You need to be using a lot of sheet film or other films to justify using deep tanks and when you do it needs to be done properly.
Also don't use tap water if you want good fine grain unless you regulate the temperature carefully, you need to keep all baths including washing within +/- 1ºC. I'd take anything said above as poor practice, and results show this.
Ian
Much like my running water stop bath, your wisdom continues to overflow ...
> Also don't use tap water if you want good fine grain
That's both imaginary chemistry and absurd on its face. Grain is a function of the film structure and the developer (and, in the extreme, temperature). Distilled water is valuable as a way to eliminate
variability, not grain. Kodak, Ilford
et al long ago formulated their developers and films on the assumption of people using ordinary tap water. Using distilled (which I do without fail for developer, fixer, and toner) merely provides consistency, not grain reduction. (I will stipulate that if you have really bad/strange water, it could, affect grain. But this is an edge condition and not the norm that Kodak and others used as their guide. In fact, they never even recommend distilled water in their mixing instructions.)
> ou need to keep all baths including washing within +/- 1ºC
That's easily enough done in my darkroom but it's questionable whether that tight a control is needed for monochrome. There was this very long winded stuff that came out some years ago about microreticulation but it was about as valuable as the Beyond The Zone System bunch who thought 0.1 f/stop matching was useful. It is certainly true that avoiding wide temperature swings is important to avoid actual visible reticulation, hence I keep everything within about 2 degrees F. What is far more important is to not work too hot. 20C is a pretty good target temperature. If we work a lot hotter than this, we risk very soft emulsions, scratching and other surface damage. I am fortunate that my darkroom quiesces at 20C +- a couple degrees year around and water temp is easily matched to this.
> I'd take anything said above as poor practice, and results show this.
We continue to wait with great anticipation for you to unveil your standard-setting images that put me (and all the rest of us) to shame. I've investigated the stuff you've made available on line and - outside your commercial work, which is quite workman like - it's ... how can I say this politely ... unremarkable to the point of bland - well, at least to me. One man's bland is another man's Carravagio.
You see, I have said all along that we all see things differently, so it's awful hard to call out someone else's work because you don't see the same things the same way. But this hasn't deterred you in the slightest has it? So far, you've been long and loud on critique, but missing-in-action when it comes to actually showing us these better images you make. As always, I welcome learning from my betters, so do please show us that "better" standard to which you hew ... I cannot wait.
In the mean time, keep stomping on beginner images and telling well intentioned and earnest beginners that their images aren't sharp or that they have too much sky. Nothing like some old grouch to take all the fun out of it...
