Agitating time for 1+7 id11 developer

[tundra]

you might consider doing test sheets to assure you don't get bromide drag.
the sprint developer I had mentioned is liquid 1:9 and sprint has a series of tested
extensive time and temperature charts on their website, and a real life person (professional photographer ) who
had done real world development with their developer and pretty much every film made
(rather than crowd sourced on something like MDC &c ). not sure where you are located
but if your lye and extreme minimal adgitation/development doesn't pan out, it might be worth it looking into
the sprint website (just realized you are in Europe so drop shipping isn't an option) to get ideas you might be able to
cross reference to ID-11 since they both seem to be similar D76 clones ... internet is great, and wealth of information available is fantastic
but from my experience, whenever I have given people methods, dilutions and developers that worked swimmingly for me
well, lets just say they didn't work swimmingly for others .. "did what you said, but my film was so cooked I couldn't even make salt prints from it"

A fair bit of what I documented in the notes I cited in Post #9 deals with how to avoid drag. It comes down to several things:

1) Use film hangers or reels that minimize contact with the film

2) Make sure the film is suspended well off the bottom of the tank

3) Do an initial vigorous agitation of 90-120sec

4) Agitate at least once at the midpoint (semistand) or 2-3 times during the development cycle (Extreme Minimal Agitation)


I have developed sheet film that went out of date in 1961 this way, as well as many modern emulsions. I have developed 35mm, 120, and 220 this way. With only one exception, the above avoided bromide drag. The one exception was 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 Plus-X sheefilm that went out of date some time in the late 1970s as best as I can recall. This one had problems with drag with Pyrocat-HD, but not D-23.

[jnantz]

A fair bit of what I documented in the notes I cited in Post #9 deals with how to avoid drag. It comes down to several things:

1) Use film hangers or reels that minimize contact with the film

2) Make sure the film is suspended well off the bottom of the tank

3) Do an initial vigorous agitation of 90-120sec

4) Agitate at least once at the midpoint (semistand) or 2-3 times during the development cycle (Extreme Minimal Agitation)


I have developed sheet film that went out of date in 1961 this way, as well as many modern emulsions. I have developed 35mm, 120, and 220 this way. With only one exception, the above avoided bromide drag. The one exception was 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 Plus-X sheefilm that went out of date some time in the late 1970s as best as I can recall. This one had problems with drag with Pyrocat-HD, but not D-23.

sounds like you figured out a plan, sometimes ( as I mentioned ) things might be a bit difficult for the uninitiated, or people without learned/muscle memory experience and specific developing experiences ...
I thought "1:6 8 mins continuous shuffling after a 1 min water bath of continuous shuffling" was simple, turns out it's not.. I thought "water bath 1 min, ( spooled (roll film) adgitate 1 min continuously and 10 sec ever min after that for 8 mins"
was simple for someone with 10-20 years experience developing film, turns out it's not.. and it's not like im immune to inability to process film with a run of the mill, plain vanilla developer, 40+ years experience, and 4 years trying I can't get a decent negative out of that developer that begins with X ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[tundra]

sounds like you figured out a plan, sometimes ( as I mentioned ) things might be a bit difficult for the uninitiated, or people without learned/muscle memory experience and specific developing experiences ...
I thought "1:6 8 mins continuous shuffling after a 1 min water bath of continuous shuffling" was simple, turns out it's not.. I thought "water bath 1 min, ( spooled (roll film) adgitate 1 min continuously and 10 sec ever min after that for 8 mins"
was simple for someone with 10-20 years experience developing film, turns out it's not.. and it's not like im immune to inability to process film with a run of the mill, plain vanilla developer, 40+ years experience, and 4 years trying I can't get a decent negative out of that developer that begins with X ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's why I wrote my findings up in some detail - to help the "uninitiated". The 4 findings I mentioned above pretty much ensure there will not be any bromide drag except in the rarest of circumstances (like the aforementioned old Plus-X). Doing open tank 2l semistand or EMA is well within the reach of the uninitiated, but it's not recommended for someone who has never developed film before ... as noted at the beginning of my notes.

[jnantz]

That's why I wrote my findings up in some detail - to help the "uninitiated". The 4 findings I mentioned above pretty much ensure there will not be any bromide drag except in the rarest of circumstances (like the aforementioned old Plus-X). Doing open tank 2l semistand or EMA is well within the reach of the uninitiated, but it's not recommended for someone who has never developed film before ... as noted at the beginning of my notes.

I guess you are lucky..

my findings and advices were part of a multi page article I was in the midst of writing with the chemist who was one of the authors of Morgan and Lester's Photo Lab Index. It was going to be published in View Camera Magazine back in the early 2000s but unfortunately Mr Simmns was being Mr. Simmns and because he was having some sort of spat with the Photographer's Formulary I wasn't permitted to say where I was getting my chemistry ( and no one else makes some of the ingredients ). .. he made it very difficult, and the chemist decided not to continue because of the problematic publisher, so the project was dropped, but I still used the developer and told others about it ... the "uninitiated" in my case were seasoned photographers who had been developing and printing silver, PTPD, Salt and any other AltPro for decades, they weren't really uninitiated noobs, and my advice+instructions were more detailed than instructions found on a big red can of GAF Universal Developer. If you have ever seen those instructions, they were "1:6 6mins FILM, 1:2 2 minutes Paper" no details, nothing fancy just 6 words. As I was said. sometimes "advice" (detailed or not) for using a new developer or new methods transfer and work, sometimes they don't. The last multi page article on using a developer was my contribution to the Caffenol Cookbook, and it didn't seem to require emails to me saying it didn't work or worked poorly, and I still from time to time suggest people try using that using a detailed methodology I developed over 16 years of using it

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ maybe the difference is that its a different breed of people who use caffenol than people using typical and universal ppf developers.

[tundra]

I guess you are lucky..

my findings and advices were part of a multi page article I was in the midst of writing with the chemist who was one of the authors of Morgan and Lester's Photo Lab Index. It was going to be published in View Camera Magazine back in the early 2000s but unfortunately Mr Simmns was being Mr. Simmns and because he was having some sort of spat with the Photographer's Formulary I wasn't permitted to say where I was getting my chemistry ( and no one else makes some of the ingredients ). .. he made it very difficult, and the chemist decided not to continue because of the problematic publisher, so the project was dropped, but I still used the developer and told others about it ... the "uninitiated" in my case were seasoned photographers who had been developing and printing silver, PTPD, Salt and any other AltPro for decades, they weren't really uninitiated noobs, and my advice+instructions were more detailed than instructions found on a big red can of GAF Universal Developer. If you have ever seen those instructions, they were "1:6 6mins FILM, 1:2 2 minutes Paper" no details, nothing fancy just 6 words. As I was said. sometimes "advice" (detailed or not) for using a new developer or new methods transfer and work, sometimes they don't. The last multi page article on using a developer was my contribution to the Caffenol Cookbook, and it didn't seem to require emails to me saying it didn't work or worked poorly, and I still from time to time suggest people try using that using a detailed methodology I developed over 16 years of using it

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ maybe the difference is that its a different breed of people who use caffenol than people using typical and universal ppf developers.

So first, let me say unequivocally that high dilution/low agitation development is not some magick that guarantees best outcomes for every single situation. it is an arrow in the quiver of the advanced photographer and - when applied with care - can produce very useful results.

Secondly, it is certainly true that everyone has to find their own way of successfully doing this, just as they must calibrate their work flow for their own meters, thermometers, shutters, and so on.

Having said this, though, the complaints I see about semistand/EMA development seem to consistently come down to one of several cases:

1. Insufficient developer volume/small tank

2. Failure to suspend the film well above the bottom of the developer tank

3. Failure to minimize film contact with its support mechanism.

4. Failure to initially agitate for long enough to get the process really kicked off

5. Complaints by people who've actually never tried it. This is a big one on the internet where everyone has an opinion


In my experience, 1. 2. and 3. are the first order problems that create bromide drag issues. Using high ridged plastic reels for roll film, frames for sheet film, or contraptions like the Yankee sheet film tank are just begging for drag. Letting the film come to rest near the bottom of the tank during standing times, greatly increases the risk of drag. Again, this is why I wrote in some detail about these things in my notes.

It is worth noting that other people who are getting good results using this approach, are often developing film in "tanks" made PVC pipe sections for essentially contactless support (on the emulsion side). Steve Sherman leaps to mind here.


I will also stipulate that you have to pick the right developer for this. I have successfully done this with D-23, DK-50, HC-110, and Pyrocat-HD, all in super-dilute concentrations. But I wouldn't dream of doing this in a developer with a high aerial oxidation rate like PMK.

We tend to think of all this as something that the ancients like Atget did. But, it's worth remembering that this whole business was how many of the old dip and dunk development systems in local photo shops were used in days gone by. The film would be hung vertically and agitated a bit in a large tank of D-23, once again before closing time, and left overnight to be pulled in the morning. The allowed wide variations in exposure management, film type, and subject matter to deliver printable negatives at the local photo finisher.

[jnantz]

We tend to think of all this as something that the ancients like Atget did. But, it's worth remembering that this whole business was how many of the old dip and dunk development systems in local photo shops were used in days gone by. The film would be hung vertically and agitated a bit in a large tank of D-23, once again before closing time, and left overnight to be pulled in the morning. The allowed wide variations in exposure management, film type, and subject matter to deliver printable negatives at the local photo finisher.

naaaah ... maybe some people think it's something people like atget did, but he was shooting dry plates, and he might have developed under a red light by inspection with a strong, active print/plate developer, who knows, it wasn't fancy that's all I know.. I mean I worked for someone who was trained in the 1920s/30s and things she learned weren't fancy or magic bullets, it was just developing film and making prints, and when I worked for her she had 60 years working nearly 7 days a week experience ... I think you are right though a lot of people look for magic bullets and they dont' realize there is no such thing. the only magic bullet is experience, and lots of it so one knows how their film and paper and camera/lens/shooting technique works in concert.
people think there are short cuts "I want to have my prints look like "this" ( pointing to uploading referring to some random or obscure technique someone has been using for 30 or 60 years who knows his / her technique backwards and forwards ) thinking that some random person on the internet who might have an inkling of what said person does after reading a 2 sentence 10 word explanation in some article that generalized the procedure ... and then they get soured because their images don't look the same.
I got into a row with some guy who was a retired chemist once, who had been using "caffneol" for a few months and claimed he was an "expert" .. at the time I had used it for 4 years, processed thousands of sheets and rolls of film, and paper negatives with it and used it EVERY DAY, and I was no expert, and still nearly 20 years later am no expert in anything. once one realizes they are just a student it becomes a lot easier to get that the more you learn, the more you realize you know nothing .. of course he called me a fraud .. whatever, he was probably just some 13 year old girl in her parent's basement poaching her neighbor's WIFI catfishing people on photo forums .. there's a lot of that, SSDD..

[tundra]

naaaah ... maybe some people think it's something people like atget did, but he was shooting dry plates, and he might have developed under a red light by inspection with a strong, active print/plate developer, who knows, it wasn't fancy that's all I know.. I mean I worked for someone who was trained in the 1920s/30s and things she learned weren't fancy or magic bullets, it was just developing film and making prints, and when I worked for her she had 60 years working nearly 7 days a week experience ... I think you are right though a lot of people look for magic bullets and they dont' realize there is no such thing. the only magic bullet is experience, and lots of it so one knows how their film and paper and camera/lens/shooting technique works in concert.
people think there are short cuts "I want to have my prints look like "this" ( pointing to uploading referring to some random or obscure technique someone has been using for 30 or 60 years who knows his / her technique backwards and forwards ) thinking that some random person on the internet who might have an inkling of what said person does after reading a 2 sentence 10 word explanation in some article that generalized the procedure ... and then they get soured because their images don't look the same.
I got into a row with some guy who was a retired chemist once, who had been using "caffneol" for a few months and claimed he was an "expert" .. at the time I had used it for 4 years, processed thousands of sheets and rolls of film, and paper negatives with it and used it EVERY DAY, and I was no expert, and still nearly 20 years later am no expert in anything. once one realizes they are just a student it becomes a lot easier to get that the more you learn, the more you realize you know nothing .. of course he called me a fraud .. whatever, he was probably just some 13 year old girl in her parent's basement poaching her neighbor's WIFI catfishing people on photo forums .. there's a lot of that, SSDD..

On the internet, everyone is an expert. When people make claims, I just ask them "can we see your images done <that way> please?"

[jnantz]

On the internet, everyone is an expert. When people make claims, I just ask them "can we see your images done <that way> please?"

exactly ..

the so-called-expert didn't have access to the gallery, I had over 1500 images posted and have always been extremely transparent about what I do, people ask a question I answer it,
people email me and I do a free tutorial, published a book &c and I've never offer any advice / information unless I have experience in it &c, this guy on the other hand tried to have me expelled and smear my reputation (not only there but 2 other places I frequented) and his "blog" because I gave him a "gift subscription" so he could post images .. as they say. no good deed goes unpunished.

[tundra]

exactly ..

the so-called-expert didn't have access to the gallery, I had over 1500 images posted and have always been extremely transparent about what I do, people ask a question I answer it,
people email me and I do a free tutorial, published a book &c and I've never offer any advice / information unless I have experience in it &c, this guy on the other hand tried to have me expelled and smear my reputation (not only there but 2 other places I frequented) and his "blog" because I gave him a "gift subscription" so he could post images .. as they say. no good deed goes unpunished.

I still think you should read my notes and give semistand/EMA another go

[jnantz]

I still think you should read my notes and give semistand/EMA another go

I would but TBH I don't really do much minimal agitation and I have't used deep tanks/hangers since IDK 1994 ...
when I process sheet film I usually just shuffle them, or I put them in an FR tank and let it sit for 30 mins and BOOM it's done ...
I am mostly doing cameraless alt process images these days, or temporal LF images ( long exposed ) using kodak poly fiber fine art single weight paper developed in daylight ...
if/when I do I will reflect upon and refer to your notes! ( thanks for sharing! )