a bit. I gave the time as 3+ minutes for a couple of reasons. First, it takes a while for the film emulsion to completely saturate with water. The development will be most even if the emulsion is completely saturated. Times under one minute for a single sheet are certainly too little. If you are pre-soaking a number of sheets, then one goes in on top of the other and somewhat inhibits the flow of water to the emulsion surface, slowing down the saturation process a bit. And, people often start timing when the first sheet goes in, meaning the last sheet can get "shorted" on time. So, lets add a safety factor for both of these and say 2+ minutes at least. Finally, I add in another factor, which is the tendency of the sheets to stick together sometimes. This is dependent on water hardness and quality. My tap water in Vienna is rather hard and the sheets really like to glue themselves together if I don't let each sheet soak for about 10+ seconds before adding the next one on the top. With six sheets, this is one minute or more just for the immersion. I then shuffle through the stack (one sheet each 5-6 seconds) for four cycles. This comes to about three minutes or a bit more each time for me. I use this pre-soak routine even in Oregon, where the water is such that my films don't really stick together if I immerse them in five-second intervals. (BTW if you do get two sheets that stick together, just be patient and gently work them apart. It'll take a few minutes but won't do any damage. Just don't force anything.)

So, if you are developing just one sheet of film, I imagine a minimum one-minute pre-soak would do the job for most films, but to be on the safe side (remember, the goal is even development), a safety factor for the above considerations plus different emulsion thicknesses, water qualities, and whatever else I haven't taken into consideration is a good idea. After the emulsion is completely saturated, there is no benefit to extending the pre-soak time. A little longer does no damage however. Since I've not done research on exactly how long it takes the emulsions I use to saturate with water, I just make sure that I'm not pre-soaking for too little time to be safe.

As for bare hands versus gloves, I come down somewhere in the middle, but leaning toward the use of gloves as standard practice. For years I used D-76 and HC-110 as my primary developers and simply used bare hands. I had no problems. I am aware, however, that Metol is a common cause of contact dermatitis in some people. Wearing gloves is certainly necessary if you have this condition, and not a bad idea if you are the type who has a tendency to develop such conditions just as a preventive measure.

When I switched to staining developers as my primary developers, I began wearing gloves due to the toxicity of the developer. I figured I'd be developing lots of negatives this way and the cumulative effect of toxins absorbed through the skin is nothing to downplay. I've got a number of years left to photograph, and I don't want them cut short by kidney failure or the like. This caveat applies to other, less toxic chemicals as well, but to a much lesser extent. Pyrogallol, pyrocatechin, selenium and other photochemicals have proven toxicity to repeated exposure and a conscientious worker will always wear gloves (or use tongs) when working with these.

I now don nitrile or vinyl gloves before unloading my filmholders. It is a little more difficult to handle everything with the gloves on, but not so much as to be more than an occasional nuisance. Unloading the holders is actually the most affected (sometimes I have to turn a holder upside-down and blow gently to separate the film from the holder septum so I can get a finger under an edge). Agitating, etc. is no problem. I wear my gloves through the entire session, washing and drying them carefully between stages/batches just as I would my hands. It is very important to make doubly sure the gloves are dry before unloading holders. I remove gloves after the films are all in the washer. Agitation in distilled water with Photo Flo is done with bare hands. When I do the occasional batch with HC-110 now, I'll still do it with bare hands, but this is now rather rare.

The decision to wear gloves when tray developing boils down to a couple of factors: the toxicity of the solutions you are using and the amount of exposure. If you develop relatively few films by hand in rather safe solutions (e.g., PQ or MQ developers, standard stop and fix), then using bare hands perhaps presents little risk. If you use more toxic developing agents and more exotic chemicals, then gloves are mandatory in order to protect your health. If you develop a lot, even with more benign chemicals, then it's probably a good idea to wear gloves to limit exposure.

Hope this helps,

Doremus Scudder

Jay DeFehr
25-Apr-2010, 10:39
I'm a relative newbie here, having only about 10 years experience in developing LF films. What I lack in experience is made up for, somewhat, by my curious nature and incessant experimenting. I think I've tried every film development method, and even invented a few new ones! I've never had any trouble with uneven development in my Jobo Expert drums, but if I wanted to be absolutely certain to avoid uneven development, I would develop my negatives in a tray with brush agitation, one sheet at a time. I never perfected the shuffle in tray technique, and damaged too many negatives trying. I can't seem to avoid leaving marks where my fingers touch the film, with or without gloves. I think the heat from my fingers accelerates development there. Maybe I have exceptionally hot fingers.
I've never seen uneven development when developing in a bag, either, but I haven't developed enough film that way to know if I've just been lucky.

David Woods
25-Apr-2010, 14:08
Greetings again,

I thought I'd post again to address a couple of the questions that have come up in the last few posts and give my humble (but hopefully informed) opinion.

As to water pre-soak times: I's like to clarify a bit. I gave the time as 3+ minutes for a couple of reasons. First, it takes a while for the film emulsion to completely saturate with water. The development will be most even if the emulsion is completely saturated. Times under one minute for a single sheet are certainly too little. If you are pre-soaking a number of sheets, then one goes in on top of the other and somewhat inhibits the flow of water to the emulsion surface, slowing down the saturation process a bit. And, people often start timing when the first sheet goes in, meaning the last sheet can get "shorted" on time. So, lets add a safety factor for both of these and say 2+ minutes at least. Finally, I add in another factor, which is the tendency of the sheets to stick together sometimes. This is dependent on water hardness and quality. My tap water in Vienna is rather hard and the sheets really like to glue themselves together if I don't let each sheet soak for about 10+ seconds before adding the next one on the top. With six sheets, this is one minute or more just for the immersion. I then shuffle through the stack (one sheet each 5-6 seconds) for four cycles. This comes to about three minutes or a bit more each time for me. I use this pre-soak routine even in Oregon, where the water is such that my films don't really stick together if I immerse them in five-second intervals. (BTW if you do get two sheets that stick together, just be patient and gently work them apart. It'll take a few minutes but won't do any damage. Just don't force anything.)

So, if you are developing just one sheet of film, I imagine a minimum one-minute pre-soak would do the job for most films, but to be on the safe side (remember, the goal is even development), a safety factor for the above considerations plus different emulsion thicknesses, water qualities, and whatever else I haven't taken into consideration is a good idea. After the emulsion is completely saturated, there is no benefit to extending the pre-soak time. A little longer does no damage however. Since I've not done research on exactly how long it takes the emulsions I use to saturate with water, I just make sure that I'm not pre-soaking for too little time to be safe.

As for bare hands versus gloves, I come down somewhere in the middle, but leaning toward the use of gloves as standard practice. For years I used D-76 and HC-110 as my primary developers and simply used bare hands. I had no problems. I am aware, however, that Metol is a common cause of contact dermatitis in some people. Wearing gloves is certainly necessary if you have this condition, and not a bad idea if you are the type who has a tendency to develop such conditions just as a preventive measure.

When I switched to staining developers as my primary developers, I began wearing gloves due to the toxicity of the developer. I figured I'd be developing lots of negatives this way and the cumulative effect of toxins absorbed through the skin is nothing to downplay. I've got a number of years left to photograph, and I don't want them cut short by kidney failure or the like. This caveat applies to other, less toxic chemicals as well, but to a much lesser extent. Pyrogallol, pyrocatechin, selenium and other photochemicals have proven toxicity to repeated exposure and a conscientious worker will always wear gloves (or use tongs) when working with these.

I now don nitrile or vinyl gloves before unloading my filmholders. It is a little more difficult to handle everything with the gloves on, but not so much as to be more than an occasional nuisance. Unloading the holders is actually the most affected (sometimes I have to turn a holder upside-down and blow gently to separate the film from the holder septum so I can get a finger under an edge). Agitating, etc. is no problem. I wear my gloves through the entire session, washing and drying them carefully between stages/batches just as I would my hands. It is very important to make doubly sure the gloves are dry before unloading holders. I remove gloves after the films are all in the washer. Agitation in distilled water with Photo Flo is done with bare hands. When I do the occasional batch with HC-110 now, I'll still do it with bare hands, but this is now rather rare.

The decision to wear gloves when tray developing boils down to a couple of factors: the toxicity of the solutions you are using and the amount of exposure. If you develop relatively few films by hand in rather safe solutions (e.g., PQ or MQ developers, standard stop and fix), then using bare hands perhaps presents little risk. If you use more toxic developing agents and more exotic chemicals, then gloves are mandatory in order to protect your health. If you develop a lot, even with more benign chemicals, then it's probably a good idea to wear gloves to limit exposure.

Hope this helps,

Doremus Scudder

Doremus

Thank you for clearing the soaking times up, it was a question I have been wanting to ask for a while, finally I get an answer for it.

David

jvuokko
25-Apr-2010, 22:55
My Paterson Orbital gives results like this (quite unevenly developed):

http://jukkavuokko.com/linkatut/lf/45_2010-04-19-6%20hp5-fail.jpg


Let's see how good result I can get with tray development. I expect that better.

samwang
28-Apr-2010, 23:37
I am surprised to read that rotary drums did not give you perfect negatives. But your Jobo must not be what I use, the 6 cylinder kind. Sorry that I don't have the model number. It was after seeing this drum in action that gave Phil Davis the idea of developing the BTZS drums.

So I would suggest getting rid of your present Jobo tank and get one of those 6 cylinder units instead, if 6 sheets at a time works for you. But last time I checked, those go for over $500 a piece from B&H!

If you would pardon me, I would not worry too much about uneven negatives. I've predicted for a long time that all the defects, dust, scratches, etc. will one day be valued because they convey the authentic experience of film processing not present, and not available, in digital images. And one day filters in Photoshop will be popular to introduce these defects - just look at what they have in film-making with video editing software, all those artificial scratches and dust!

By the way, back to rotary processing: I also use simple tubes I made from black sewer pipes, especially when I just want to process one or 2 sheets. Just roll them. They work well.

Sam

Patrick Dixon
29-Apr-2010, 01:13
I think you should try the Orbital with less developer volume. I have read of somebody modifying the vanes to fix uneven development with large-ish chemical volumes, but I think it's better just to use less volume.

I use 100ml of developer and fix for 1-4 sheets and I'm happy with the results (but then I probably have low standards!). I've tried Rodinal, DD-X and Presyscol with various emulsions, and I'm happiest with DD-X in the Orbital. The other two may well be better for stand or tray development, but for the continuous agitation of the Orbital, I've found DD-X works best of the three.

The advice on development times above is good - Joanna Carter recommends using DD-X at 1:6 rather than 1:4 to give extended development times, but so long as you're developing for at least 8mins, I reckon that's enough.

BTW, this was processed in a hand rotated Orbital using 100ml 1:4 DD-X, 8 1/2 mins @20C

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4028/4530887654_55d92fa6ea.jpg

jvuokko
29-Apr-2010, 02:51
I think you should try the Orbital with less developer volume. I have read of somebody modifying the vanes to fix uneven development with large-ish chemical volumes, but I think it's better just to use less volume.



It is quite possible that my orbital's motorized base doesn't give proper movement. The movemet is very different even with my two orbital tanks. One of them does nice rotation movement while tilting. The another one usually only does tilting movement. Only sometimes rotation.

I have found that this kind of movement http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKpCEeJdz9Y (rotation + tilting) gives a good results. But my orbital just doesn't go like this always.

Patrick Dixon
29-Apr-2010, 02:58
I do it by hand and I don't do any rotation.