Agitation - not the verbal kind :~)

Uranium Committee wrote:

I hope this suffices.



This seems to answer a lot of questions for me. I will read this
carefully and think a bit before my next darkroom session.

cheers, and thank you for the reply.

--
regards from ::

John Bartley
43 Norway Spruce Street
Stittsville, Ontario
Canada, K2S1P5

( If you slow down it takes longer
- does that apply to life also?)

John Bartley wrote:

Uranium Committee wrote:

I hope this suffices.



This seems to answer a lot of questions for me. I will read this
carefully and think a bit before my next darkroom session.

cheers, and thank you for the reply.

Not having wasted time on troll's lengthy post...

you would do better to ignore the troll. The answer is
simple and to the point: You should always agitate. You
always need to bring fresh solution to the emulsion,
whether in the developer, fix, hypoclear, whatever. The
only exception might be stop bath, since while it takes
20 to 30 seconds for diffusion to soak stop into the
emulsion and fully arrest development, about 30 seconds is
all that's needed. However, I agitate at least one cycle
even in stop bath whether film or prints. The exception is
when processing sheets to different contrast where film
is placed in stop and left until I'm finished developing
all the film.

Uranium Committee wrote:
Sheet film is best processed using hangers in tanks. Agitation
consists of pulling the hangers out of the solution and tipping them
all the way to one side (almost 90 degrees), then dipping the hanger
back into the solution, then repeating the process, tipping it to the
other.

The process is described in Kodak publications. Here's how to process
sheet film, from 'Negative Making for Professional Photographers'.

Don't care what Kodak or anyone elsesays, such a method will
result in uneven development and likely streaking. There are
tank methods that produce even development, but not about to
waste knowledge on trolls...

John Bartley wrote in message ...
Uranium Committee wrote:

What are you talking about? B&W paper in trays? Sheet film? What?



My apologies for the incomplete explanation in my question. I am
developing Ilford FP4+ 4" x 5" B&W film in trays (I think I did say
trays). I am also very new to this and still learning, so that should
suffice as a reason for me posting such a silly question.

I must say that your very short, curt reply to my question borders on
being very rude. You may want to work a bit on your "how to communicate
pleasantly with people" skills. Recently, out of some morbid curiosity,
I did some web searches on a guy named "Scarpitti", to see if he was as
much of a rude arrogant dweeb as the folks on this and other newgroups
say he is. From the "contributions" that he has made on the various
forums that I researched, I would say that they are right. Your posts
remind me a lot of his.

cheers

--
regards from ::

John Bartley
43 Norway Spruce Street
Stittsville, Ontario
Canada, K2S1P5

( If you slow down it takes longer
- does that apply to life also?)


Hi John,

His replies remind you of Mike Stoopiddi because he is none other than
the astoundingly idiotic Mr. Stoopiddi posting under a new name. Just
ignore the bum and remember that any advice you might get from him is
worth exactly what you paid for it.

Cheerz, Grunthos

Hey Scarpetti practical experience beats the hell out of
book learning,...why don't you get some...practical experience.

In article ,
(Uranium Committee) wrote:


You must realize how frustrating it is to want to help someone who
asks such a seemingly detailed question but omits the most important
details. It was therefore necessary to inquire what you were referring
to.
--
?
?
?
?
LOL

Hey Scarpetti practical experience beats the hell out of
book learning,...why don't you get some...practical experience.

In article ,
(Uranium Committee) wrote:


You must realize how frustrating it is to want to help someone who
asks such a seemingly detailed question but omits the most important
details. It was therefore necessary to inquire what you were referring
to.
--
?
?
?
?
LOL

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:55:39 -0600, Tom Phillips
wrote:

Not having wasted time on troll's lengthy post...

Ah ! I see there is still hope ! I've just about given up.
This group seems to be Hell bent to mudwrestle with morons.

I repeat my appeal, let him move along to another ego-feeding
group. Giving him your continued attentions is NOT correcting his
misinformation but rather simply providing the attention the jerk
craves.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:12:48 -0400, John Bartley
wrote:

This seems to answer a lot of questions for me. I will read this
carefully and think a bit before my next darkroom session.

cheers, and thank you for the reply.

Please don't pay attention to that troll, errrr, man behind
the curtain !


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

Tom Phillips wrote in message ...
John Bartley wrote:

Uranium Committee wrote:

I hope this suffices.



This seems to answer a lot of questions for me. I will read this
carefully and think a bit before my next darkroom session.

cheers, and thank you for the reply.

Not having wasted time on troll's lengthy post...

you would do better to ignore the troll. The answer is
simple and to the point: You should always agitate. You
always need to bring fresh solution to the emulsion,
whether in the developer, fix, hypoclear, whatever. The
only exception might be stop bath, since while it takes
20 to 30 seconds for diffusion to soak stop into the
emulsion and fully arrest development, about 30 seconds is
all that's needed. However, I agitate at least one cycle
even in stop bath whether film or prints. The exception is
when processing sheets to different contrast where film
is placed in stop and left until I'm finished developing
all the film.

Uranium Committee wrote:
Sheet film is best processed using hangers in tanks. Agitation
consists of pulling the hangers out of the solution and tipping them
all the way to one side (almost 90 degrees), then dipping the hanger
back into the solution, then repeating the process, tipping it to the
other.

The process is described in Kodak publications. Here's how to process
sheet film, from 'Negative Making for Professional Photographers'.

Don't care what Kodak or anyone elsesays, such a method will
result in uneven development and likely streaking.

No, it won't. The method described by Kodak is sound and tested. You
have no credibility whatsoever on this topic. I think Kodak does.

There are
tank methods that produce even development, but not about to
waste knowledge on trolls...

Tom Phillips wrote in message ...
John Bartley wrote:

Uranium Committee wrote:

I hope this suffices.



This seems to answer a lot of questions for me. I will read this
carefully and think a bit before my next darkroom session.

cheers, and thank you for the reply.

Not having wasted time on troll's lengthy post...

you would do better to ignore the troll. The answer is
simple and to the point: You should always agitate. You
always need to bring fresh solution to the emulsion,
whether in the developer, fix, hypoclear, whatever. The
only exception might be stop bath, since while it takes
20 to 30 seconds for diffusion to soak stop into the
emulsion and fully arrest development, about 30 seconds is
all that's needed. However, I agitate at least one cycle
even in stop bath whether film or prints. The exception is
when processing sheets to different contrast where film
is placed in stop and left until I'm finished developing
all the film.

Uranium Committee wrote:
Sheet film is best processed using hangers in tanks. Agitation
consists of pulling the hangers out of the solution and tipping them
all the way to one side (almost 90 degrees), then dipping the hanger
back into the solution, then repeating the process, tipping it to the
other.

The process is described in Kodak publications. Here's how to process
sheet film, from 'Negative Making for Professional Photographers'.

Don't care what Kodak or anyone elsesays, such a method will
result in uneven development and likely streaking.

No, it won't. The method described by Kodak is sound and tested. You
have no credibility whatsoever on this topic. I think Kodak does.

There are
tank methods that produce even development, but not about to
waste knowledge on trolls...

Not having wasted time on troll's lengthy post...


Ah ! I see there is still hope ! I've just about given up.
This group seems to be Hell bent to mudwrestle with morons.

I repeat my appeal, let him move along to another ego-feeding
group. Giving him your continued attentions is NOT correcting his
misinformation but rather simply providing the attention the jerk
craves.



John's right. Why don't we give his suggestion a try? As it is, this
forum has become close to useless. Maybe we should rename it
rec.photo.jerks.

-Peter