On 1/23/2004 8:03 PM Jean-David Beyer spake thus:

Randy Stewart wrote:

"Tom Thackrey" wrote in message
om...

On 23-Jan-2004, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

Mechanical agitation that is invarying inevitably will be harder to
control than manual agitation using inversion in a standard tank. The
allure of mechanization is obvious, but I process exclusively by hand,
and never have uneven development.

Gee and I thought consistancy was the objective. I didn't realize that
varying agitation was part of the creative process. ;-

Gee Tom, I don't think that agistation methods, apart from some extremes,
have anything to do with "the creative process" either, but then mechanical
drum processing of your film doesn't guarantee "consistency" which is worth
achieving, as this thread as demonstrated.

Mr. Sccarpitti's style does [not] get very far with me, so I find it stange to
take his side on this point. However the inherent problems of constant
agistation of the type provided by Jobo,

What _are_ the _inherent problems_ of constant agitation? AFAIK, the
only problem is the contrast is higher, and that is completely
controlled by decreasing the development time or increasing the dilution
of the developer.

I'm guessing that the problems associated with constant, invariant agitation
in this device (Jobo) must have something to do with the interior geometry,
topology or hydrology of the gizmo, as I never have problems with my rotary
processor, which is the Beseler Unidrum (for 4x5 and 9x12). There must be
something inside the Jobo--some baffle or something else in the flow
stream--that causes standing-wave patterns, eddies if you will, that lead to
these "road ruts".


--
Focus: A very overrated feature.

- From Marcy Merrill's lexicon at Junk Store Cameras
(http://merrillphoto.com/JunkStoreCameras.htm)