Any differences between rotary-tube and semi-stand film developing

[diversey]

Films:
1) 320TXP (rate 200), not expired. Two films, same exposure. Developing N+0
2) Plus-X 125 (rate 100), expired in 1997. Two films, same exposure. Developing N+2

Developers
1) Kodak 76 1:1, 68 F for rotary-tube developing, tap water from Lake Michigan
2) HC-100, 1:100 (8mL concentrated HC-110 plus 800mL tap water from Lake Michigan), 68 F for semi-stand developing

Developing Procedures
1) 320TXP: Rotary-tube: N+0, 8min; semi-stand: 60min, 15-17 inversions first 30 seconds, 3 inversions at 30 min
2) Plus-x: Rotary-tube: N+2, 13 min; semi-stand: 60min, 15-17 inversions first 30 seconds, 3 inversions at 30 min

320TXP
Left,rotary; Right, semi-satnd


Plus-X
Left, rotary; Right, semi-stand

[tgtaylor]

Just my opinion but I prefer the rotary in thee above.

Thomas

[danno@cnwl.igs]

Opinion again, but I prefer the "B" print, semi-stand, in both examples.

Much better control of contrast, better depth in the mid-range - easily visible in the water reflections.

Dan

[ic-racer]

In the test how do you know you are developing to the same gamma. Have you included a control strip in the tank?

[Bruce Watson]

You've got at least three differences -- contrast index, developer, and agitation technique. Not to mention scanning. So picking one over the other is just a popularity contest. It will only tell you that which you already know: people have opinions.

If you really want to know what difference agitation technique makes, you'll have to use the same developer and dilution, then find your personal EI for each method, followed by your personal N development time for each method. This will give you a place to start. You'll have to fine tune it with a densitometer so that your Zone III and Zone VIII densities for each method match exactly. Then scan them exactly the same way and put them up on the web.

Do this and what you'll find out is: people have opinions.

Because the differences will be very small indeed. Go read Haist, he'll tell you exactly, in great detail, why this is true. You probably won't be able to see the differences in micro-contrast, edge effects (if any), or any of the other properties that might be effected by agitation technique below around a 15x enlargement. Which would result in a print considerably bigger than you're ever likely going to make.

So... what's your point?

My advice: pick the development workflow with which you are most comfortable, then move on. Turn development into constantly repeatable craft, so you can forget it and work on the important aspects of photography -- the art of it.

[Mark Sawyer]

In the first pair, the semi-stand image seems to have the highlights more blown out (or at least not registering as printed) on the buildings. This is the opposite of what should have happened given the compensating nature of stand- and semi-stand developing.

[ROL]

Opinion again, but I prefer the "B" print, semi-stand, in both examples.

Are these prints? (No). Were the images scanned from prints or negatives?

[Jim Noel]

Just my opinion but I prefer the rotary in thee above.

Thomas

I agree fully.

[diversey]

Those films were scanned in the same condition (dust removal) by Epson perfection 4990 Photo scanner.

[Graham Patterson]

You've got at least three differences -- contrast index, developer, and agitation technique. Not to mention scanning. So picking one over the other is just a popularity contest. It will only tell you that which you already know: people have opinions.
[...]

And the Plus-X is 17 years past expiry date.


To the OP: Which ones do you like? Can you make prints you like? And can you do it when you want to? That's all that matters.