Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,469   Posts: 1,570,882   Online: 1077
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 35 of 35
  1. #31
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggywag View Post
    I've have the Jobo myself, one way rotation is for film, 2-way is for paper, I found out after calling Jobo USA. This is especially important with roll film or you can experience the film to unroll the reels during the development. I also believe the agitation becomes to harsh with the two way option for film.
    ???? In, lo, these many moons of using the CPP2 in developing 120 and 35mm film, with "2-way" rotation (two revolutions clockwise followed by two counterclockwise), I have NEVER had film of any sort "unwind" from the reels - not even close!!!

    As far as the effects of "continuous agitation" ...

    In my (wound and scar obtained) OPINION, nothing affects the quality of film development less than various patterns of agitation.

    I have heard of so many, from simple and reasonable ... "Invert the tank once every 30 seconds", to the truly bizarre: "Tie the tank to the left rear leg of your favorite mount in the next camel race.."
    Unless the agitation is truly unusual -- a danger to the survival of the bench - or "stand" (read "very little" - usually very good!!) I haven't seen anything wrth worrying about.

    I've read the idea of "reducing development time - due to continuous agitation, by 10% - 20%."
    In "wringing out" film, one starts with available information, and tweaks ISO film speed, developing time/ temperature (even types and brands of developers) to settle on "what works for me". Over these many years, I've usually (very) come CLOSE to "BOX" speed and manufacturer recommended time/ temperature - whether or not using the JOBO and continuous agitation.

    There! I realize that some (possibly "many"?) will view this as blasphemy of the first water, and will relish the opportunity to attack me as some sort of vile heretic, bent on corrupting the delicate minds of those "emerging photographers" here.
    Not so. I would simply suggest that one spends their time and energy investigating other avenues that will prove to be far more interesting.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  2. #32
    jp80874's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Bath, OH 44210 USA
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,441
    Images
    6
    [QUOTE=Ed Sukach;782907 I realize that some (possibly "many"?) will view this as blasphemy of the first water, and will relish the opportunity to attack me as some sort of vile heretic, bent on corrupting the delicate minds of those "emerging photographers" here..[/QUOTE]

    Ed,

    Don't hold back. Say what you really mean.

    I'm with you. I have been meshing gears on this thing for four years now and in several film formats from 120mm to 7x17 inches and not had a problem with two way rotation and film.

    John

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,160
    ditto with me John....the only reason I brought the entire bit up about one vs two way rotation is because of that little gear that can change the rotation, and a few things I have read. So, I asked the question. Shoot me Ed! :}

  4. #34
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    I'm not going to slam anyone. There are **many** concepts flying around in photography that are on the same level --- actually LOWER - than myths, without any sort of support, either from rational thought or experience.
    An example would be: "One MUST use the middle range (sometimes, "wide open") of enlarging lens apertures to obtain maximum quality. As one stops down, quality decreases significantly - DUE TO DIFFRACTION!!!"

    A half - maybe 1/4 truth. Quality may be minimally affected - but NOT because of diffraction. The optimum aperture will be established by design requirements, and "quality" will be distributed within certain limits from that center. An absolute LIMIT would be the aperture diameter that reaches a "diffraction limit" - and lens apertures will be limited so that they cannot be reduced to that diameter. If your lens - camera or enlarger - CAN be used at any f/stop, chances are very great that it will be FINE.

    --- I'll have to apologize. This really is NOT the place to discuss "Myths" and half/ quarter truths/ plain lies.
    Some time ago, I started a thread called "f/63", with that purpose in mind... "Stuff you HAD to do/ believe, that just was not true, and did not deserve intense worrying.

    When I find time, I will try to resurrect that thread.
    .
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,160
    Ed....that would be a great thread. I look forward to reading the information. Please let me know, if possible, when f63 is back.

    The late Phil Davis also found it interesting to challenge, and then expose, other myths regarding the photographic process.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin