Old Glass, New Fun

[tuco]

Th
... the only things that i do not like about it are the risks of streaks or uneven development or bromide drag
chris

I've done some stand/semi-stand in Rodinal with 120 roll and sheet film in the past. My results there was always a risk of uneven development seemingly at random. And I have observed the better the picture, the higher the probability that frame/sheet will experience the problem. But I liked the results when it worked.

[tundra]

I've done some stand/semi-stand in Rodinal with 120 roll and sheet film in the past. My results there was always a risk of uneven development seemingly at random. And I have observed the better the picture, the higher the probability that frame/sheet will experience the problem. But I liked the results when it worked.

Read through my notes here. You'll find some ideas on how to minimize the risk of this bromide streaking:


https://gitbucket.tundraware.com/tun...nd-Development

The trick is to minimize contact area between the suspension device and the film itself. For reels, prefer widely spaced reels like the old Nikor reels. Avoid any full frame of plastic reel/holder systems. For sheet film, use a pinch style hanger or even an X-Ray film clip.

Interestingly, the old photo labs used to use a dip and dunk style overnight development where the film was held at one end with a weight in another.

[tuco]

Read through my notes here. You'll find some ideas on how to minimize the risk of this bromide streaking:


https://gitbucket.tundraware.com/tun...nd-Development

The trick is to minimize contact area between the suspension device and the film itself. For reels, prefer widely spaced reels like the old Nikor reels. Avoid any full frame of plastic reel/holder systems. For sheet film, use a pinch style hanger or even an X-Ray film clip.

Interestingly, the old photo labs used to use a dip and dunk style overnight development where the film was held at one end with a weight in another.

Okay, I'll give a read, thanks.

Mine does not look like bromide drag as in a streak. It's often subtle, but noticeable, non-uniform density patches in, say, the sky.

[Jim Noel]

Read through my notes here. You'll find some ideas on how to minimize the risk of this bromide streaking:


https://gitbucket.tundraware.com/tun...nd-Development

The trick is to minimize contact area between the suspension device and the film itself. For reels, prefer widely spaced reels like the old Nikor reels. Avoid any full frame of plastic reel/holder systems. For sheet film, use a pinch style hanger or even an X-Ray film clip.

Interestingly, the old photo labs used to use a dip and dunk style overnight development where the film was held at one end with a weight in another.

My 1st job in photography included loading the film developing hanger late each afternoon. The film was lowered into the D-23 and left overnight. It was the rare film which was not printable when film processing was completed the next morning.

[tundra]

Okay, I'll give a read, thanks.

Mine does not look like bromide drag as in a streak. It's often subtle, but noticeable, non-uniform density patches in, say, the sky.

Bromide drag can manifest in a lot of horrid ways. I'd try minimal contact suspension appropriate for your format and make sure you have reasonably well matched temperature across the various solutions.

The other thing is developer volume. I no longer develop anything in closed tanks - period. I do everything in either 1/2 gal Kodak open rubber tanks or - if I have a lot to do - I use a 1 gal Tupperware tank as seen here:

https://www.tundraware.com/Photograp...arkroom-14.jpg

(Ignore the basket on the left, I don't use that for semistand.)

The idea is to have enough developer solution to properly get development working. People like Steve Sherman have found ways to do minimal suspension using sawed off piece of plumbing pipe, but I'm too lazy to do all that.

I order to be able to enter/exit the darkroom during the long standing times, I have a black plastic over that fits over the developer tank which is sufficiently dark to be able to briefly open the door with the lights out in the adjacent room.

I should also mention that I have found some films are more prone to drag than others. Interestingly, they are fine in D-23 in that case. D-23 1:1 also gives very good results, but it's a bit grainer than PCat

[Michael R]

It's likely simply non-uniformity of development, which is caused by a number of things. "Bromide drag" is a specific thing.

Okay, I'll give a read, thanks.

Mine does not look like bromide drag as in a streak. It's often subtle, but noticeable, non-uniform density patches in, say, the sky.

[tuco]

Bromide drag can manifest in a lot of horrid ways. I'd try minimal contact suspension appropriate for your format and make sure you have reasonably well matched temperature across the various solutions.

I've suspected perhaps a variable gap between the wraps on my stainless steel reels might be a source of the problem for a while now.

In your article perhaps expand on why the highlights exhaust the developer while the shadows keep going in a large volume of developer. Only the developer in the resulting fluid boundary layer interacts with the film unless some kind of natural convection is going on. That is also a reason we agitate is to replenish the boundary layer with fresh developer in addition to removing developing byproducts.

[tundra]

I've suspected perhaps a variable gap between the wraps on my stainless steel reels might be a source of the problem for a while now.

In your article perhaps expand on why the highlights exhaust the developer while the shadows keep going in a large volume of developer. Only the developer in the resulting fluid boundary layer interacts with the film unless some kind of natural convection is going on. That is also a reason we agitate is to replenish the boundary layer with fresh developer in addition to removing developing byproducts.

That whole topic is covered in really fine detail in David Kachel's article I cite on how film works. It interesting, because he really explains this well, but personally thinks low agitation is a bad thing, preferring instead to use his own SLIMT techniques.

You may be right about the reels. I've had generally good results with the more widely spaced Nikor reels, but it's not perfect even so. With rollfilm I am therefore more inclined to use Extreme Minimal Agitation to get an extra bump or two in during the standing period.

Until I started researching this and exploring it for myself, I never realized what religious zeal this whole topic engenders. It's kind of silly, really. If it works for you, use it. It it does not, don't. But I've seen reams of digital ink spilled either defending or refuting low/no agitation. For me, the final print is all that matters. The technique is a just a path to get there.

[tundra]

It's likely simply non-uniformity of development, which is caused by a number of things. "Bromide drag" is a specific thing.

Another cause of streaking can be static electric illumination when tearing the retention tape that secures the film to the backing paper or spool. Mostly noted in winter when things are very dry.

[chris77]

today i have developed fomapan 100 in 1:100 r09 for 30 min, 30sec initial gentle agitation, 10 sec after 10 and after 20 min. result is beautiful, and yes, separation in the shadows and midtones is very very good. will post when i have a dry negative and a print