Agitation. constant vs Intermittent. Opinions

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
sprocket-docket Regular Member • Posts: 289
Re: Agitation. constant vs Intermittent. Opinions

DrBormental wrote:

sprocket-docket wrote:

DrBormental wrote:

sprocket-docket wrote:

Also, if you're happy with the look of monobath then you shouldn't stop using it just because someone on the internet tells you to.

Agreed! But in his case, he's unhappy. And manufacturers instructions bear more weight than "someone on the internet".

Read the OP again.

No need. I already gave him the correct answer to all his troubles. This thread can now be closed. By monkeying with monobaths and labboxes he's only delaying the inevitable, which is switching to proper chemistry in a Paterson or JOBO.

Okay mister internet.

 sprocket-docket's gear list:sprocket-docket's gear list
Ricoh GR III Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF7 Pentax KP +2 more
just Tony
just Tony Veteran Member • Posts: 3,143
Re: Agitation. constant vs Intermittent. Opinions

DrBormental wrote:

Olympuse20 wrote:

Interesting. and thanks for the feedback. Excellent. developed both FP4 and HP5 in constant agitation and find both of these not to have the contrast as compared to TRI-X which has more contrast but I don't like the level of grain in TRI-X

You can expose and develop most films to a contrast level of your choice. Films by themselves do not "have contrast". Look at datasheets closely:

For example, Tri-X datasheet states: "The following starting-point recommendations are intended to produce a contrast index of 0.56", i.e. for different contrast index you'll need to adjust dev. time.

HP5 datasheet says the same thing: "adjust the recommended development times until the desired contrast level is obtained".

Sometimes manufacturers list different development times for different contrast index. You can develop HP5+ and Tri-X to look 100% identical. This is the primary reason why you should stop using monobath and switch to developer+fixer routine.

Films do inherently possess possible ranges of contrast. Kodak had several high contrast products: Technical Pan (which required a specialized developer to work down at normal contrast, and very specialized agitation at that), High Contrast Copy, and Kodalith. Kodalith was pretty darn binary.

The narrower the range of silver halide crystal sizes, the higher the contrast, in my understanding.

-- hide signature --

Wag more; bark less.

OP Olympuse20 Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: Agitation. constant vs Intermittent. Opinions

wow some great responses.  has been helpful.

The LabBox got me into developing my own Black & White with 120 film.  Very easy to use  no dark bag or room needed to load film on reel..works very well.

using the constant agitation method 300ml in tank at 80 for 3 mins.  I find the Ilford HP5 and FP4 to work well with this developer . Scanning with Canon R5 and 100mm Macro L.  Grain is very fine with both Ilfords almost not noticeable with the FP4 125  .  the Tri-X grain is very apparent with list lens.

Tri X is visually more contrasty looks  sharper when view at a normal distance but when zoomed in there is a loss in edge details.

Ilford HP5 much finer sharp edge details but doesn't have the same contrast look at normal view distance unless you pump up the Clarity in Lightroom  which visually gives the same look as Tri X  without effecting the visual grain as seen in Tri X

Going to try the intermittent method and see how the HP5 responds

heard the Ilford Delta 400 has the contrast of TRI X and the fine detail of FP4. going to use this film with intermittent agitation with the cinestill 96 its takes twice as long to process it 8 min at 75 with full tank 500ml  way to long to keep spinning that handle

Mamiya 645 pro. 80mm 2.8.  HP5. shot at 2.8  1/60  with bounce flash off ceiling handheld

 Olympuse20's gear list:Olympuse20's gear list
Leica Q Canon EOS R Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Canon 70-200 F2.8L III +3 more
Bob Janes
Bob Janes Veteran Member • Posts: 4,123
Re: Agitation. constant vs Intermittent. Opinions
2

DrBormental wrote:

sprocket-docket wrote:

DrBormental wrote:

sprocket-docket wrote:

Also, if you're happy with the look of monobath then you shouldn't stop using it just because someone on the internet tells you to.

Agreed! But in his case, he's unhappy. And manufacturers instructions bear more weight than "someone on the internet".

Read the OP again.

No need. I already gave him the correct answer to all his troubles. This thread can now be closed. By monkeying with monobaths and labboxes he's only delaying the inevitable, which is switching to proper chemistry in a Paterson or JOBO.

Your reply seems a little dismissive. The lab-box thingie seems rather expensive, but I don't see why it should be limited to use only with a monobath... and if the monobath does what is required - then why not? I didn't get the impression the OP is unhappy as much as wanting to expand his/her knowledge...

Personally I use a Patterson 4 and Rodinal or Ilford chemistry - but this is mainly on the basis of familiarity and cost... other stuff may work quite well and the lab-box seems aimed at those who don't like the idea of loading a reel in the dark by feel alone.

-- hide signature --

Save a life, become a stem-cell donor.
Hello to Jason Isaacs!
https://bobjanes.smugmug.com/PoTB/
Please respect a BY-NC-ND cc licence on all my public internet images

OP Olympuse20 Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: Agitation. constant vs Intermittent. Opinions
2

Remember I am just starting at this and have no issues eventually trying other chemistry  as I play with different films . Just trying to gain some insight from people doing this for awhile.  And have fun at it.

thanks for the feedback

 Olympuse20's gear list:Olympuse20's gear list
Leica Q Canon EOS R Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Canon 70-200 F2.8L III +3 more
Bob Janes
Bob Janes Veteran Member • Posts: 4,123
Re: Agitation. constant vs Intermittent. Opinions

Olympuse20 wrote:

Remember I am just starting at this and have no issues eventually trying other chemistry as I play with different films . Just trying to gain some insight from people doing this for awhile. And have fun at it.

thanks for the feedback

Remember that even if you are just starting out on processing you still have the knowledge you have gained from those few films.  The lab-box thing looks interesting - is it easy to use?

-- hide signature --

Save a life, become a stem-cell donor.
Hello to Jason Isaacs!
https://bobjanes.smugmug.com/PoTB/
Please respect a BY-NC-ND cc licence on all my public internet images

Bags27 Senior Member • Posts: 1,026
Re: Agitation. constant vs Intermittent. Opinions

Olympuse20 wrote:

Remember I am just starting at this and have no issues eventually trying other chemistry as I play with different films . Just trying to gain some insight from people doing this for awhile. And have fun at it.

thanks for the feedback

And thanks for posting this. The Lab-Box offers a way into film developing and I'm sure this discussion will benefit others, too. As I noted above, the development times and agitation program may differ for the Lab-Box when compared to development tanks, so it's an interest question that needs to be raised.

OP Olympuse20 Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: Agitation. constant vs Intermittent. Opinions
1

Yes very easy to use for 120 film ran 10 rolls thru it and not a single issue, all at my Kit sink in daylight.  do a pre rinse for temp control, developer is easy to add and remove then pop  the top and due the final rinse with the monobaths which I guess DF96 is, . , haven't done 35mm

 Olympuse20's gear list:Olympuse20's gear list
Leica Q Canon EOS R Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Canon 70-200 F2.8L III +3 more
sprocket-docket Regular Member • Posts: 289
Re: Agitation. constant vs Intermittent. Opinions

Your 120 results are certainly nicer than 35mm, which is to be expected. The example you posted is plenty sharp, it could maybe use a little more contrast or curves adjustment, which I usually prefer over clarity, which makes things look more digital and lessens the character of the film.

 sprocket-docket's gear list:sprocket-docket's gear list
Ricoh GR III Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF7 Pentax KP +2 more
OP Olympuse20 Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: Agitation. constant vs Intermittent. Opinions

thanks appreciate the feedback.  using Lightroom curve point to invert image.   Weird because everything works backwards then.   Can't get the black and white point to with Mac option to work well.    thinking of negative lab pro. but it looks like its more suited for color.   but maybe after the invert the curves and light adjustments will work straight forward

also update on developing purchased Kodak hc 110 and Ilford stop and fix. going to try this option. Wasn't happy with the intermittent option with full tank  in the labbox  negative were very inconsistent.  some were perfect others were very grainy  with the HP5.

for me better suited for constant with a monobath

anyway thanks

 Olympuse20's gear list:Olympuse20's gear list
Leica Q Canon EOS R Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Canon 70-200 F2.8L III +3 more
Bags27 Senior Member • Posts: 1,026
Re: Agitation. constant vs Intermittent. Opinions

Olympuse20 wrote:

thanks appreciate the feedback. using Lightroom curve point to invert image. Weird because everything works backwards then. Can't get the black and white point to with Mac option to work well. thinking of negative lab pro. but it looks like its more suited for color. but maybe after the invert the curves and light adjustments will work straight forward

also update on developing purchased Kodak hc 110 and Ilford stop and fix. going to try this option. Wasn't happy with the intermittent option with full tank in the labbox negative were very inconsistent. some were perfect others were very grainy with the HP5.

for me better suited for constant with a monobath

anyway thanks

Huge, huge shout-out for NLP for B&W also. I used to do all my development individually, inverting the curve in Camera Raw (much better, I found, than LR). Take me a half-hour to run through a roll. In NLP, set it and forget it. And then you have it for color also (the new version is fantastically better for color). I do everything in Photoshop, so it's just a little bit of a pain to move the pictures there afterward. Since you're going to stay in LR, it is sooooo worth the money.

just Tony
just Tony Veteran Member • Posts: 3,143
Re: Agitation. constant vs Intermittent. Opinions

Olympuse20 wrote:

thanks appreciate the feedback. using Lightroom curve point to invert image. Weird because everything works backwards then. Can't get the black and white point to with Mac option to work well. thinking of negative lab pro. but it looks like its more suited for color. but maybe after the invert the curves and light adjustments will work straight forward

also update on developing purchased Kodak hc 110 and Ilford stop and fix. going to try this option. Wasn't happy with the intermittent option with full tank in the labbox negative were very inconsistent. some were perfect others were very grainy with the HP5.

for me better suited for constant with a monobath

It's probably not a huge surprise that a reel-less device (which is an impression I have of the Lab Box without having had the benefit of getting my hands onto one) might have uneven layer-to-layer separation that would do no favors to attempting to achieve quiet time. Maybe there was slow movement as a result of relaxed tension. Worth trying, now we know, and thanks for the update.

Some old developing hardware was downright quirky in the name of unasked-for "convenience". I remember a Kodak tank system that had a fairly stiff plastic separator "tape" that was slightly wider than it's selected film format, that had ruffly edges like a lasagne noodle. The ruffles were supposed to create a free flowing gap for every location along the roll.

Well guess what, sometimes the bumps nested closely together but sometimes not - at varying positions along the roll. A friend of mine used that system while I was using the first Paterson plastic reel system. His negatives frequently had "sprocket marks" from the ruffles, with areas that were not touched by either developer or fixer, or maybe one but not the other. Super disappointing.

But I also have to report that the Paterson ratcheting reels (which are awesome for 35mm) were less consistent with 120 film. I sometimes got crescent marks from the buckling that occurred during the ratcheting.

-- hide signature --

Wag more; bark less.

Richie S Contributing Member • Posts: 545
Re: Agitation. constant vs Intermittent. Opinions

You can immerse all the film with the lab box. You just fill the thing up until it just emerges from the top. The only downside is that you can only do one film at a time.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads