LF film processing question! Off Topic here but the LF people are here so here goes!

"Argon3" wrote in message
...
The adjacency effect is created when there's an interaction between areas
where
the molecules of the developer have done their thing and become exhausted
and
areas where the molecules haven't exhausted and are still going strong.

Brief discussion he

http://www.usask.ca/lists/alt-photo-...apr04/0266.htm

I changed my "small" and "medium" format processing technique in hopes of
achieving the adjacency effect. I process in dilute developer and use
twice
the volume that I would usually use...one roll of 35 in 16 oz. rather than
two
rolls...and only do three inversions of the tank every minute. I have
never
had any evidence of uneven developing and noted an increase in apparent
sharpness after I started using this technique. I process 4X5 in an hp
combi-plan tank and, frankly, haven't worked out all of the bugs in my
home
processing. (Fortunately, I live in Chicago and use Gamma labs for
"important"
stuff...they haven't failed me yet. I know that that may make me seem
like a
girlie-man to some on this group because I don't always soup my own
film...but
I don't change my own oil on the car, either, and I have been known to buy
a
loaf of bread at the store instead of bake my own.)

I really want to go over to a hanger and tanks system so that I can do
some
water bath development of higher contrast scenes and expect that I'll be
able
to adapt my smaller format technique to a tank and hanger system. Can't
see
using a rotary processor for B&W...always thought that it was primarilly
for
color work. Can't see how you could get the adjacency effect with a
rotary
processor because of the constant motion.

best

argon

"Argon3" wrote in message
...
[...]
I changed my "small" and "medium" format processing technique in hopes of
achieving the adjacency effect. I process in dilute developer and use
twice
the volume that I would usually use.

Good point, there. Volume-per-film is important, at least in my experience
for Rodinal - unless one wants something akin to "completion development" in
which the developer becomes, FAPP, exhausted. Stand developing in "just
enough" developer comes to mind in that regard.

[...] (Fortunately, I live in Chicago and use Gamma labs for "important"
stuff...they haven't failed me yet. [...]

Although it has been a long time, when I used Gamma they were the very best
B&W. Period. Great folks.

"Argon3" wrote in message
...
[...]
I changed my "small" and "medium" format processing technique in hopes of
achieving the adjacency effect. I process in dilute developer and use
twice
the volume that I would usually use.

Good point, there. Volume-per-film is important, at least in my experience
for Rodinal - unless one wants something akin to "completion development" in
which the developer becomes, FAPP, exhausted. Stand developing in "just
enough" developer comes to mind in that regard.

[...] (Fortunately, I live in Chicago and use Gamma labs for "important"
stuff...they haven't failed me yet. [...]

Although it has been a long time, when I used Gamma they were the very best
B&W. Period. Great folks.

"Argon3" wrote in message
...
[...]
I changed my "small" and "medium" format processing technique in hopes of
achieving the adjacency effect. I process in dilute developer and use
twice
the volume that I would usually use.

Good point, there. Volume-per-film is important, at least in my experience
for Rodinal - unless one wants something akin to "completion development" in
which the developer becomes, FAPP, exhausted. Stand developing in "just
enough" developer comes to mind in that regard.

[...] (Fortunately, I live in Chicago and use Gamma labs for "important"
stuff...they haven't failed me yet. [...]

Although it has been a long time, when I used Gamma they were the very best
B&W. Period. Great folks.

"Jos. Burke" wrote in message ...
I was browsing an article (at the bookstore-I didn't buy it but just
browsed!)) in Photo Techniques regarding Technical Pan sheet film in
particular (as well as Pyro vs. Rodinal vs. X-Tol) but my interest was the
reference to tray developed negatives being sharper than rotary type due to
edge effect in processing in the tray and lack of via rotary (Jobo). Anyone
here care to elaborate on their experience!!
My reason--I've always used Rotary Processing for my B&W 4x5, 8x10 and
11x14 negs.) and never tried tray processing! Have I missed something?
J Burke

NEVER develop conventional B&W film in a rotary machine such as a
Jobo. The adjacency effects (which ADD TO the impression of sharpness)
are destroyed. In addition, conventional films are designed for
RANDOM, GENTLE, INTERMITTENT, manual agitation, the kind one gets
using tanks or hangers or trays.

No, your images won't be 'blurry', but the enhancement won't be there.

"Jos. Burke" wrote in message ...
I was browsing an article (at the bookstore-I didn't buy it but just
browsed!)) in Photo Techniques regarding Technical Pan sheet film in
particular (as well as Pyro vs. Rodinal vs. X-Tol) but my interest was the
reference to tray developed negatives being sharper than rotary type due to
edge effect in processing in the tray and lack of via rotary (Jobo). Anyone
here care to elaborate on their experience!!
My reason--I've always used Rotary Processing for my B&W 4x5, 8x10 and
11x14 negs.) and never tried tray processing! Have I missed something?
J Burke

NEVER develop conventional B&W film in a rotary machine such as a
Jobo. The adjacency effects (which ADD TO the impression of sharpness)
are destroyed. In addition, conventional films are designed for
RANDOM, GENTLE, INTERMITTENT, manual agitation, the kind one gets
using tanks or hangers or trays.

No, your images won't be 'blurry', but the enhancement won't be there.

In article ,
(Uranium Committee) wrote:


NEVER develop conventional B&W film in a rotary machine such as a
Jobo. The adjacency effects (which ADD TO the impression of sharpness)
are destroyed. In addition, conventional films are designed for
RANDOM, GENTLE, INTERMITTENT, manual agitation, the kind one gets
using tanks or hangers or trays.

No, your images won't be 'blurry', but the enhancement won't be there.

YAWN.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article ,
(Uranium Committee) wrote:


NEVER develop conventional B&W film in a rotary machine such as a
Jobo. The adjacency effects (which ADD TO the impression of sharpness)
are destroyed. In addition, conventional films are designed for
RANDOM, GENTLE, INTERMITTENT, manual agitation, the kind one gets
using tanks or hangers or trays.

No, your images won't be 'blurry', but the enhancement won't be there.

YAWN.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

"Jos. Burke" wrote in message
.. .
I was browsing an article (at the bookstore-I didn't buy
it but just
browsed!)) in Photo Techniques regarding Technical Pan
sheet film in
particular (as well as Pyro vs. Rodinal vs. X-Tol) but my
interest was the
reference to tray developed negatives being sharper than
rotary type due to
edge effect in processing in the tray and lack of via
rotary (Jobo). Anyone
here care to elaborate on their experience!!
My reason--I've always used Rotary Processing for my B&W
4x5, 8x10 and
11x14 negs.) and never tried tray processing! Have I
missed something?
J Burke

Edge effects are due to a combination of factors.
Probably dilute Rodinal produces greater edge effects than
most other developers. The amount of agitation also has a
strong effect. Continuous agitation as produced in both drum
and tray processors tend to minimise it.
However, and this is a big however, edge/border effects
are fixed in scale. They are mainly visible on 35mm
negatives. Because of the low magnifaction of an 8x10
negative I doubt if edge/border/acutance effects will be
visible at all.
Better to use a developer which gives you reliable
results and good tonal rendition. I've used Rodinal, usually
at 1:30 or 1:50 for both drum and tray development of large
negagives with good results. I don't think Rodinal has any
advantage over D-76 or T-Max RS, both of which I have also
used. Xtol should also be fine.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA