Take a vertically-oriented shot and if it’s uneven development the orientation of the streaks will change. It’s possible the issue is flare/ghost of the bright curtains and your development is fine.
Sorry, I don't follow the line of reasoning that goes from a single seemingly underdeveloped sheet of film to the conclusion that a 2-bath developer used in trays is the way to go.
My recommendation at this point would be to use a normal single-step developer instead............................I personally also don't believe there's any magic to a two-bath developer that cannot be replicated perfectly well with a single-step developer.
It's hard for me to imagine that since I have several negatives with just as bright highlights, even one with a highlight-fall value of Zone XII+, developed in the SP445 with no issues like having here with unevenness. The Zone XII+ highlight on that negative was not tamed by BTTB the way I would've liked.
If they are internal reflections off the bellows, they will do the same on a vertical shot. But if they are uneven development, streaks will change direction.
Another thought would be that handling multiple sheets in a tray could be asking for trouble. Emulsion could be marred more easily. Are sheet films thinner than what they were back in the 90s?
This cannot be a defect in the film or development. It must be something in the camera or on the wall.It's a familiar image that I've been photographing regarding my use of BTTB but this time is with tray development. Naturally, I have an issue.
The particulars of the exposure: TMX at EI32, placement = ZIII (chair cushion), fall = ZX-ZXI (high values on curtain); developed in BTTB7 (7g s. metaborate in bath B); 4 min in bath A with continuous agitation following Kodak's instructions as seen in the J-1 publication; 4 min in bath B without agitation. Two sources that I have read: in The Negative and in a quote from BT that was posted in a different thread say that with this process, no agitation in bath B. Thornton's was more like.........no agitation is ideal. He spoke regarding preventing streamers from sprocket holes due to no agitation but alluded to it working well with unsprocketed film, which would include sheet film. AA suggested 3 min in the first solution but I used 4 minutes.
The first issue is the vertical thinner area on the wall behind the chair, this must be uneven development. You might be inclined to think that it's also uneven development on the far-right edge of the negative on the wall behind the chair where there's more density, but this is accurate. The second issue is that speck on the curtain; this is actually the film base. Perhaps something on the negative in the holder, but I take great pains to prevent that, anyway..........probably so, just wanted to point it out since it is my first effort at tray development. The bigger issue is the uneven development, and I don't understand it. My prior similar images using the SP445 tank were developed at 4.5min each bath and with intermittent agitation in both baths. Bath A: 5s/30s and bath B: 5s/60s.
The two sources I mention have two things in common: as stated, no agitation in bath B, and both are speaking relative to traditional grain film; why then, is this occurring? Could it be continuous agitation in the A bath, surely not? My first effort at BTTB using the tank, I also got uneven development without agitation in bath B, corrected when introducing the 5s/60s scheme in the B bath. I'll introduce the same or milder agitation to the tray in the B bath with the next sheet to compare.
I have stuck in my mind that agitation in the B bath does not maximize the capability of the two-solution process with regard to high contrast scenes, after all there's two fine sources that seem to indicate just that. But I think that T-grain film does not like it. This particular negative, apart from the uneven developed area, very well could be better than any of the previous 6 using the tank, therefore it's particularly frustrating.
Thanks @MattKing for the link to that blank screen, I never knew it existed, and it was perfect for this cell phone image of the negative. I used the film holder for my V700 scanner to hold the negative about 4 inches from the screen.
View attachment 391199
View attachment 391198
But my example indicates, to me, that the two-bath development produced a better looking, more informative negative under the same exposure and scene contrast than the negative from the single-bath XTOL
I think Foma sheet film is a thin emulsion but not as thin as Tmax or Delta
That single experiment cannot be taken as a basis to conclude that by definition a two-bath developer is better.
All I'm saying is that you seem to haphazardly jump to conclusions. I don't share that conclusion because I suspect that the experimental setup is fatally flawed.
If this was an internal problem of the camera or shadows on the wall, it should occur on the same area on different negatives - but the effect does vary.
This is not saying that I can't have an incorrect conclusion, I accept that possibility, but I'm not seeing it............yet.
Did you try extending the XTOL time to get a denser negative? If not, how can you conclude that the BTTB approach was inherently better, and that the difference wasn't just due to an unfortunate choice in process parameter selection?
Naturally, I could've tried my XTOL N-1, or N curve but that's not doing the most important high value any good, the way I see it.
I do not know what more to say about it if this is not sufficient for you. But I appreciate all your contribution for sure.
I do not know what more to say about it if this is not sufficient for you.
At each zone, the BTTB N-2 density was a bit greater, not by a lot, but it was greater, than each of those same XTOL N-2 densities.
..................your preference happens to be with the beefier negative that BTTB has given you even though the other negative is just as 'technically correct', so to speak.
Well, here's the final negative but it is developed in the 445 tank but without bath B agitation, I wanted to give that another shot with the tank. There's still some uniformity issues in the wall area imo, but really not that bad. I brought the wall value down in post just to see how well it might be hidden so to speak. I think I am resigned to stay primarily with the tank development in general and especially with any bath B agitation since my earlier negatives in the tank have no uniformity issues at the wall area. Perhaps I might develop some negatives in the tray where there is no real risk of actually seeing where uniformity issues are going to be most obvious. Even though the agitation of tray vs. the tank, to me, is entirely different at the surface of the film, the tray negatives, where there will be adequate texture were also very nicely developed.
I've no problem continuing with experimenting with tray development of this scene, but I wouldn't know how to proceed differently to justify another negative or two with any decent hopes of success. I'm open to other suggestions but it's probably the case that if there was a better way in tray, it would be known. Someone remarked, I think, that multiple sheet development in a tray actually provides much better continuous agitation to the sheets. But I won't be traveling that road for sure, I don't need that amount of frustration, just handling one sheet was slippery as it could be and felt so clumsy.
View attachment 391546 View attachment 391547
.......... it was continuous, relied on a tray a little larger than the print (but not a 'full size' larger as often recommended, although that would also work), and lifting & dropping opposing corners of the tray while at the same time watching the flow patterns on the developer surface (x-ray film is insensitive to red, so I could see what I was doing). If I kept the motion of the developer constantly moving, but gently so, I could skirt between the Scylla and Charybdis or excess edge density (too much agitation) and mottling (too little agitation; the problem you seem to be having).
There is no requirement that there be more than one sheet at a time.
Stating the obvious I guess...........it must be that you have to get that wave action type of agitation JUST EXACTLY RIGHT for this not to occur. I see why so many no longer do it, are there any that still do, I wonder.
Sounds like such a tedious undertaking when not able to see the tray. If I try this again, it just feels like I need to be more vigorous with the tray (maybe use an 8x10 tray? Less spillage) in the A bath or even if using just single bath developing. Then I guess there's the danger of too much agitation with edge density that you mention. And honestly, until you said that I didn't realize there was such a thing as an edge density issue with tray development, that might be the proverbial straw on the camels back.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?