My first tray development - Issues

[Chuck_P]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It could be a defect in the film. It looks too consistent to have come from tray development. One way to find out would be to see if it appears on a second negative.

 

[Paul Howell]

The strips are a mystery, I dont know of a reason In general terms of uneven development, T grain films have very thin emulsions, at least with Diafine there is not as much of speed boost as there is with traditional grained films. Tmax 100 is listed by Diafine at both 80 with a longer time in both A and B, while at 160 they list the standard times, why for a lower box speed I have no idea. Tmax 400 is listed at 500. Delta has even lower speed gain or loss. TriX is listed at 1600, in the 70s it was listed at 2400. I did shoot a roll of Tmax 100 in 35mm at 160 processed at standard times, came out fine. You might just want a longer time to allow the emulsion to become fully saturated and you want to try agitation as well, not much. Diafine will streak if over agitated. When I use Diafine with sheet film in a tank I pull the film out very minute and let it drain for 10 seconds then back into the soup.

 

[Chuck_P]

I developed a second negative in the tray, an identical exposure to the first, and used 5 sec per 60 seconds agitation for the B bath............the uneven development in the area of the wall was actually worse.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Could be a shadow?

 

[Chuck_P]

Could be a shadow?

That's not possible in this instance.

 

[koraks]

I developed a second negative in the tray, an identical exposure to the first, and used 5 sec per 60 seconds agitation for the B bath............the uneven development in the area of the wall was actually worse.

If you have the same phenomenon/defect in the exact same place, it's virtually guaranteed the problem is not related to agitation.

My first thought would still be an actual variation in light intensity on the wall.

It could be a defect in the film.

On TMX? Nah. Maybe the little dot in the curtain; that might be an inclusion. But the minus-density area doesn't look like a film defect.

 

[Bill Burk]

Thinking koraks might be right, the lighting might be uneven?

The speck is surely dust prior to exposure. You will get fewer specks when you brush / vacuum your film holders before loading.

 

[250swb]

What kind of tray, and are you using a circular agitation or just back and forth? If the tray has the typical channels moulded into the bottom you can still get surge that matches those channels even given the negative is emulsion side up.

 

[koraks]

you can still get surge

Surge marks tend to show clear interactions with the film edges. I don't see that happening here.

 

[retina_restoration]

If you have the same phenomenon/defect in the exact same place, it's virtually guaranteed the problem is not related to agitation.

Agreed. That’s not how agitation defects show up.

My first thought would still be an actual variation in light intensity on the wall.

I would have guessed there was a shadow in the scene. You’re absolutely certain that wasn’t possible?

On TMX? Nah. Maybe the little dot in the curtain; that might be an inclusion. But the minus-density area doesn't look like a film defect.

That’s not a film defect, unless you can prove that it appears in subsequent shoots in the exact same way. I’d say it’s extremely unlikely, especially on TMX.

 

[Chuck_P]

So here's the second tray developed negative and I included a smaller image of the first negative for side-by-side comparison of the two. I flipped the film holder, made some notes on the first exposure, so there was maybe three minutes between this exposure and the first exposure. There is no lighting difference between the two, and there are no shadows being cast on the wall as a result of the sunlight from behind the wall being filtered through the sheer curtain.

@250swb: I am using patterson 5x7 trays that are ribbed on the bottom and agitating by: left the left side, lift the near side, lift the right side, lift the near side, etc.......for the duration as indicated in the J-1 publication. I'm thinking the agitation scheme is just not vigorous enough for TMX, but the rest of the negative is nicely developed, so idk.

@koraks: It's the same phenomena, in the same general location, but not the same unevenness of development.

Questions:
1. Is it that the uneven development is all over the negative but that it is so slight that it cannot be seen in areas of the negative where more texture is on the emulsion?
2. Why, in the first place, is no agitation the recommendation from the sources that I mention regarding this process, there has to be purpose for that. I'm trying to learn more about what is actually happening with certain chemistry components on the emulsion as opposed to just developing film, like I've always done.
3. It's not clear in my mind where the problem actually is:
- Is it actually due to inadequate bath A agitation and nothing to do with bath B at all? Is it not vigorous enough for TMX? But other more textured parts of the negative seem perfectly developed with the agitation scheme used.

- Is it due to inadequate bath B agitation? But there's not supposed to be agitation in bath B to begin with using two-bath development. Apart from the T-grain technology, are thin emulsion films with straight-line curves any different today that warrants bath B in the two-solution process must have agitation? I certainly used agitation in bath B when I recently generated a set of curves for BTTB developed in the 445 tank, and they look good. But in my mind the purpose of two-bath development, being to limit the build-up of high value densities while supporting continued development of low value densities on the negative is not being maximized by introducing agitation in bath B. I appreciate all your thoughts on it.

 

[Milpool]

I’m going to go against the grain here based on a lot of painful deep diving into sheet film development uniformity so take it or leave it. What I’m relating would have mostly to do with the bath A part as I never tested two-solution development in this way.

I’m seeing signs of what appears to be the “classic” unevenness associated with tray rocking. For what it’s worth, I found these agitation methods (as recommended by the manufacturers) to give lousy uniformity. I tried every variation of solution volume, tray, technique etc. I could think of because I really wanted to find a way of making this simple, tankless, no-touching-the-film process work. In the end I had no choice but to abandon it, as I tend to be extremely critical about uniformity. The results might or might not be acceptable to other people, and of course it will depend on the subject matter - the busier the photograph the less important uniformity is, usually.

Some films seemed to give better results than others (I generally prefer Kodak sheet films to Ilford for this reason).

Agitation/no-agitation in bath B is a mystery - I don’t think there is any good information out there on this. Richard Henry only briefly tried the Adams version and found he got decent uniformity, which he was puzzled by, but he didn’t go further. My guess is that the no-agitation suggestion for bath B is based on the assumption agitation will dilute the developer and reduce emulsion speed or increase contrast or something. I don’t think this is what happens. On the other hand, it is difficult to guess whether or not agitation in bath B will affect uniformity. The answer(s) could possibly depend on variables such as bath B alkalinity or the orientation of the sheet, or it might make no difference.

I very much doubt any of this has anything at all to do with tabular vs traditional grain emulsions.

 

[Chuck_P]

I found these agitation methods (as recommended by the manufacturers) to give lousy uniformity.

It begs the question of why do they recommend it, and how is it that it has been, apparently, very successful to many well-known LF guys back in the day. It's confounding.

It's just interesting that my negative with no agitation in bath B, the first one, has more uniformity to it than the image with 5sec/60sec bath B agitation. I want to say that I did a pretty good job of doing consistent agitation in bath A (albeit the tray rocking) with both negatives, but .......
I've got two more negatives to develop, with differing shadow placements, one at II and one at IV, but am waiting in case there's a suggestion as how to maybe to proceed differently for a better result, idk.

 

[Paul Howell]

I must be seeing this all wrong, but it looks like the chair is sitting at an angle with a corner of two wall behind it? Odd is the streaks across the chair are identical in both images. Are these the streaks you are talking about or am I missing something?

 

[Milpool]

My guess is when it comes to tray rocking a single sheet, the manufacturers either didn’t evaluate uniformity, or considered it to be good enough (as old timers doing plates must have). When I was going through all of this I had discussions with George Tice, Mark Citret, John Sexton and a few other lesser known people who are exacting (and went through similar problems). The general consensus, consistent with my own findings, was that if you’re using trays, the traditional “shuffling” agitation method gives the best results.

Anyhow I’m just relating my experience. It was a big issue for me because a lot of my pictures have large areas of (what should be) uniform density so it was important for me to find a method that gives the best possible results. Granted, my test method revealed even subtle flaws which might not be very noticeable with actual photography, and my standards are often unrealistically high, but I’m a bit nutso about this stuff, I notice everything (unfortunately) and once I see something I can’t unsee it.

It begs the question of why do they recommend it, and how is it that it has been, apparently, very successful to many well-known LF guys back in the day. It's confounding.

It's just interesting that my negative with no agitation in bath B, the first one, has more uniformity to it than the image with 5sec/60sec bath B agitation. I want to say that I did a pretty good job of doing consistent agitation in bath A (albeit the tray rocking) with both negatives, but .......
I've got two more negatives to develop, with differing shadow placements, one at II and one at IV, but am waiting in case there's a suggestion as how to maybe to proceed differently for a better result, idk.

 

[koraks]

It's the same phenomena, in the same general location, but not the same unevenness of development.

The sheet in #12 looks quite different and that does show what might be uneven development. Only you can decide whether actual variations in lighting can offer an alternative explanation. You were there and are familiar with the scene.

1. Is it that the uneven development is all over the negative but that it is so slight that it cannot be seen in areas of the negative where more texture is on the emulsion?

Uneven development shows up more clearly in areas of even tone, if that's what you mean, yes.

My recommendation at this point would be to use a normal single-step developer instead. I suspect it'll avoid this problem. 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.

 

[What About Bob]

Variable intensity came to my mind too. Another thought was maybe buckling of the film while in the tray but I am not noticing any unevenness anywhere else, seeing it only on the wall.

It has been a very long time working with sheet films, mid 90s. Always used 1/2 gallon tanks so I have no experience with using the tray method. 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?

 

[Chuck_P]

I must be seeing this all wrong, but it looks like the chair is sitting at an angle with a corner of two wall behind it? Odd is the streaks across the chair are identical in both images. Are these the streaks you are talking about or am I missing something?

It's the uneven development seen on the wall behind the chair, they're areas of lesser density on the negative where it should not be. My negatives of this image in my living room and experimenting with BTTB (8 total so far), while some are exposed on different days, all are exposed at roughly the same mid-morning time with much the same sun intensity at that 9-10:00 time frame. If you go to my Flickr page link and see the two images (developed in the SP445 tank, with inversion agitation) I have at the bottom, you will see the uniformity of development at the wall area............as it should also be with these two negatives.

 

[Paul Howell]

I had to boost the contrast to see it, but once boosted I can see it. Back to the thin Tmax elmustion, issues with agaiation. I have only process one roll of 135mm Tmax 100 in Diafine and it seemed to work but not have printed, might be issues that I cant see, I just bought a few rolls of 120 Tmax 400, might develop in Acufine rather than Diafine.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Chuck, I haven't read the whole thread, but are you developing emulsion-side-up or emulsion-side-down?

The latter can cause unevenness if there are features on the bottom of the tray that cause developer surge (don't ask me how I know ).

Best,

Doremus

 

[Chuck_P]

My recommendation at this point would be to use a normal single-step developer instead. I suspect it'll avoid this problem. 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.

I don't doubt you and I wouldn't use the word "magical" either, however I'm comfortable with the word "better" based on the below. If there's some comparison issue that I'm failing to consider, please say, I certainly don't want to mislead myself.

Each of the below are straight and equal scans (Epson V700), no contrast adjustments at all. Both exposed back-to-back within a minute or two of each other, both received the same exposure based off the same shadow placement of Zone I 1/3 to Zone 1/2 at the area of the chair back cushion below the blanket near the corner where the arm and back cushion meet. Both highlight values fell the same at the same brightest sunlit spot on the curtain (Zone X 1/2), both films rated with respect to my tested speeds, both developed in SP445 tank. The only difference is TMX rated at EI40 in XTOL for N-2 (5min 15sec) and I rated TMX at EI32 in BTTB for N-2 (4min 30sec each bath). I am not inclined to believe that the difference shown is just 1/3 stop difference in speed rating. I grant that I may have some misinterpretation and am certainly open to correction. But if printing, the negative I'm choosing to work with in the enlarger is the BTTB negative.



XTOL Development / TMX EI40 / 5 min 15 sec / agitation 5sec every 30sec BTTB Development (7g s.m. bath B) / TMX EI32 / 4min 30sec each bath / A: agitation 5s/30s B: agitation 5s/60sec

 

[Chuck_P]

Chuck, I haven't read the whole thread, but are you developing emulsion-side-up or emulsion-side-down?

The latter can cause unevenness if there are features on the bottom of the tray that cause developer surge (don't ask me how I know ).

Best,

Doremus

Great point! I made for certain that the emulsion side was up in bath A for both negatives.............however Doremus, you give me pause to think if I also did so for bath B. On each occasion of moving the negative from A to B, it was very slippery and I fumbled a bit with each. Excellent point...........I said I have two more negatives to develop using the tray and I will make damn sure to pay attention to that.

 

[Bill Burk]

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.

 

[koraks]

I am not inclined to believe that the difference shown is just 1/3 stop difference in speed

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.