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
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
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?