Zsas, for myself, I can do any which old test/variation and learn something from it. That's because I'm essentially the baseline.
Originally Posted by zsas
The problem comes when I try to explain it to somebody else so that they can use the info. I can't be a good baseline for you unless you know all my quirks.
In the OP's test the salted films were less dense and he liked that, so what? Why would I care? If less density works better for him in a given type of shot great, but we can reduce density with reduced time or temp or more dilution or get a similar effect by using a softer paper grade. We haven't even scratched the surface, let alone answered the question of why I would want to use salt.
But that attitude that one can solve a riddle with a more mainstream route (ie agitation, Dilution, paper grade), doesn't mean that we shouldn't promote the OP from finding say a 5th varriable....
I am seeing many folks here who are Rodinal users (myself included) not too keen on the idea of using salted water....but we cant discourage the question from being raised and experiments done since we might find the exploration pointless. I thank many of those "this salt business is a dumb idea" have caused a Negative vibe from a great theory....just because there is a list of Apug-polarizing-terms (eg stand, pyrocat, lomo, etc) doesn't need we can't encourage thought...
I'm not suggesting that any one not experiment, I'm suggesting that we let the evidence guide us.
The one advantage the OP was hoping for didn't succeed.
The characteristic the OP liked about the salted process, doesn't require salt.
Those are the two take aways from his test.
We should not be so quick to shout NO to new or unusual approaches to working with analog processes. When I first tried Caffenol printing in 2007, I was told on this very forum that the idea was a complete waste of time. I suppose the votes are still out on that, but over the last six years, Caffenol has become my primary paper developer. It is the spirit of experimentation over these years which has allowed me to adjust my formula and process to raise the quality of my Caffenol work above random, haphazard results to controllable, consistent prints. I can and do make "traditional" silver prints on a regular basis, but it is my caffenol work which catches the eye of gallery owners and these are by far the prints in my portfolio which sell. When I first began working with this process it seemed that I was all alone; now there are dozens of fine printers pushing the process beyond anything I imagined when I first began. Had I listened to the nay-sayers when I first posed the question, I would never have experienced the great joy I have in this process.
Originally Posted by zsas
I've been thinking long and hard about the 1:100 Salt process. I like the intense contrast but as we know there's the lighter streak on the right.
My theory is that despite the salt being dissolved, over the 1 hour period there has been some form of seperation of the salt and water on a microscopic level, the salt thus settling to the bottom of the tank.
This may be confirmed by the 1:25 Salt not displaying the streak, due to the much shorter dev' time and the frequent agitation and therefore re-mixing of the Salt/Water/Rodinal solution?
I'm assuming the right hand side of the film was on the bottom, thus receiving the higher salt concentration, therefore producing a darker side to the neg' and as a result, a lighter positive image.
So I'm going to run the test again of the 1:100 Salt. This time dev' will still be 1 hour but with a 10 second agitation every 10 minutes.
Note: Yes there are other methods, developers or films to achieve the same or better result, but I like the look of the neg'. So what's the harm? It's my time, life, money etc . . .
Besides, I really fancy the idea of having a development technique named after me (or my 'net alias). :)
P.S. Maybe gravity has been the secret achilles heel of Stand Developing all this time. Seperation of Water and Developer with accumulation at the bottom of the tank equals uneven development ??
Well said Tom. I'm honored to have held some of your Caffenol prints and talk over your milestones in your process.
Ming Rider - If again you get a good result in round 2, I've still some HP5+ and Rodinal that Id be happy to run one roll thru your new "recipe"....just post your notes and whatnot. I've been burning up a lot of HP5+ and Rodinal/HC110/Diafine this summer in one of my plastic cameras, I don't mind tossin a roll towards your theory to help your pursuits. I like that you've a Leica and I a plastic P&S, seems we've the whole spectrum there:)
If this "salt bath" is a dead end so what, you've tried and shared with a comminity your work, which is a key virtue to happiness :)
Don't let the dissenters get ya down. So what if the salt Rodinal stand techniquue is a bit Rube Goldberg....we are all talking and that's gotta count for something. I'm enjoying this thread and I am one of those folks who does't like stand, it's never worked for me....though I respect your theory, flawed or not....lets see where the cards fall! We've got a lotta folks suggesting better test design models with ideas. Hope you bake in some of that, Michael, Ian, Poly. Etc. Nowhere but up! Let round 2 begin!
Originally Posted by zsas
Cheers for the support and if you don't mind sacrificing a roll, that's most welcome.
If I can nail a working negative, next will be a print.
Ming Rider - uneven development and/or streaking are often the result of insufficient or non-agitation. The reason is that as development proceeds, by-products of development accumulate. These by-product compounds come from both the developer and the film. Depending on the type of film and the composition of the developer, accumulated development by-products can have a variety of effects. For example in some cases these compounds slow down development locally. One of the functions of agitation is to remove these by-products from the emulsion surface. When agitation is insufficient the by-products will tend to simply accumulate and flow downward along the emulsion surface causing streaks of restrained development or broader areas of unevenness. Note this is just one simplified example to illustrate without getting into the specifics of certain developing agents etc. There are many variables. Different developers and films will respond in different ways to reduced or non-agitation. Some combinations work better than others.
Great intel Michael :)
Lets hope Ming's round two - "every 10min agitation model" combats the effects and the salt aids in warding off many of these genies that skunk the brew!
We shall see, Ming's signed up for a second round. Hope I can catch his YouTube in a week or so when it's ready. Like an old fashioned serial tv show or something :)
Go Ming Rider - may you win Apug's summer 2013 "don't give up award"!
Thanks for that Michael. That's certainly added to my growing understanding of what's going on in the Patterson Tank.
Originally Posted by Michael R 1974
When it comes to developing I've barely taken off let alone broken orbit. The great attraction of darkroom work for me is the limitless scope for knowledge and old and new ideas.