Sometimes a pictures tells more then 1000 words is it not possible to show your setup on a picture because I did not fully get it, because english is not my motherlanguage.
You just could use normal cheap paper or misused film for it!
Originally Posted by JohnArs
OK, I am attaching a couple of jpegs. Hope this explains the concept of the light safe developing tray. As you can see, once the top slide is inserted the inside of the box where the tubes are is light tight. To agitate, I simply turn off the lights, pull out the slide and move the tubes around as I want. With this particular box I can do four 7X17 sheets at a time, using either normal, minimal, extreme minimal or stand agitation.
The box was made by cutting the wood to the right size and gluing everything together with epoxy glue, then the outside and inside was coated with epoxy paint.
I had this problem on the first ABS "tube" that I made for 4x5. The scratches were caused by the ABS after I had sanded the cut ends expressly for the purpose of eliminating scratches on the back side of the film. The sanding (not fine enough I guess) created sharp ridges on the inside of the tube. I solved the problem by NOT sanding at the cut ends, but rather by slightly bevelling the insides of the cut ends with a sharp knife. The inside of the tube itself is smooth as glass and causes no trouble.
Originally Posted by medform-norm
I picked up some 0.020" thick clear plastic (mylar) from a hobby shop (it was cheap) and cut it approx 1" larger than the negatives (5x6). I then put the negative inside the mylar and slide the pair in together. The mylar is on the back side of the film so there's no interfering with development and when it's time to pull the negative out, you can grab the mylar instead of the negative with a pair of tweezers (or whatever) and they pull out together. The added benefit is that the mylar helps to prevent "back-side" scratches also.
Once the process is done, with what kind of tool do you remove the wet sheet/paper from the tube? I can imagine the paper/film stick to the inside wall of the tube. Can you pry it loose easily without damaging the film/paper?
I am not sure. According to most sources pyrogallol needs a lot of agitation to avoid staining. On the other hand Steve Sherman, in the article on semi-stand development published in View Camera, mentioned that he had used the semi-stand type of development with very dilute solutions of PMK.
Originally Posted by George Collier
Sandy, great idea, allows multiple sheets of film to be developed using reduced agitation. Each tube could be uniquely marked so as to allow for different development times within the one large container. Adjusting each negative's development is paramount to my way of thinking.
Initially, I did fool around with PMK and Semi-Stand, noticed a build up of stain which is what caused me to turn to Pyrocat HD. I was using equal parts of A & B with PMK which I believe caused the increase in stain. The A & B ratio could be altered to combat the build up of stain but when mixing your own Pyrocat it is so inexpensive why reinvent the wheel.
There is one X factor I don't see getting discussed too much when talking about the Semi-Stand or Minimal Agitation technique.
I believe the desired adjacency effect is a function of the light you shoot in, the inherent contrast of the original scene and the contrast index required by the final positive process, not to mention our own likes and dislikes. Therefore, I believe while the process in general provides impressive results because of increased adjacency effects to truly dial in a negative to ones own likes and materials requires specfic testing and adjusting to elevate ones work to the next level. The big reason I shoot two negatives exposed exactly the same way is it allows for minor development adjustments with the second negative. I tend to shoot in low and soft light conditions which can regularly push exposure times well into the minutes and sometimes hours. For me, traveling far from home, if a scene is worthy of an hour exposure, it is certainly worthy of a back up negative.
Sandy King has proven to be a wealth of knowledge for everyone here, myself included. That said, I would encourage everyone to use Sandy's starting times as just that, start there but keep pushing things until you arrive at the exact look and feel you want.
Strive for perfection, it's all in the lighting!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
For cleaning burrs from the PVC tubes, use acetone. It dissolves them leaving a smooth edge.
I have been developing using minimal agitation with open ended tubes in buckets. I experienced increased density on the ends of the negatives - the top and bottom as they stood in the tubes. I believe it's because with the tubes standing on end, there was more agitation at the open ends than closer to the middle.
It would seem this new method would avoid that problem. I'll give it a try.
Can one expect the same results if the tubes be "stood up" rather than laid down? I want to set this up for my newly acquired 7x17 but my sink space is rather limited and small area required for vertical processing would be more practical.
I've finally had a chance to try this method - I think I like it a lot. Laying the tubes down in trays allows me to easily keep up with which is which, so I last night I developed SBR10, SBR8, and SBR7 negatives all together - removing each at the appropriate time. With my previous method of standing the tubes up in a bucket, I was never able to be sure which tube was which.
I also see no evidence of the other problem I had with the tubes standing on end - the increased density at the edges of the negatives closest to the open ends. These negatives appear to be evenly developed all the way across.
I used JandC400, 2x3, in 1 1/2" tubes, Pyrocat HD 1:1:150.
Daniel, the "stood up" method worked fine for me with the exception that some negatives had increased density at the open ends. Sandy tells me he does not have this problem, but I think he avoids it by inverting the tubes during agitation. I never did this - only agitating them in one position. He can, of course, explain his method better than I.
The 4x5 tubes I made are cut into 6" sections of 1 1/2" abs, then the other parts are added. This requires a bit more developer (240ml in my case), but the only problem I've had was not pushing the film far enough into the tube, my fault.
With PMK I wouldn't use a minimal agitation system and expect decent results.Even if the film is completely submerged, the 15 second agitation rule comes into play and there will be uneven stain creeping across the surface. You may get away with it in a shot with plenty of textures, but with a clear blue sky, well.... tim
I assume that with minimal agitation there has to be enough developer in the tray to cover the tubes completely ? Stop Bath and Fixer should be no problem, since you are turning the tubes during processing. Is there a difference in volume between the chemicals in these steps ?
Photos are made four inches behind the camera