Avoiding DBD (Dreaded Bromide Drag)

T

thronobulax

Very Active Poster
Registered User
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
1,395
I have tried doing Stand, Semistand, and Extreme Minimal Agitation in
a variety of ways and with various film suspension methods. As Sandy King
(and others) have pointed out this is "frought with danger".

Today I shot the exact same scene 4 times on the same film. The idea
is to develop each of these differently to see how the various techniques
modify the final negative.

So far, I have found that both the Yankee 4x5 tank and conventional
Kodak Hanger frames - depending on duration of stand and
agitation frequency - WILL show some level or another of bromide drag.

So, the first development test was true "Stand". 2min vigorous agitation
followed by 58min of standing for a total of 60 min process. BUT, this time,
I used a Kodak "frameless" film hanger like this one:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Kodak-Film...-4-x-5-8-x-10-vintage-389460-71-/353249854114

The idea here is to avoid the developer turbulence and trapping that occurs
with a frame around the film.

Negative is still wet and subject to further review, but it looks flawless.
 
Glad to hear that you may have derived at a technique that works for you. In my experience with these development techniques, I've found that the film/developer combo plays an important role; no idea why that is, other than some magical pixie dust! ;)
 
I'm sure that's true, but for now, I've been sticking with APX 100 and FP4+ in Pyrocat-HD.

I am getting strong suggestions from the minor deities of silver that the manner in which the negative is suspended in developer matters - a lot - when trying to avoid bromide drag. Anything with a frame or "holder" type structure seems to encourage the problem. I'd suggest (without rigor) that this is caused by turbulence and trapping at the frame edges.

There is a guy on the pure-silver list who was a career film designer at Kodak. He has made it plain that Kodak, at least, never considered still development in their film and developer designs. He argues strongly against it because of the byproducts such techniques produce. I stipulate that he is right but that getting the last 10hp out of a standard Ford engine will always require unorthodox methods.

What I am trying to figure out is just how "still" does something have to be to exhibit the claimed benefits and "is the juice worth the squeeze". In any case - per another thread - I am "playing my scales" to learn how to do this...
 
I wish you luck my friend! I'm not sure how the hanger and/or how the film is suspended in the developer is going to help since the issue is that the bromide reduces the reaction rate, but it's usually denser than the developer and will run down the face of the negative while it sits in the tank. It's a gravity thing. I would be very interested to hear what you find.
 
See file
 

Attachments

  • Agitation_test&comparemethods_PPJul62.pdf
    6.9 MB · Views: 11
Alan9940 said:
I wish you luck my friend! I'm not sure how the hanger and/or how the film is suspended in the developer is going to help since the issue is that the bromide reduces the reaction rate, but it's usually denser than the developer and will run down the face of the negative while it sits in the tank. It's a gravity thing. I would be very interested to hear what you find.
Click to expand...

My working hypothesis is that frame type film hangers trap the bromide and development products so they cannot "run down" the negative. It is also possible that frames prevent the initial agitation from fully infecting the film under their edges and/or create weird turbulent flow there. If this is correct (and it may be stratospherically wrong) a minimal contact type hanger leaves room for the initial agitation to fully posses the film and later for the badness to run away.

With only one exception, the examples of bromide drag my testing has revealed were ALL along the geometry the hanger frame, in some cases actually echoing the shape and construction of the hanger. The exception was an attempt to use a Kodak #4 hanger in a tray (to make inserting the negatives more convenient). In that case, I am 75% convinced the mess was caused by not having enough developer in the tray.

In any case, there are no bad results, only a reduction in number of ways to fail. Today's test will be semi-stand, and possibly conventional development, again with the minimal contact hanger.

I am resisting tray processing because it's hard to do well for multiple negatives. I am aware that various home-grown tube solutions exist as well. The thing is, that these are essential a minimal contact way of supporting the film in developer, so I've stuck with finding a hanger scheme that will work. We'll see.

P.S. If my reasoning here is correct, then I'll have to come up with an equivalent solution for 35mm and rollfilm.
 
This is interesting to me because I've used Pyrocat-HD with Fomapan 100 10x8 sheets in hangers using agitation cycles of 3 - 4 mins and I've never had bromide drag. I guess 3 - 4 mins between cycles just isn't long enough to be an issue.
 
My take has always been I've tried these techniques, and I've been on enough workshpos to realise there are better approachs.

Simplicity js look at John Blakemore's work, he makes AA, Minor Whitem etc look llike rank amatuers with his simple but amazong use of the zone System, purely easy testing and practice no Densitometers.

I've worked in photography professionally, been a photo/emulsion chemist, had dealings with Ilford supplying me emeulsion in the early 1980's, and the cfeated my own personal photographic identity.

What am I really say, simplify, choose your film (or films) and develooper and get to kow them but don't mess around looking for that magic bullet until you have a very high level of competence.

Ian
 
After 40 years of this stuff, I have pretty much dialed in development for APX 100, Tri-X, and Plus-X with PMK, DK-50, HC-110, and D-76. Because of its natural compensating effects, Pyrocat-HD is ideal to try something new (to me) - (Semi)Stand and EMA.

What I am seeing is really seductive - full film speed, control of highlights, and expanded middle tones - the holy grail. No developer alone could do this. It's developer plus finding the right "magic" as you put it to get all that to come together. In any case, it's fascinating.
 
I read the PDF. At the end, it says:
"The one inescapable conclusion we
arrived at is that no agitation will
invariably cause uneven development to
a greater or lesser degree, and is definitely
not recommended for any film under
any circumstances."
 
If you can see evidence of bromide drag on your negatives you have a clear and visible result indicating that you have NOT agitated your film enough. Finding what is ”enough" should not be difficult.
 
You have sorted out three films and four developers. What problem are you trying to solve? How are your prints unsatisfactory?

There seem to be two ways that contact with the hardware can cause uneven development. Firstly, it can shield the emulsion from the active chemicals. Secondly, with over-cautious agitation the developer is held in a narrow space and forms an enclosed river that's flowing faster than on the main surface of the film. One would give under- and the other over-development. It's not a problem I've had, although I'm really quite good at having problems.
I believe that true bromide drag is caused when the by-products of development flow downwards, emanating from areas of high negative density, causing visible streaks. Stand development would seem to provide ideal conditions for this. I did manage to get something similar, but sideways, in Paterson Orbital, mounted on its motor base. The developer had ricocheted off the inner corners, giving me plumes of extra development. So this was not gravity but inertia.

I never found it hard to get even development by shuffling in trays. It does need practice, of course. I've had to give it up because of skin sensitivity. An equally like explanation is that I am less fastidious or less observant.
 
David M said:
I believe that true bromide drag is caused when the by-products of development flow downwards, emanating from areas of high negative density, causing visible streaks. Stand development would seem to provide ideal conditions for this. I did manage to get something similar, but sideways, in Paterson Orbital, mounted on its motor base. The developer had ricocheted off the inner corners, giving me plumes of extra development. So this was not gravity but inertia.

I never found it hard to get even development by shuffling in trays. It does need practice, of course. I've had to give it up because of skin sensitivity. An equally like explanation is that I am less fastidious or less observant.
Click to expand...

This is my understanding, too. As for even development in trays... I developed sheet film for 15 years in open trays (shuffle method) and never had too many complaints with the negs. Then, in the mid-1990's I got a Jobo and Expert Drums, and finally learned what truly even development looked like. Other than special techniques of film development, I've run all my film on the Jobo for about 25 years.
 
David M said:
You have sorted out three films and four developers. What problem are you trying to solve? How are your prints unsatisfactory?

There seem to be two ways that contact with the hardware can cause uneven development. Firstly, it can shield the emulsion from the active chemicals. Secondly, with over-cautious agitation the developer is held in a narrow space and forms an enclosed river that's flowing faster than on the main surface of the film. One would give under- and the other over-development. It's not a problem I've had, although I'm really quite good at having problems.
I believe that true bromide drag is caused when the by-products of development flow downwards, emanating from areas of high negative density, causing visible streaks. Stand development would seem to provide ideal conditions for this. I did manage to get something similar, but sideways, in Paterson Orbital, mounted on its motor base. The developer had ricocheted off the inner corners, giving me plumes of extra development. So this was not gravity but inertia.

I never found it hard to get even development by shuffling in trays. It does need practice, of course. I've had to give it up because of skin sensitivity. An equally like explanation is that I am less fastidious or less observant.
Click to expand...

This started out as more of an intellectual inquiry than anything to try and explore:


  • Does (Semi)Stand offer anything that justifies the complexity and risk it entails?
  • How does it compare to EMA?
  • How does it compare to "regular" development?
  • Does one mid-point agitation make a difference?
  • Does the suspension mechanism make a difference in creating drag and other development artefacts?

Why? Because I've never done it and still development is an old tried and true method and is alleged to produce some mid tone expansion while compressing the higher tones while giving full film speed.
 
Alan9940 said:
This is my understanding, too. As for even development in trays... I developed sheet film for 15 years in open trays (shuffle method) and never had too many complaints with the negs. Then, in the mid-1990's I got a Jobo and Expert Drums, and finally learned what truly even development looked like. Other than special techniques of film development, I've run all my film on the Jobo for about 25 years.
Click to expand...

I think there is little question that there are other, better development techniques for "standard" development. But I am in search of a mechanism that will give me expanded mid-tones without destroying the highlights. I have a great many "correctly exposed and developed" negatives that - even if they print OK (that SBR gets mapped onto the paper without drama), they lack mid tone snap which is what give a print that ability to "sing".
 
David M said:
I read the PDF. At the end, it says:
"The one inescapable conclusion we
arrived at is that no agitation will
invariably cause uneven development to
a greater or lesser degree, and is definitely
not recommended for any film under
any circumstances."
Click to expand...

None of the models I am exploring have "no" agitation. All begin with vigorous 90-120 seconds of agitation, with a possible additional 15 sec agitation at the midpoint.
 
I have no axe to grind in this debate, but I can certainly sympathise with satisfying your curiosity. It's why I ask my own questions.
It does sound as though you might be working your way towards Steve Sherman's Power of Process approach. He claims greater midtone separation and greater flexibility in printing. Development – "designing the negative" – is only half his process and he has very specific methods of printing.
I'm afraid I don't know what he has to say about even development
 
David M said:
I have no axe to grind in this debate, but I can certainly sympathise with satisfying your curiosity. It's why I ask my own questions.
It does sound as though you might be working your way towards Steve Sherman's Power of Process approach. He claims greater midtone separation and greater flexibility in printing. Development – "designing the negative" – is only half his process and he has very specific methods of printing.
I'm afraid I don't know what he has to say about even development
Click to expand...

I have studied his publicly available work and been in direct contact with him. He is rumoured to be working a a new Unblinking Eye article on his techniques. Note that he very specifically has tuned his work for very low contrast lighting situations where a ULF negative gets contact printed on Azo. Still, his contributions in this area are significant and have been helpful in understanding the process more deeply.

I expect to make a summary of my findings available here and elsewhere soon. But here is the "elevator pitch":

- True stand (no midpoint agitation) can be made to work and produce incredible negatives
- It requires a vigorous initial agitation to fully kick off the development
- It is VERY sensitive to how the negative is suspended in solution
- Pyrocat-HD at 1.5:1:200 needs upwards of a full hour to properly render the negative and hit full speed
- Adding a single mid-point agitation appears to significantly increase overall negative development/density
- Extreme Minimal Agitation (3 short agitations between initial and end of development should be done with lower dilutions like 1.5:1:150
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top