Continuous development

wschwetz · 2010-09-21T11:01:53+00:00

Gut gebrüllt Frank, ich gönne dir deinen feinen CHS 25 Negative. Ich mag lieber den T-Max 400 in xtol 1+1 rotiert. So ist das nun mal. Entscheidend für d...

wschwetz

Some forum posts reference “continuous development” in relation to development times. What does that mean? Constantly tipping the can? That sounds pretty exhausting with times of 15 minutes or more. Another question: can anyone say how much extra time you need to allow if you agitate monthly rather than every 30 seconds? I’d like to switch all my processes to 1-minute agitation, as I find the 30-second agitation too hectic, especially with large tanks (Paterson); by the time the developer has completely drained back, the 30 seconds are almost up.

Gast

In some forum posts, people make references to "continuous development" in relation to development times. What does that mean? Constantly flushing the build? That sounds pretty tedious with development times of 15 minutes or more. Another question: Can anyone tell me how much extra time you need to allow if you agitate every minute instead of every 30 seconds? I’d like to switch all my processes to 1-minute agitation, as I find the 30-second agitation too hectic, especially with large tanks (Paterson); by the time the developer has flowed back completely, the 30 seconds are almost up.

Hello, Have a look here: http://www.phototec.de/infomag_erechner.php Regards Wolfgang

Tandemfahren

Some forum posts reference "continuous development" in relation to development times. What does that mean? Constantly tipping the can? That sounds pretty exhausting with times of 15 minutes or more. Another question: Can anyone tell me how much extra time you need to allow if you agitate monthly instead of every 30 seconds? I’d like to switch all my processes to 1-minute agitation, as I find the 30-second agitation too hectic, especially with large tanks (Paterson); by the time the developer has flowed back completely, the 30 seconds are almost up.

Hi Wilfried, I’ve also done continuous tilting before, with Emofin, and yes, it is a bit of a slog, eh... Switching everything to one minute is certainly possible, but you must also realise that you’re giving up a key control mechanism. The resulting characteristic curve doesn’t simply depend on the development time; agitation and, of course, temperature and developer concentration always play a part. That’s why there can be no simple, satisfactory answer to your question. Some developers get fussy if there’s too little agitation (ATM49, for example, quickly becomes uneven), whilst others prefer to sit around for longer (Rodinal!). And the tank plays a big role too; in my most-used small Jobos, things settle down almost immediately, whereas with two extensions, the process takes an age. And you can tell from the results! Generally speaking, the more you agitate, the more the highlights are developed. Conversely, the longer you let it stand, the more balanced the result. So have fun experimenting, or build yourself a densitometer and make test strips – that can actually be fun too! Good light always Frank

EJG

Hi Wilfried, Tilting the tank every 30 seconds for, say, 9 minutes is a bit of a nuisance. To get round this, I develop almost exclusively using rotation. I develop three medium-format films at the same time. As well as the advantage of using half the amount of developer, you can use the time during rotation for other things. Of course, not every film likes this. With ‘modern’ black-and-white films like TMAX 400 and TMY-2, I’ve achieved decent results for myself. Even at the risk of being ‘stoned’ by some forum members, I believe that the differences between the various development methods – 10 sec/30 min, 60 min or agitation – are ultimately of secondary importance for a good print. In my opinion, the key is to specialise in one type of film. Regards, Ernst-Jürgen

Tandemfahren

Even at the risk of being "stoned" by some forum members, I believe that the differences between the various developing methods – 10 sec/30 min, 60 min or rotation – are ultimately of secondary importance when it comes to achieving a good print. Regards Ernst-Jürgen HA! Stoning is far too good for someone like you! Hang him upside down! And spit on him! But seriously: if you don’t look too closely, you can get perfectly usable images with some combinations. With some others, you can’t. Unless you stop looking altogether. CHS25 in Rodinal, for example, is very fussy. Well, and ultimately our photography is ‘of secondary importance’ anyway, isn’t it? In my opinion, we few daft, die-hard analogue hobbyists should distinguish ourselves by looking closely and mastering our processes. You can take digital photos “somehow” too; it’s more practical. May you always have good light and detail in the shadows Frank

EJG

Well said, Frank, I’m happy for you to enjoy your lovely CHS 25 negatives. I prefer T-Max 400 developed in X-TOL 1+1 with agitation. That’s just the way it is. What matters to the viewer is whether the visual language of the image appeals to them. Provided, of course, that the image quality is up to scratch. The viewer doesn’t care what process was used, which developer was chosen, or whether the film was cropped, tilted or shaken. Regards, Ernst-Jürgen