What is bromide drag? Is it all bad or can I use it somehow? 

Of course, I recognize somebody in your comments, the guy in the gallery with his nose only inches away from the photo, analyzing the grain (this must be HP5), the bromide drag, making his guess on the photographic paper (is that an art print on Bütten or what?), suspecting what lens has been used through the type of vignetting in that wide angle shot, estimating the stand development time to one hour (at least) and finally, stepping back a few feet and discovering, well, the picture is very nice, too. Merry Christmas Ari, and come back with more of this stuff!

Ari, that’s very interesting. I don’t use Strand development much, but now I feel a mini experiment coming on! Thanks for sharing!

Of course, a film from your Hasselblad or Rolleiflex or other camera that transports the film vertically and not horizontally, would have the ghosts and auras behind or in front of the subjects, kind of walking along instead of hovering over or below. Wishing you a peaceful and contemplative 4th Advent Sunday!

That was fun. Thanks Ari. Very playful explanation of the topic. Love your videos, very informative, enjoyable.

Very interesting effects. Time to break out the Holga again!

Fascinating. Thank you.

Always interesting, Ari! Thank you for sharing your creativity.

Your video has intrigued me Ari. Now I need to take out my Holga negatives and look for the bromide drag!

That is very interesting. I have seen that “effect” before, but never knew it was in the development process nor did I know what it was called or what caused it. Thanks for the information!

Thanks for this idea. I had never considered using this as an intentional effect. Now if I can only remember where my images are relative to loading reels!

Thank you for sharing your knowledge and opinions! I really enjoy them all! Does this bromide drag exist with all developing chemicals identically? (in stand development), or is it more active, or less active in different developers?

That effect makes your subjects look as if they are being beamed up to the USS Enterprise.

Thanks Ari, very interesting.

Fairly interesting, indeed!

I always enjoy your videos but this one was way above me! Were you using HP5+ Film? It looked so grainy. I like grain, so that was not a complaint.

As Hagrid might say, you’re a wizard now Ari. 😉 🧙‍♀️ 👍

I had a similar problem developing film from my Rolleicord normally in a Rondinax 60. The continuous rotation caused these streaks on nearly every film I tried. Shame, as I liked the Rondinax. Back to the Paterson tank after that. Never thought to try to use it creatively, though. Thanks!

I liked the bromide streaks in some of the pictures and not as much in others. I liked it more when there was a single dominant streak and less when there were several. I don't know why.

Hi Ari, Hope you avoid an 'auto de fe' for your witchcraft and sorcery. Another exemplary explanation of an artefact left by "incorrect" processing that could be used to artistic advantage by those who understand it. Regards Paul Gough

When are we going to see you talk about Caffenol?

I don't develop my own film but this is very interesting. I wander if it can be controlled in development or is it like oil/water it just wanders where it wants?

Shoot a roll of hp5 in a holga pan today. I was on a mountain with very strong fog. I believe I could get a nice gradient into the fog/sky with bromide drag. Film needs to be upside down for that which means it has to be like it was in the camera. Optics are confusing XD

Fascinating. One more thing to keep in mind with roll film and stand development. I’m curious what effect it would have on sheet film if one were to tray develop using stand development. Any? Different?

Means.. Normal developing time + normal agitation = No bromide drag 😊

Ghosts of film photography - analoghosts 😜

I see two potential flaws in your reasoning about exposure/development vs. bromide. First, that's a Holga negative, so we might expect some optical vignetting (i.e. underexposed corners), and second, most of us don't pay much attention to the orientation of the film as we load it into the developing reel -- which would be critical to getting an intentional benefit from bromide drag on medium format negatives. We can *record* the orientation of the film as we take it out of the tank much more readily than we can control it as it goes into the tank -- and of course some cameras feed left to right, others right to left, yet others bottom to top or top to bottom (can't think of any examples of the last immediately, but can't say there are none). All of this affects what direction bromide from heavily exposed areas drags. Beyond that, I'm used to controlling what's light and dark with exposure, and sometimes how much lighter or darker by developing more or less -- but there isn't any actual *control* in letting chemistry decide based on how much of the film was exposed how heavily, where it will do how much work. I prefer to agitate "normally" (more or less, I've used as little as every 3rd minute in my compensating process), so everything on the film gets the same development; then I don't have to worry about what orientation the film had in the camera or has going into the tank -- or whether I have sprockets or not (because I *do* shoot 35 mm, mainly because of the compactness of the cameras relative to medium format). That said, there's something else you can do with high dilution developer: push without pushing. I've used Parodinal (homebrew Rodinal work-alike) at 1:50 dilution, developed to near twice the "normal" time for that dilution with a given film and agitate five inversions every third minute to get increased film speed (Rodinal derivatives usually lose 2/3 stop; I get up to a full stop increase instead) with normal contrast, i.e. no "pushed' look and "normal" (for Rodinal) grain. Fomapan 400 at EI 800 actually looks good in this process. ;)