Quote Originally Posted by Francesco
As you are aware I have been doing real-scene comparisons of Pyrocat HD using BTZS style tubes with gentle versus minimal agitation. I have exposed like a banshee the last two weeks and processed and printed them. Except in one or two cases I cannot see a difference in print quality. What the experiment taught me was that all I needed to achieve the same level of sharpness and ooomph as a minimally agitated negative was to expose my negatives a half stop more and agitate them a little less gently..


I gather from your comments that you are backing away from earlier conclusions in which you reported distinctive differences between negatives developed with minimal agitation in comparison to those developed with gentle rotary agitation?

Curiously I am coming to the other conclusion. In examining my negatives I can see a very significant difference in apparent sharpness in negatives developed with extreme minimal agitation when compared to those developed with gentle rotary agitation. More importantly, the difference is not one of overall contrast since I am normalizing CI of my comparison negatives. Rather, the difference results form micro-contrast that apparently results from adjacency effects.

Does the greater apparent sharpness of the negative carry over to the print? My initial answer to that question is yes, with the qualification that some types of subject will illustrate the difference more than others. Subjects in my experience that tend to benefit most from adjacency effects are those that contain a lot of adjacent highlight and shadow areas, especially when fine detail is involved.

Is the difference worth the extra trouble in processing? Hard to say. I think the only way to know for sure is make the comparisons and evaluate the results.