I would have two concerns with this device: 1) Agitation is constant. Constant agitation is generally not a good idea but, if you do it, b&w development times will have to be reduced from "normal" times or contrast will be too high. Keep in mind that this device was intended for prints, not film. 2) Processing only four sheets of 4x5" film is a serious limitation.
Actually, this seems like the type of gimmick that sounds good but which is not practical. Tray processing is better, IMO.
I would have two concerns with this device: 1) Agitation is constant. Constant agitation is generally not a good idea but, if you do it, b&w development times will have to be reduced from "normal" times or contrast will be too high. Keep in mind that this device was intended for prints, not film. 2) Processing only four sheets of 4x5" film is a serious limitation.
Actually, this seems like the type of gimmick that sounds good but which is not practical. Tray processing is better, IMO.
ZoneIII 1 year ago
@ZoneIII BTW, thanks for posting this video. It's interesting to see.
ZoneIII 1 year ago
@ZoneIII I have too found that in my use this does not give even result. The plain old tray development seems to be best method so far.
kurotenusagi 1 year ago
@kurotenusagi I would add that the result is consistent between developments, but edge density tends to build up too much.
kurotenusagi 1 year ago