View Single Post
  #27  
Old January 25th 04, 06:33 AM
Michael Scarpitti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Road ruts with Jobo

"Randy Stewart" wrote in message ...
"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. ;-

--
Tom Thackrey


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 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, or which I dealt with for more
than a decade using a similar processer, are well documented and discussed
in The Film Developing Cookbook. Hand done, intermitant agitation is not as
convenient as a drum processor, but it does avoid the problems discussed in
this thread, and should yield marginally better negatives for most people.
It's just a question of whether your drum processor result are okay for you
and you put a premium on the convenience, in which case, keep on "rolling".

Randy Stewart




Constant agitation in a Jobo-type machine suppresses adjacency
effects, increases contrast, and is not as even as hand processing
using inversion and rotation.