Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
There's another thread all about this that I created recently, but I can tell you for sure that you're absolutely incorrect. The time it takes to exhaust the dev in a given area by sitting for one minute vs constantly being replenished having no exhaustion gives completely different edge details, highlight details, shadow details, and grain structure changes.

Anyway I don't want to argue about it, just wanted to clarify something for myself and have now done so. If you disagree with my above statement, that's fine, but we will have to agree to disagree. Please continue discussing Ansco130 without me
Stone, I did not mean to argue or cause any offence to you, and I sincerely apologise if you have felt offended by my statements. Nonetheless, I do not feel that "for sure
I am completely incorrect". Let me stress, that as long as we are *not* talking about stand development, but about normal inversion agitation processing, as recommended by manufacturers, that is a few good inversions every 30 sec, to no less than every 1 minute, then the effect you would get would be quite equivalent to that of rotary development, once you have shortened the duration of the development. As a plus, as I have pointed out, rotary would give you more consistency and less scope for error. By the way, I have discussed the matter of this difference between rotary vs inversion processing with John Sexton, a while ago, and he seemed to think along the same lines.

I would like to know what evidence you have to state that the results would be significantly different when we consider these two approaches. Have you, actually, done a side-by-side comparison?