What the *@!??
Old 08-20-2016   #1
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,108
What the *@!??

Does anyone know what this is? I have eliminated the scanner, the lens, and the developer. I suspect it may be from inadequate agitation, but I really don't know.

The table top does not look like that.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2016   #2
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 6,155
I've seen that before, but can't for the life of me remember what causes it, Dan. Could be heat damage before developing, or wrong temp while developing. Or even bad film (you don't mention what film it is, some were notorious for defects). Is the entire roll like that, or just in places?

PF
__________________
Waiting for the light
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2016   #3
xia_ke
Registered User
 
xia_ke's Avatar
 
xia_ke is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Maine
Age: 39
Posts: 192
Looks to me like air bubbles in developing.
__________________
flickr

"A good photograph is one that makes the viewer so aware of the subject that they are unaware of the print."- Kodak
"...if you find afterwards that you made a mistake, the price of the film and chemicals was...tuition!" - greybeard
"The hard part isnít the decisive moment or anything like that Ė itís getting the film on the reel!" - John Szarkowski
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2016   #4
Jake06
Registered User
 
Jake06 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Belfast, N. Ireland
Age: 24
Posts: 151
Does it make a clean line across the centre of the frame, or is it just harder to see in the shadows?

It could be that you used the wrong quantities of chemicals for the size of the tank, and therefore the top half was developed by bubbles instead of being completely immersed.

Only other thought is that it could be some sort of drying marks. Maybe give the negs another wash in plain water and see if anything changes?
__________________
M6 - 35/2 - 50/2.8
Twitter - Instagram - Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2016   #5
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,108
It is on the entire roll for the past two rolls but it occurred on another roll prior to this. This is the Street Pan 400 I have been shooting but I have other rolls, just as recent, that have no problems.

It has been hot but I have been able to keep my processing solutions between 68 to 74 degrees which has never created a problem in the past. I have also shot and developed some TriX, HP5 and TMX stored at the same temperatures.

I'm baffled. I have another roll and I will develop it this evening. It is very difficult to see on the negative, requires a magnifying glass, so it is not obvious when it comes out of solution.

I have made two recent changes, one in slowing down my agitations, and two by moving from Photo Flo to Tetanal Mirosol for my anti wetting solution. Obviously I am also using different developers as I test this film but this has happened with at least two different developers.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2016   #6
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,108
It is appearing on just one third of the negative so I will check my solution levels. I hadn't though of developing by bubbles but I guess it may be possible. As I remember, one set was developed in beutler together in the same tank with 600ml of solution. The tank calls for 550ml. The other was developed in my Jobo 1500 series tank with 250ml.

Tried washing the film again but nothing changed.

Contacted Plustek and updated software and cleaned the scanner, no change. It is on the negative.

I initially thought I was seeing fungus and I gave all 5 lenses a good inspection but they are in fine shape.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2016   #7
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
How timely.
I was just mulling over the spots I've got on some negs I just developed and they look similar to Pioneers, but just less of them. I can't see them on the neg.. It's consistently across the last batch I developed yesterday, never seen it before...
The fixer/stop were a bit old? I've had them for about a month but not unusual.
The film got hot over late summer? This is before exposure and its always hot, so again not unusual.

Film was my usual [email protected] developed in LQN at 20 deg.



This is a crop, about 1/4 linearly of the film size.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2016   #8
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,108
I am beginning to suspect ghosts may be following us around.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2016   #9
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 37
Posts: 4,549
looks like reticulation to me.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2016   #10
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
looks like reticulation to me.
Certainly a possibility. The film is 80 to 90 degrees F and I am pouring 68F developing solution over it. But if so I would expect the entire frame to be affected, not just part of it.

I understand reticulation to be an actual fracturing of the emulsion, but when I examine the film under a microscope it doesn't look fractured. In fact, the pattern so obviously reproduced on the scanner is very difficult to see. It is actually easier to see when I examine the negative under a strong light, not while against a light box like you would expect. I can't see it all from the emulsion side. I would think reticulation would become more obvious under the magnification of the scope.

Maybe I'm adding too much of the wetting agent?
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2016   #11
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,108
I'll see if I can get my copy stand set up tomorrow and photograph the negative with my macro lens. Maybe that will allow us to see it on the negative itself rather than just the scan.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2016   #12
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 37
Posts: 4,549
hmm...maybe you've got some mirosol residue messing up the development.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2016   #13
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
So I washed mine again. This time it wasn't so much of a wash but an active scrub on both sides of the neg between my thumbs and forefinger under running water for a minute or two.
The issue for me is far reduced. I think with some more active washing the problem will be eliminated. Original on left, scrubbed on right.



If I think back, what I normally do is get a bit of dish washing liquid and put it into the final rinse, and in this case I remember there were more bubbles than usual. That I could scrub it off leads me to believe that it was some residue, even though it was not visible at all on the negatives - I don't have a magnifying glass though

Pioneer, can you try a real wash, rather than a rinse, and see if you can scrub it off? Ideally on a negative of no value (I possibly jumped too quickly to the conclusion that they're not all Pulitzer's). I'd be interested to see if we both simultaneously stumbled across the same f-up.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2016   #14
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
hmm...maybe you've got some mirosol residue messing up the development.
You know aizan. That is certainly a good thought. I was going to do some developing tonight but instead I am going to give my reels and tanks a good scrubbing and then let them dry for tomorrow.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2016   #15
thereabouts
Registered User
 
thereabouts is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
Does anyone know what this is? I have eliminated the scanner, the lens, and the developer. I suspect it may be from inadequate agitation, but I really don't know.

The table top does not look like that.
This looks extremely similar to this on the APUG forum. The general opinion seemed to be reticulation.

A Close up of that image.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2016   #16
williaty
Registered User
 
williaty is offline
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 60
It's the film ending up above the liquid developer in the foam that sits in the air above the liquid. I just fought this a month or two ago. Mine looked just like yours.

In my case, the problem was that I was using an AP tank WITHOUT the c-clip meant to hold the reels in place. I was developing a single roll of 120 at a time, which puts only a single reel in the tank. My agitation was aggressive enough that the reel was being shaken up to the top of the tank. However, I was setting the tank down gently so as to not make so much noise that I woke my wife up. So the aggressive agitation slung the reel to the top of the core but the gentle set down wasn't causing it to fall back to the bottom of the tank. The result was the about half the roll looked normal because it was "underwater" but the top half of the roll was up in the foam on top of the liquid and got those weird spider web effects.

This was completely resolved by using the c-clip meant to be used with this tank that locks the reel in place so it can't slide around no matter how hard you shake it.


So now all you have to do is to figure out how you're getting your reel up into the foam at the top of the tank.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2016   #17
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,108
That looks exactly like mine Williaty. I don't have any clips but I have noticed that the reels will move around in the tank from time to time.

I am pretty sure I can come up with a pin to keep them down. I'll get the tanks cleaned up and then come up with a way to keep them in place.

Thanks.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-21-2016   #18
Larry H-L
Registered User
 
Larry H-L is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 580
I think Williaty has the answer, but one other possibility could be condensation on the negatives before it was shot.

Do you keep film in a fridge or freezer? If so, it must warm to room temperature inside the plastic container before removing it from the container, especially in humid weather, or you risk moisture forming on the emulsion, causing a similar mottled pattern.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-21-2016   #19
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,266
film not submerged in developer is my guess as well.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-21-2016   #20
sreed2006
Registered User
 
sreed2006's Avatar
 
sreed2006 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 967
Pioneer, it sure looks like foam to me. I think williaty nailed it.

I have had problems with foam, too, and it looks just like your picture.

If the tank calls for 550ml, I add another 100ml just to make sure the reel is covered and those horrid little bubbles cannot be in contact with the film. Even that did not solve it with Caffenol on a 120 roll. I think I did not rinse the tank well enough, and some of the photoflow from the last tank use was still in the tank, leading to foam, but I am not certain where all the foam came from.
__________________
Sid

My favorite question is "What does this button do?"
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-21-2016   #21
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 574
I read a darkroom book a while back where the author tried to produce an example of reticulation. Despite subjecting the (modern) film to crazy changes in temperature there was hardly any evidence of it and he basically gave up. So unless this emulsion has a very old fashioned recipe, it's much more likely to be bubbles in the developer.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-21-2016   #22
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,775
How are you guys agitating so hard to induce foaming! That's crazy, when I agitate it's very gentle. I don't do the cocktail shaker method.
__________________
Tumblr ē Youtube
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-21-2016   #23
Sarcophilus Harrisii
Brett Rogers
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii is online now
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
I read a darkroom book a while back where the author tried to produce an example of reticulation. Despite subjecting the (modern) film to crazy changes in temperature there was hardly any evidence of it and he basically gave up. So unless this emulsion has a very old fashioned recipe, it's much more likely to be bubbles in the developer.
Pretty sure that was mentioned in one of Roger's and Frances's books actually.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-21-2016   #24
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
 
Moto-Uno's Avatar
 
Moto-Uno is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: The Wet Coast
Posts: 1,613
^^ If you're not getting froth in your developer , then you're not agitating the film , but
the best part of this is B&W will give an image with pretty much any regime we chose .
Peter
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-21-2016   #25
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,108
I use the method advocated by Kodak in their little online pdf. It shows agitation by inverting the tank in the hand. It then describes doing that 3 times in 5 seconds then tapping the tank on the counter or table 4 or 5 time to clear bubbles. This is my standard agitation method and has been for many years. Doing this always creates a froth of bubbles in the tank but it has never caused a problem for me until now.

The proof will be in the pudding. Hopefully my next batch of negatives will not have this problem. I'll know by tonight.

Thank you all.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-21-2016   #26
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,108
Ok. They have been scrubbed in a vinegar solution then rinsed in hot, hot water. If they are not clean now my wife says I have to use ammonia (phew) and will have to do that in the bowl outdoors.

I have mixed up a liter of Mirasol solution which I will use from now on. (I wonder how long I can use this in solution?)

One thing for sure. If this does fix it, I will use a separate bowl to douse my film from now on. That mirasol is some slick stuff. I put 3 milliliters in 1 liter and it was still very slick on my fingertips. Took a bit to get it rinsed off my fingers as well so I can imagine how it would quickly build up in the tank. Especially since my mixing technique before was to dribble a drop or two...or three...or six into the tank to dose the film. Certainly not very scientific.

Ah well, live and learn.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-22-2016   #27
Highway 61
Revisited
 
Highway 61's Avatar
 
Highway 61 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLKRCAT View Post
How are you guys agitating so hard to induce foaming! That's crazy, when I agitate it's very gentle. I don't do the cocktail shaker method.
Agreed. The agitating purpose is to bring some fresh developer on the film surface. There is no need to shake the tank like crazy. More, turning the tank upside down gently while rotating the tank on its base at the same time by changing hands is better than keeping it in the same hand and just twist one's wrist.

I'm with others suggesting that the film was developed in the regular foam coming from strong agitation, with either no developer enough in the tank or too much free space in the tank above the upper wheel.

As for the Mirasol solution : you can keep it and re-use it for a very long time, actually as far as it's still clear with no visible precipitates and as far as you get clean negatives with no drying stains (which are something benign and easily removable with a microfiber cloth). Of course, you must stock it in a glass bottle so that you can inspect it.

The Mirasol solution has to be poured in the open tank once you have fully rinsed the film. Do not shake or agitate the tank with the Mirasol solution in it, only tap the tank bottom to make the bubbles go up. Leave the fully submerged film(s) about 10 minutes in the solution until all the visible foam has gone away, then hang it for drying without wiping it in your usual drying dustfree place.

And, yes, using a dedicated bowl for preparing the developer is a good thing. It will also prevent for some fixer residues to get in the new developer.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 08-22-2016   #28
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,108
You guys make this sound as if I am using a paint shaker or something.

Something is causing the pattern on the film. I am still not absolutely certain what is causing it.

I have to start somewhere. So on the assumption that there may be a build up of mirasol in the tank which is interfering with development somehow, I have chosen to start by cleaning everything.

Under the principle that one should choose one variable at a time I have decided to stick with my normal agitation routine, which definitely is not akin to shaking the cocktail shaker.

I guess we'll see.

Thank you for answering some of my questions Highway 61.

As for there not being enough developer in the tank, anything is possible. Good Lord knows I have made enough silly mistakes in my day, this could be another one.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-22-2016   #29
traveler_101
American abroad
 
traveler_101 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 1,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway 61 View Post
Agreed. The agitating purpose is to bring some fresh developer on the film surface. There is no need to shake the tank like crazy. More, turning the tank upside down gently while rotating the tank on its base at the same time by changing hands is better than keeping it in the same hand and just twist one's wrist.

I'm with others suggesting that the film was developed in the regular foam coming from strong agitation, with either no developer enough in the tank or too much free space in the tank above the upper wheel.

As for the Mirasol solution : you can keep it and re-use it for a very long time, actually as far as it's still clear with no visible precipitates and as far as you get clean negatives with no drying stains (which are something benign and easily removable with a microfiber cloth). Of course, you must stock it in a glass bottle so that you can inspect it.

The Mirasol solution has to be poured in the open tank once you have fully rinsed the film. Do not shake or agitate the tank with the Mirasol solution in it, only tap the tank bottom to make the bubbles go up. Leave the fully submerged film(s) about 10 minutes in the solution until all the visible foam has gone away, then hang it for drying without wiping it in your usual drying dustfree place.

And, yes, using a dedicated bowl for preparing the developer is a good thing. It will also prevent for some fixer residues to get in the new developer.
According to Tom A. the first one minute of Tri-X in D-76 should be "shake, rattle and roll"! After that firm but controlled inversions. That produces some froth. What about 90 seconds of continuous inversions with stop bath of vinegar and water? That produces quite a bit of froth for me. But I have never seen anything like this on developed film.

I doubt it has anything to do with anything Pioneer is doing or isn't doing. It has go to be the film. What is "Street Pan 400"? Pray tell.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-22-2016   #30
Highway 61
Revisited
 
Highway 61's Avatar
 
Highway 61 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by traveler_101 View Post
According to Tom A. the first one minute of Tri-X in D-76 should be "shake, rattle and roll"!
According to decades of practice, and advices from the old darkroom masters (now the Tri-X and D76 combination seems to have existed forever you know), the first one minute of Tri-X in D76 is continuous agitation followed by some firm taps of the tank bottom on the workbench (here the steel tanks have their main advantage over plastic ones, which can break over time), but by no means should this be confused with preparing a cocktail in a shaker to impress the customers at the Waldorf Astoria lounge.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 08-22-2016   #31
traveler_101
American abroad
 
traveler_101 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 1,019
I take "shake rattle and roll" to mean "get moving" and "keep going" - no pauses in your routine. If we want to stick to bar tending, a bit like a Martini "stirred not shaken." Here is the source of Abrahamson's metaphor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa4FH9mbDGU
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-22-2016   #32
pepeguitarra
Registered User
 
pepeguitarra's Avatar
 
pepeguitarra is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 818
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelwj View Post
How timely.
I was just mulling over the spots I've got on some negs I just developed and they look similar to Pioneers, but just less of them. I can't see them on the neg.. It's consistently across the last batch I developed yesterday, never seen it before...
The fixer/stop were a bit old? I've had them for about a month but not unusual.
The film got hot over late summer? This is before exposure and its always hot, so again not unusual.

Film was my usual [email protected] developed in LQN at 20 deg.



This is a crop, about 1/4 linearly of the film size.

It looks like dust in the sensor!

Wait!. That is film. Ok. I give up.
__________________
It is not a photo until you print it! Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-22-2016   #33
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,108
Ok. So far so good. I developed a roll of Street Pan 400 (which, BTW, is Bellamy's new emulsion being sold through Japan Camera Hunter, and maybe others.)

I did my normal agitation routine (Beutlers) and the fillm seems to have come out fine even though I am being mistaken for my favorite bartender it seems.

I will be developing a second roll this evening and posting tomorrow so if everything holds up I will determine this one resolved, though from the sounds of it there are those who do not believe that froth can be caused by agitation.

It is certainly a good thing that film does not have to be developed EXACTLY the same way by everyone or there would probably be a bunch of us who would certainly have failed the exam.

I did consider it could be a film problem, but all the film I am using came from the same lot (as is everyone else's I would assume.) Since I have used and developed over 40 rolls so far, and all but three rolls have turned out fine, and I have not heard of any similar problems from other users, then I have to "cough, cough" believe it may, possibly, perhaps, potentially, imaginably, feasibly...be a user error.

At least that is the route of inquiry I am following at this time.

If you believe me to be mistaken in this, and I could certainly be in error, feel free to buy some of the film and try your own route of investigation.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-22-2016   #34
sreed2006
Registered User
 
sreed2006's Avatar
 
sreed2006 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 967
I am so glad you have a sense of humor, Pioneer.
__________________
Sid

My favorite question is "What does this button do?"
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-22-2016   #35
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by sreed2006 View Post
I am so glad you have a sense of humor, Pioneer.
Oh...I suspect I can get a bit sharp at times. Particularly if I have managed to steal the key to the beer locker from the wife.

...either that or just fall asleep.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-22-2016   #36
williaty
Registered User
 
williaty is offline
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 60
For what it's worth, I had to come up to the level of enthusiastic agitation I used based on proper sensiometry. When I developed with the passive twisting-tipping method, my CI on TX and PX was way too low. My professor told me to start shaking it like a cocktail shaker and suddenly I was getting absolutely beautiful results with a bang-on CI and gorgeous prints.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-23-2016   #37
JP Owens
Registered User
 
JP Owens is online now
Join Date: Dec 2014
Age: 68
Posts: 357
It has been years now since I had a darkroom, and chemistry was cheap back then, but I always avoided a lot of problems by using a generous amount of chemistry in the tank, and using D76 1 to 1, one shot, and consistently following Kodaks agitation recommendations. Never was very adventuresome in processing B&W.

Fortunately, Tri-X was very forgiving. Even the 1 minute dunk in Dektol, print it wet we used to do on deadline yielded grainy, but useable negatives.
__________________
_______

"Nothing exists beyond the edges of the frame."
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-23-2016   #38
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,108
I was told once, though I have no idea whether or not it is true, that to change out old developer for new takes a bit of agitation. There is a tension at the surface of the film that has to be overcome. That is why Kodak's recommendations for agitation made sense to me at the time.

I have never used a densitometer to check my negatives but my uncalibrated eyeball tells me that is better to put a little bit of muscle into the agitations than to wimp out.

Besides, wimping out was never my style...
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:28.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.