Agitation, surge, and uneven development?

[runswithsizzers]

[...]

Another point - is this a new - to you - camera? Have you ever taken pictures with it that didn't show the issue? I'm wondering whether there might be issues with the pressure plate. Top and bottom of each negative will be held flat by the rollers. Left and right of the negative will rely, for flatness, entirely on the pressure plate. Could this be a contributing factor?

Interesting point. Yes, it is a new-to-me camera which I was given the use of for a one-semester university photography class. It is actually the third or fourth TLR I was issued, due to various problems with the others. If my notes are to be trusted, the examples I posted are from at least two different cameras. That does not prove the two cameras do not have the same mechanical problem, but seems unlikely.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Thanks Matt. Are the reels in this design supposed to move around?

I had the same question. My 32 oz ss tank is about 7 inches deep. It will hold two 120 ss reels with about 1.5-inches of space left at the top. Or will hold four 135 reels with about 1-inch of extra space. So it would seem the extra space was intentional.

Two 120 reels plus one 135 reel will fill the tank completely so no movement is possible, but it seems unlikely the tanks were designed just for that combination of reels. BTW my photography class instructor says we should put an empty 135 reel on top of our two 120 reels to help prevent over agitation.

My 16 oz. ss tanks are about 3.25 inches deep. With one 120 reel, the room for movement is about 0.75 inch, and with two 135 reels, the extra space is only about 0.25 inch. So if they are specifically designed to allow vertical movement when inverting, it is less movement than would be seen in the 32 oz. tank.

The fact that no one is trying to sell me spacers to prevent the reels from moving -- and, none of the normally reliable sources advise that I should use such spacers -- makes me think they do not consider movement of the reels to be a problem.

 

[Milpool]

I had the same question. My 32 oz ss tank is about 7 inches deep. It will hold two 120 ss reels with about 1.5-inches of space left at the top. Or will hold four 135 reels with about 1-inch of extra space. So it would seem the extra space was intentional.

Two 120 reels plus one 135 reel will fill the tank completely so no movement is possible, but it seems unlikely the tanks were designed just for that combination of reels. BTW my photography class instructor says we should put an empty 135 reel on top of our two 120 reels to help prevent over agitation.

My 16 oz. ss tanks are about 3.25 inches deep. With one 120 reel, the room for movement is about 0.75 inch, and with two 135 reels, the extra space is only about 0.25 inch. So if they are specifically designed to allow vertical movement when inverting, it is less movement than would be seen in the 32 oz. tank.

The fact that no one is trying to sell me spacers to prevent the reels from moving -- and, none of the normally reliable sources advise that I should use such spacers -- makes me think they do not consider movement of the reels to be a problem.

I agree with your instructor that generally speaking it might help and couldn’t hurt to use a spacer to prevent the reel from sliding vertically during agitation. I’ve found that to be a useful safeguard for 35mm film (for example).

The fact nobody is trying to sell you spacers means little. My suggestion would be to keep in mind when it comes to tanks, reels, inserts, machines etc. generally speaking it is unlikely any serious testing has been done with respect to development uniformity. Add to this that depending on the subject matter and other things, it depends on what an individual sees or looks for when it comes to uniformity.

As an aside Richard Henry found that no matter what there was inevitably some amount of increased development near the edges, although it can be minimized to a point where it is easy to correct in printing if it is noticeable.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks Matt. Are the reels in this design supposed to move around?

Yes - or rather it isn't expected that the movement will matter, because they don't stay in any one place, other than the bottom when the tank is normally upright.
They are satisfyingly loud as they clank - metal on metal - when you agitate.
Unlike plastic reels, they don't usually rotate a lot when within the tank. That is probably part of why more energetic agitation is a good idea.
Historically, they were probably used most in big, multi-reel racks, dipped in and out of really big tanks in absolute darkness.
Something like this:

 

[gorbas]

If there is a link you can post, that is best.

Sorry Matt , all links I had to this issue are dead now. Author GEORGE POST exposed 200 rolls of 35mm Plus X and processed it using various tanks and methods of agitation.
I'm not aware of anybody who did this level of research on the subject.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I agree with your instructor that generally speaking it might help and couldn’t hurt to use a spacer to prevent the reel from sliding vertically during agitation. I’ve found that to be a useful safeguard for 35mm film (for example).

The fact nobody is trying to sell you spacers means little. My suggestion would be to keep in mind when it comes to tanks, reels, inserts, machines etc. generally speaking it is unlikely any serious testing has been done with respect to development uniformity. Add to this that depending on the subject matter and other things, it depends on what an individual sees or looks for when it comes to uniformity.

As an aside Richard Henry found that no matter what there was inevitably some amount of increased development near the edges, although it can be minimized to a point where it is easy to correct in printing if it is noticeable.

I suspect you are right about the design and testing of tanks and reels. It occurs to me, one of the major design specifications may have something as simple as, "make the tank whatever dimensions necessary to hold 16 oz. or 32 oz."

Of course, if the same company was designing tanks and reels, then the diameter of the tanks and reels could have been made a little larger, so for the same volume, the height would have been reduced. But now that 3.5 inch diameter ss tanks have become something of a standard, that ship has sailed, and we are stuck with the extra height of the tanks whether we need it or not.

I guess it is easy enough to burn in the edges (or dodge the middle) when printing, but if the necessity for such dodging and burning could be eliminated, I can think of better ways to spend my time. ;-)

 

[MattKing]

The problem you are encountering was not particularly typical back when I was using a lot of steel reels - in various sizes of tanks.
I would say though that most people who first learned with these reels and tanks were learning how to do this stuff in person, from others experienced with the equipment. It is a lot easier to gain an appreciation for how much agitation to use and how to do it when that sort of immediate feedback is available.
It was also the case back then that people were happy with energetic agitation, and any more slightly obvious grain that might result.
It was only when people started going down the rabbit hole of taking every step possible to minimize grain in what was inherently grainy film that problems with uneven development became more common.
The steel tanks are basically just containers for the liquid and reels and film inside of them, and the liquids can easily flow through the core-less reels and film without problematic flow patterns occurring. All that is really necessary is that you randomize how you move the outer tank, and make sure you move it frequently enough, and with enough energy.
That is a very different situation than with the plastic tanks that have cores and engineered flow patterns designed to counteract the effects of those cores and the much more substantial displacement of the reels. They are much more picky about how you agitate.

 

[Milpool]

I suspect you are right about the design and testing of tanks and reels. It occurs to me, one of the major design specifications may have something as simple as, "make the tank whatever dimensions necessary to hold 16 oz. or 32 oz."

Of course, if the same company was designing tanks and reels, then the diameter of the tanks and reels could have been made a little larger, so for the same volume, the height would have been reduced. But now that 3.5 inch diameter ss tanks have become something of a standard, that ship has sailed, and we are stuck with the extra height whether we need it or not.

I guess it is easy enough to burn in the edges (or dodge the middle) when printing, but if the necessity for such dodging and burning could be eliminated, I can think of better ways to spend my time. ;-)

I think with some tweaking to the process you can likely improve your results and get them to the point where they are as good as they can be.

Be glad you’re not doing sheet film…

 

[runswithsizzers]

I think with some tweaking to the process you can likely improve your results and get them to the point where they are as good as they can be.

Be glad you’re not doing sheet film…

Oh I am! When I started this class, I thought I might buy a medium format camera -- maybe something like a Rolleicord. But since then, I have decided I really do not like using TLR cameras. When the semester is over, I will be happy to turn in my Mamiya C220 and go back to using my pretty little 35mm SLRs.

 

[MattKing]

I'm disappointed to read that.
I love using medium format - particularly when I print or scan the negatives.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I'm disappointed to read that.
I love using medium format - particularly when I print or scan the negatives.

Oh I do love those nice big negatives -- just not the TLR camera. Let me count the ways I do not love thee...

First there is the size and weight of it. Looks like it should have two slots for bread, so I can make toast.

Then there is the annoying left-is-right, right-is-left problem. People keep telling me I will get used to it, but I never do.

Sometimes I can focus on the dimly illuminated ground glass of the WLF, and sometimes I just can't. A pentaprism, it ain't.

I don't want to do true macro with a TLR, but somewhere around four feet from the subject is close enough to start encountering parallax problems. I don't need parallax problems; I have enough of the other kind.

I don't use a lot of filters, but... For someone who wants to use a dark red filter or a neutral density filter, TLRs are truly great! But for a polarizing filter, not so much.

And without carrying a stepping stool (in addition to a tripod), I can't get the dang thing high enough to get the normal eye-level perspective I often favor. I tried to use the Mamiya 220 up-side-down the other day. Yeah, upsidedown AND backwards. My wife was watching me from the car, laughing her ass off. (yes, I know prism finders are available, but they are costly, heavy, and from what I read, dark and dim)

 

[MattKing]

@runswithsizzers :
Send me a PM Gary - we can talk about TLRS

 

[john_s]

The amount of air in the top of the tank makes a big difference to the movement of developer during inversion.

 

[runswithsizzers]

The amount of air in the top of the tank makes a big difference to the movement of developer during inversion.

But does air in the tank make a good difference, or a bad difference? Is there some ideal amount?

 

[Augustus Caesar]

But does air in the tank make a good difference, or a bad difference? Is there some ideal amount?

Yes, just a little.

 

[MattKing]

But does air in the tank make a good difference, or a bad difference? Is there some ideal amount?

The air in a steel reel tank does most of the agitation work.
If you don't have the air cavitating through the developer solution, the developer solution won't move enough.
I'm sure there is some amount of air, expressed as a percentage of the total volume, that is the minimum necessary.
But I doubt that it will cause much difficulty if there is more air.
As long as there is sufficient developer as well - to cover the reels, with a generous amount of safety margin.

 

[Nige]

But does air in the tank make a good difference, or a bad difference?

Do you drink orange juice? If so, next time you buy a bottle, whilst full invert it a few times. Yep it eventually mixes. Now drink a glass, put the lid back on and let it sit until it's settled. Now invert it... does it mix with less inversions? I think you'll find it does. To me that is an indication of the 'unused' active developer getting moved around the tank, and thus the film. You want that to happen over the full surface of your film (all spent developer replaced with unused) each inversion cycle. So, I think an air gap is good. In a Paterson System 4 (plastic) tank, you always have a substantial air gap (unless you put multiple times the suggested volume) due to the funnel arrangement. I personally rotate the tank whilst inverting, but don't try to hard to reproduce an even degree of rotation.

 

[MattKing]

Good illustration @Nige .
That helps illustrate part of what we are trying to do by agitating the tank. Our aim is to make the remaining developer reasonably uniform, by distributing the partially exhausted developer and development byproducts equally throughout the solution. By doing so, we help prevent ending up with localized areas on the negative which are either under-developed or over-developed.

 

[mshchem]

I find it strange that none of the maker's of developers seem to mention any of these sophisticated methods of agitation to prevent runswithsizzers problem. Doremus suggests that the OP finds someone who have doesn't have this problem and learn from that person

Well as I said earlier I am one such person and I do what Ilford recommends. It's a pretty straightforward up and down agitation

I may have been lucky not to have been troubled by runswithsizzers problem by normal agitation and I expect to be told that soon but I still can't help feel that we appear to have eliminated all other causes and may be starting down the rabbit hole of agitation being the only cause

I note that there are even sophistications on a more sophisticated method. The danger with this is that all those with their own but slightly different agitation techniques may result in runswithsizzers facing the same kind of problem as Bob Hope in Son of Paleface when he gets advice on how to win the gunfight that he has been challenged to

A bit of late night humour except for our Antipodean members where it is early morning

That's perfect.

 

[MattKing]

To solve some mysteries about film agitation I found article from "Darkroom Photography" Shake it up, March-April 1986 very helpful.
But, what are our policies here for posting copyrighted material?

There are a lot of references to this article spread throughout the internet. It contains a lot of very interesting information and conclusions, but can be somewhat over-simply summarized by saying that the most even development was obtained using aggressive agitation of a tank that has both room above the last full reel and lots of air space as well.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

...

Be glad you’re not doing sheet film…

I found developing sheet film (shuffling by hand in trays) to be easier and to give more even results than dealing with 120 film, reels and tanks.

Best,

Doremus

 

[miha]

I only develop 120 films in stainless steel reels, not because of agitation issues - or the lack thereof - I never gave that much thought. Instead, it's because the JOBO 1500 reels are poorly designed when extended to accommodate 120 films, making them extremely hard to load.

The problem with the Kindermann tanks that I use is the plastic lids. They are made of two parts and start to leak significantly at the junction point. Plus, they are no longer in production.

 

[Milpool]

I only develop 120 films in stainless steel reels, not because of agitation issues - or the lack thereof - I never gave that much thought. Instead, it's because the JOBO 1500 reels are poorly designed when extended to accommodate 120 films, making them extremely hard to load.

The problem with the Kindermann tanks that I use is the plastic lids. They are made of two parts and start to leak significantly at the junction point. Plus, they are no longer in production.

I hadn’t heard of those leaking before. For 35mm I’m still using the same Kindermann tank/plastic lid my father bought circa 1970 and it has never leaked a drop.

 

[miha]

I hadn’t heard of those leaking before. For 35mm I’m still using the same Kindermann tank/plastic lid my father bought circa 1970 and it has never leaked a drop.

There are at least two types of Kindermann plastic caps; mine is pictured below. The arrows indicate the leakage points:

 

[Milpool]

There are at least two types of Kindermann plastic caps; mine is pictured below. The arrows indicate the leakage points:

View attachment 381656

Oh ok I see now. My lids look different. I guess they changed at some point.