Black developer!?

I have gone back to using 35mm film, in so doing I have resurrected an old and long running project of portraits. I have never been backward in coming forward to ask people I meet if I can take their picture. When asking my chosen subject I'm polite and friendly with a little charm. It is not often that I receive a straight rejection. I've noticed that it tends to stop people for a moment, at which point I tell them it's a film camera. It appears that this is a reason for them to say yes when chatting with them.

This new interest in lugging my Nikon F5 around with me has also reunited me with a long time favorite film Agfa APX 100. I cannot remember exactly the last time I used this film but I do know it was back in the days when I regularly used ether ID11 or PMK Pyro. I still have both these developers on the shelf in powder form. Which led to a bit of a  dilemma once the new roll of
APX was ready for developing. Should I make up a new batch of these old friends to keep the look of the negatives the same or go with the current ones???.

                                                        

I chose to go with RO9 partly because I wanted to see what sort of negative it would produce with the APX.                                                                      

Agfa APX  negatives developed with
RO9 special.

Before starting I made up a litre of fresh stop, fix and 300 mls of developer. I processed the film for the suggested thirteen minutes. The time counted down, as I poured out the developer, I was shocked to see this black liquid fill the measuring cylinder what the Hell! My first thought was that all the emulsion had come off, stupid I know but it always interests me what thoughts come into your head when things take you unaware. Needless to say that when I looked at the negs after they were fixed, all was OK. The negatives are nicely toned. I am not sure yet how grainy they are as Ro9 tend to be more grain than ID11.

It's just another colour to add to an increasing list of used developers.

How well will RO9 Special/ Studional perform a month on from dilution.

Nikkormat FT2 camera

 The developer has been diluted for two months, it's time to see if there has been any degradation of the solution over those months. It was not my intention to put the developer on the spot by using an out of date film and then to pick a make of film that I find difficult to get good results with but the die had been cast by the fact that a film had been loaded into my FT3 some time ago and then promptly forgotten about.

 

Developer  has changed colour

So what happened? To start with as I poured the developer into the graduate it was a gorgeous turquoise in colour. This is the second time I have used this batch of Studional so I have not a clue what this colour represents, it was clear when it was fresh. For all I know this could mean that it is dead and buried and the best thing to do is pour it away. RIP. I carried on anyway no point stopping now. I need to know what the colour represents. Good or bad?

 

This batch of developer had been diluted 1+15 but according to the data sheet it should be 1+30 for Fomapan 200 processed for 12 minutes plus 20% increase for the age, as the table indicates. Seeing as I have not taken any notice of the indications this will not work I throw caution completely to the wind and cut the development time in half and add 20% which I ignored developing for eight minutes. What the hell!

 

Contact print Fomapan 200.

So what did you think happened? Well! Yes, you are wrong. I am astounded these are some of the best negatives I have made with Fomapan 200 they are crisp and punchy or should I say they have a very good tonal separation, producing some rich blacks as the photographs that illustrate this post show.

8 X 10 print on  Ilford RC gloss

I should throw caution to the wind more often if the results are going to come good like this!

Using RO9 special/ Studional as it was intended.

Negatives are FP4+ and Fomapan 100

I have had the opportunity to use RO9s/Studional as it was intended. Multiple development from the same batch of developer (1 litre will do 12 films). This is a new departure for me, I prefer the single use type. I was a little apprehensive with this decision but gathered four 120 format films together so I could put to the test the assertion that you can develop any number of film on the same day it was diluted without having to add a compensation factor for each film involved, as you do with other developers. This was something I had not heard of before.

Made using a Zero multi format pinhole camera.

 The two makes of film were FP4+ and Fomapan 100 in both cases at box speed. It just so happens that the dilution for these films is 1- 25 with a big time difference - four minutes for the FP4+ and ten for the foma 100.

As mentioned before in another article the developer has a syrup consistency to it as you pour it out. At this point I must add a warning because of the concentrated nature of RO9 special/Studional you need to take precautions when pouring it out to make up the working solution. I have found out to my cost that if you get it on your hands it has a nasty bite. Something I have not experienced when mixing up other developers.

Made using Bronica SQAi.

 With the developer made up the first film to be treated was the FP4+. I was curious to know how well the short process time would work. This will be the quickest I have ever produced the latent image. The actual time suggested was three and half minutes - you need to be careful of short times when it comes to processing film, so I upped it four minutes. Not a lot I know but it could mean the difference between a reasonable set of images and a good set. I can report that it was a good set of negatives with good density across the whole film. The next film out of the processing tank was the Fomapan 100 processed at the suggested time of ten minutes. Again a good set of negatives in fact when held up against the FP4+ film they looked Identical in density. To cut this short the third and fourth films were the same in look as their predecessors. I was not expecting such good results.

Made using a Bronica SQAi.

  The method I used was made up of my trusted inversion procedure and a returning of what was left of the 600 mls of developer back to the storage bottle. Let me explain, when you pour the developer out of the tank there is a a certain amount of fluid lost to this action. It is only a small amount but can be enough to stop the top edge of the film being fully immersed. With this in mind I poured the developer back into the litre bottle and then poured it out again into the measuring cylinder before each film processed. I could have just topped up the difference. This is me erring on the side of caution. This action may have rejuvenated any depletion that had occurred but I suspect that this is not the case with this developer.

Idle time between two batches	Development lengthened by
few hours (but development none *on same day)	None *
1 – 3 days	5.00%
4 – 8 days	10.00%
1 – 2 weeks	15.00%
over 2 weeks	20.00%

 
Related posts:

RO9 special developer
One month on

Contaminated by wetting agent?

Developed in RO9 but it is not the developer.

When something unexpected happens while you are processing your negatives, it takes a bit of time to get your head round it. This happened while I was processing a number of rolls of film in R09 and using it's special brother.

 The problem has shown it's self by producing very blotchy negatives affecting two rolls of the six film developed. When this happens in a run of developing it is difficult to work out what circumstances are different enough to point a finger at.

Please bear in mind that the elimination process was written after I discovered the culprit.

Fomapan 100 negatives developed in RO9

Process of elimination:

1. So where to start? It is fortunate that the negatives involved were not the ones processed in the RO9 special. The RO9 developed one's were. This made the investigation more straight forward in that I have a better understanding of how RO9 works.
2. Was it the developer? It was made up seconds before it was used in the usual way.
3. What about Stop and Fix? Both were freshly made up minuets before use. So it cannot be one of the three main players? As they are all fresh.
4. OK what about the method? No difference there either I used my usual inversion sequence.
5. Processing tanks? Well I did press a tank into use that I have not used in a long time because of the quantity of film that needed to be developed.
6. Could that be the answer?
7. Did it affect one make of film in particular? No it did not, again this could have been a fortunate coincidence in that a roll of FP4+ and Fomapan 100 show the same affect. If it had only happened to one make it could have been construed as a manufacturing fault.
8. Water? It was fresh and clean and there had not been any notices to say there was a problem with the drinking water.
9. That leaves wetting agent? Hold on now that points to something I noticed when I was using PMK Pyro some years ago, I had a roll of film with the same sort of pattern. I put it down to the developer which I have

   

   Film FP4+ developed in PMK Pyro

   not used since. Thinking back to that time I had noticed that every time I opened the dev tank to pour out the developer there were a lot of bubbles in the top. That looked soapy and diminished with each step of the process which would suggest developer. I did speak to a number of other photographers at the time who suggested it was a developer fault. Although I stopped using the developer substituting it for ID11 and the problem disappeared was not convinced at the time. I changed how the kit was washed after each processing session. After a while I also stopped adding wetting agent to the tank. Using a different tank with it already added. Dunking the reel in by it's self and then soaking the reel in a bucket of water with a good resin afterwards.

Looking back I think when I pressed the other developing tank into use I mistakenly picked up the one I had been using for wetting agent. The resulting blotchy pattern is the result of its contamination.

This print was made from the same contaminated
Negatives. note no blotchy marks.

Conclusion:

Having eliminated all the other possibilities and no matter how silly it may sound the wetting agent is the culprit in this case. It has this time affected nearly all the frames on each film, when it happened some years ago (after checking the negatives) only certain frames showed signs of being blotchy. Which would indicate a weak contamination of the film process. This is only the second time I have had this problem in all the years I have been developing film. It just goes to show that something as innocuous as soap can cause so much trouble if it is not washed away conclusively after every processing session when added to the developing tank. My suggestion is to put wetting agent in a separate container and add the reel and film to it and not the other way round.

This picture shows that the blotches are prominent
In the sky but not the foreground.

When printing the affected negatives you cannot see the blotches when looking down the focus finder. Even though the contact prints show it quite clearly.

All the photographs that appear with this article were printed from the dodgy neg's. As I mentioned not all suffered the soapy demise. 

Light metering?

For years I wanted to obtain a Bronica and when I did it was a very happy day. The SQAi has done a lot of travelling over the years; in all sorts of weather and across many different terrains. It has let me down on a couple of occasions but I do not blame the camera, overall it has been a great bit of kit. It can be a pain literally on long treks as it is no light weight, even in its lightest configuration.

I have not always been happy with the camera. When I first had it I could not get used to the back to front image which was really frustrating at times. I was not happy with having to use a hand held light meter either. I know! why did I

purchase it in the first place? Boyhood dream of some day of owning one? It has taken sometime for its use to become second nature, but now that it has, my picture making has become more fluent.

Along the way, my light meter use has changed; with some experimenting, I have found that two readings is better than one over all, making white bland skies with monochrome film a thing of the past. I, like you, have tried to solve it by using black and white filters from yellow to red and graduated neutral density filters to name a few. All of which are now gathering dust some where. Really and truly all you need to do is take a second light reading. Of what? The brightest part of the scene which in most cases is the sky and the amount of time it takes to do this makes it a no brainer. In fact you could have taken several in the time it takes to read this.

An understanding of Ansel Adams zone system helps to produce better negatives.

The picture right give a rough idea on how it works.

I have metered skies that have been as much as six stops brighter. In these cases, would it mean shutting the lens down by three stops to allow for it? With a little bit of help from the zone system you may only need to allow one stop to improve the detail in the sky, this would lead to better detailed negatives. The extra information would lead to more easily produced photographs.

Yes you can bracket your exposures which is a good way of learning what works best for you but as a long term method it is a waste of film. The idea is to know what works so you can get it right first time.

On average I have found that the skies in my pictures are about two to three F numbers brighter, meaning a slight adjustment to the exposure before pressing the shutter will produce more detail in the sky on the processed negative, without making the main part of the image too dark. When it comes to printing, whether burning in or holding back, depends on which method you prefer to use in the darkroom. My working method leads me to add light (burn in) more often than take it away (hold back). The sky is not always the brightest part of the picture, I'm using it in this case because it is the most common complaint with developed negatives and to keep my explanation simple.

The following pictures show what happen when the sky is taken into account:

120 format Film FP4+, 6x6 negative,
 Developed in ID11 ,
Printed on Ilford multigrade RC gloss,
 Developed in Ilford multigrade.

This picture was metered for the piper. I did not take a second reading for the sky. I have been unable to burn the sky in hence the white out so to speak.

120 format film FP4+, 125 ISO, 6x6 negative
Developed in Ilford multigrade developer
printed on multigrade RC gloss.

With this picture I closed the aperture down by one F number to allow for the sky. For example from F.8 to F.11. As you can see the clouds have been picked out. With a bit of burning in (adding light) The sky would have more contrast therefore stand out.

120 format Fomapan 100 ISO, 6x6 negative,
Developed in RO9, Printed on Ilford multigrade RC
gloss, Developed in Moersch 6 Blue.

This is a badly scanned photograph but it does illustrate how well the clouds stand out.

It was a difficult scene to meter. The lighting was changing quickly. The light reading for the sky was indicating a difference of three F numbers in brightness more than the overall reading.  In the end I only shut the lens down by one F number. It is a straight print without any burning in.

Mature paper developer

Mature multigrade developer with FB paper.
Notice that it has a very subtle warmth to it.

I happened to mention to a group of dark artists that I use mature developer when printing my photographs. I was a little taken aback in that they did not understand what I was saying and possibly a number of you reading this will not either. Basically it means that I cut fresh developer with old and exhausted developer from other printing sessions. Not always from the same manufacturer. It is something I have done for years and have not given a second thought to.

The technical bit:

Starting with the papers light sensitive coating, they can be made from three materials Silver bromide, silver chloride and silver iodide. These are combined to make three types of coating chloride,bromide and chlorobromide. A number of other chemicals are also added to help things along. The way in which these chemicals are mixed together affects how the final print looks. Chloride rich papers are slower and warmer in tone. Where bromide predominates it leads to faster acting and colder toned papers. As a common rule the material named first has the most influence on the way the paper reacts. Bromide papers are the most light sensitive producing neutral or cold blue black tones.

Fresh multigrade developer with FB paper.
Although the picture is of a cold subject the tone
of the scene is cold as well.

The most commonly mixed materials found today are chlorobromide papers. They are a compromise between speed and colour. By adjusting the percentages of these chemicals the manufacturer can alter the tone from warm to cold and vary how sensitive to light they are. I have found that the new Kentmere RC papers to be very sensitive to light producing a cold look to the print. It's quick reaction to the developer means that full development of the picture can be achieved in less than thirty seconds when developed with fresh Ilford multigrade. Chlorobromide papers tend to tone better than Bromide. If you are going to use gold toner then a chloride rich paper is the better than bromide rich paper as it hardly responds.

This is was printed on Kentmere RC paper with
 fresh developer. It was fully developed in less than
thirty seconds.

Although the tone and tint of black and white papers are subtle it has a great affect on the viewers response. Neutral and cold tones tend to create a distance emotionally, a sense of looking in from the outside. While warm looking images draw the viewer in engaging them emotionally. There is a tendency to use these different tones for certain subjects, cold and neutral tones with landscapes, abstracts and modern architecture. With warm tones being used with subjects like portraits, still life and nostalgic pictures like churches and old barns. We maybe used to seeing them used in this way but there are no rules but those you make for yourself and even then they should not be set in stone. By learning to manipulate and control the tone of the paper you are printing with, opens up new ways of engaging the viewer in your vision of the world.

Printed on warmtone  FB paper using
a sepia tone developer. Again the warmth is
very subtle. when compared to the picture
above.

When talking about tone and colour of monochrome papers it is important to understand there is a difference between tone and tint. The tone of a paper is influenced by how much chloride or bromide there is in the coating of the paper. More chloride means slower warmer pictures.

Paper bases come in different colours/ tints such as off white, cream and variations on the theme. At one time warm tone papers could be made on a brilliant white base but these days the base paper has a tint to it, this allows the manufacturer to reduce the amount of chloride in the mix increasing the speed of the paper and still call it warmtone even though it is the tint we see. Tints are most noticeable in the high lights and tones in the shadows. Because the colour shifts are so subtle an untrained eye may not notice the difference until it is pointed out to them.

This is the most important bit when it comes to manipulating the tone of a paper. The main thing film and paper have in common is grain it maybe invisible to the eye but the bigger it is the blacker it appears. When the paper is placed in the developer the grain increases in size as it grows so it changes in colour. From a yellow to begin with it turns reddish, then brown and finally black which is the point of full development.

Printed on  Ilford multigrade FB paper.
 It has been developed in an almost exhausted developer
giving it a pinkish look.

This is valuable knowledge when it comes to changing the tone of a print for example: If you over expose your print more than the exposure your test strip suggests and then under develop the print by say a quarter of your usual development time this will help to increase the warmth of your picture. If you combine a warmtone developer and paper it will greatly increase the effect.

Now to the technical bit behind the mature developer. What happens; as the developer starts to exhaust, so it has trouble fully reducing the silver halides in the emulsion. This means the developer cannot turn the silver completely black therefore it leaves it in the warmer less processed state. You can induce this state by adding fresh developer to an old/ exhausted one which will leave your prints with a wonderful but subtle warmth. The old, new combination should only be used up to a dilution of one to one. Beyond this can lead to sudden exhaustion of the developer.

Four Film Positive results

Printing

Figure 1

Before any of my negatives see the enlargers negative carrier they all get contact printed, for me this is the first indication of how they may print when enlarged and for some the only time they become a positive. It also serves as a reference.

The contact prints for the Adox and Rollei show under development, to what extent will only become clear when the test strips are produced. The Fomapan 100 and the FP4+ show as well toned. In the case of Ilfords FP4+ it may be over developed.

Once more I step into the the red world of the darkroom and the smell of chemicals. Only there are none! The developer, stop and fix need to be mixed a fresh. This is due to a problem with the fix turning the slot of the Nova processor black. Still not completely sure why!

   

Figure 2

 I set the light boxes height on the enlarger so it will  generate a print 9”x 12” in size. This means the the 6x6  negatives are going to be brutally cropped; maybe that  should be less dramatic and say 'creatively cropped' to  fit  a landscape format but also serves to increase the  magnification.

 I have set the enlarging lens to F8. All the negatives  will be exposed at this setting, it allows a comparison  to be made as to how over or under developed they  maybe with each other. In the past when F8 is set I  find that it gives me a time in the region of 30+  seconds exposure time. Which for me is about average.

Figure 3

I have set grade two and a half to start with, if this proves to be to hard I'll drop it to two. The paper being used is silverproof matt limited grade paper. Being limited does not mean it has not got a full range of tones. It also provides a certain look to the prints that I like.

The first negatives to be exposed are the Fomapan 100. Looking down the focus finder the film  has a regular fine grain making it quite easy to get it pin sharp. The test strips for these negatives are indicating an exposure of twenty one seconds. The picture of the  woods (Fg1) was to hard for the 2.5 grade I set, so reduced it to 2 for the second exposure. Figure 2  the shadow of the tree reflected in the  puddle. Printed straight, was a little flat, so I printed it a second time at grade 2 but burnt in (added exposure)  to the areas around the puddle to lift the puddle area.

Figure 4

Figure 5

The next negatives to be exposed were from the Adox film. Looking down the focus finder to sharpen these negatives brought a smile  as it looked like someone had gone mad and splattered the grain on by flicking a brush. This may have been the result of under development. The test strips were also saying that the negatives were thin, suggesting an exposure of ten seconds, half that of the Fomapan. The two negatives from the Adox film are the complete opposites to each other. The fence post picture (Fg 3) had no detail I could see in the shadow when held up to the light. So when it was being exposed  I dodged the shadow area for a couple of second to stop it blacking right out.  Once it had dried I was surprised to see lots of detail. The two tree picture (Fg 4) was always going to be a landscape crop as there was to much foreground in the negative. It also looked the best picture negative wise.

Figure 6

The Rollei 400s was up next I had trouble picking two negatives that I could see enough of to print. These negatives were thinner than the Adox with some of the frames not showing at all. When looking  through the focus finder at the grain it revealed it to be patchy and shows up on the prints as white blotches. Lack of  proper development is evident maybe?. The picture of the rain on the window (Fg5) was a difficult print to get right.  Keeping the detail, what there is of it, of the door handle and leaf on the left. It was down to six seconds of exposure. The cat (Fg6) picture was the same six seconds but shows up the blotchy grain more. If I had shut the enlarging lens down to F11 or F16 I would have had more time to manipulate how the pictures looked by dodging and burning.

The last negatives to be worked on were the FP4+. Looking down the focus

Figure 7

finder it displayed a fine regular pattern I have come to expect from this film when developed in ID11. I had been looking forward to printing them but was thrown when the test strip revealed that a thirty second exposure was no where near enough. A further two tests revealed a time in the region of fifty seconds. You could say they were the best developed or over developed depending how you look at things. I printed an number of negatives from this film. I was really taken by the smooth tones of the pictures and the intensity of the sky. It was a bright, warm cloud less day. The prints show what a great morning it was at the bridge.  Figure seven showing the superstructure of the bridge gives a good indication as how good the sky was and Figure eight gives a good idea of how strong the sun was. Both pictures were printed at grade two but could quite easily have taken a softer grade.

Figure 8

Conclusion:

I am disappointed that the Rollei 400 was not developed correctly, I know it can produce some very smooth well toned negatives which would have lead to some great prints. As for Adox film, I am coming to the conclusion that we do not mix as this is the second time it has failed to present a good set of neg's. The Fomapan 100 classic was a surprise, if you are looking for a substitute for FP4+ then you will not go far wrong with this emulsion in my opinion. I have noticed that it is slightly more grainy than the FP4+ if you have to burn in the high lights heavily. I use both these films regularly now in rotation as their characteristics are almost identical.

Links to others from series in case you missed them.

Four film

Four film What developed

Local Darkroom.

120 format FP4+ developed in ID11
Printed on Kentmere VC
Develop in Ilford multigrade developer

I received an email from Harman technologies (Ilford products) recently about a new initiative that is to be launched worldwide.

The email was sent because I took part in a survey about darkroom use. It had a large response with fifteen thousand people taking part with over a thousand replies on the first day.

This is a summary of the statistics:

• 69% shot film weekly
• 35% did not use a darkroom but were using black and white film.
• 35% without a darkroom were asked would they like access to a local darkroom 78% of them said yes and of those 32% would like some training.
• 65% said they had access to darkroom facilities provided by work and community with privately owned being the majority.

A second survey for privately owned darkrooms was done with thirteen hundred responses being received. They were asked if they would be willing to share their darkroom and 56% said yes.

With that encouraging result Harman have set up a new free online community www.localdarkroom.com They have already invited tutors and community/ public darkrooms to list themselves on the site. There is also a section for those that have a private darkroom who are willing to share their private space. You will need to be a member of the community to access any of these services, whether training or darkroom in the local area, as there has to be some sort of vetting when allowing people you do not know into your home. For FAQs and more information visit the web site.

I hope this venture is a success and praise Harman for their initiative. But from experience I note that there can be a big difference between what people say on a form and then taking part.

On a personal note I would have liked to open my darkroom to other enthusiasts but it is not practical at the present time. 

Ye old R3

Out of date R3

Over recent times I have had the tidying up bug  including a good rummage round in my film cupboard where I discovered four rolls of film. Nothing remarkable in that, I hear you say! However what I came across were two rolls of Rollie retro 100 and two rolls of R3, tucked away in a corner! I know! very out of date unless your name is Mitch in which case they are reaching maturity. It is strange how things come together. I recently posted a very grainy picture of a surfer dramatically falling off his board to illustrate how grainy things can get if you do not process your negs correctly. The film used to take the picture is the late lamented Rollie R3. If I had used the film with a fine grain developer the 1600 ISO negatives would have been a lot smoother.

R3 used at 400 ISO

When available it was advertised as a variable ISO film ranging from 50 to 3200 The idea of a ultra fast film is what encouraged me to purchase some. It took a little while for me to find a suitable subject to test it out on. By chance I was walking along the coastal footpath into Croyde Bay with an empty camera.  So I loaded the R3 set 1600 ISO and spent an hour or so taking pictures of surfers as the sun went down.

R3 used at 400 ISO

I cannot believe that it was 2009 that I last used the R3 and then at 400 ISO, having learnt my lesson previously, I used a fine grain developer. You could not of hoped for a finer set of negatives, they were that smooth it looked as though they had been sprayed on to the film back.

I don't use fast films a lot as I like bright sunny days with lots of contrast. It just so happens I was recently given the imaging warehouses catalogue and while thumbing through it I noticed they stocked Rollie 400s, which got me thinking  how would it compare to the old R3? There is only one way to find out!

On a personal note.

120 negatives.

Welcome to the blog and thank you to all who have taken the time to read it. First of all, Photo Mitch was a phrase that my friends used to shout at me whenever they wanted their picture taken. In those days I was the only one in the group who went out with a half decent camera and interested enough in photography to do so. Now a days everyone is a budding David Bailey. Who is he?

My Dad introduced me to the wonders of Photography and encouraged me with a 120 format Instamatic range finder, this gave me the freedom to take pictures whenever. It was not until my late teens that I was in a position to buy my first SLR camera that turned out to be a Nikon, this improved my picture-taking skills to a level that allowed me to take on commissions. After some years in the doldrums, my wife encouraged me to take a C&G photography course, which re-ignited my interest for photography.

Featured in Black and white
photography magazine

My photography has been influenced over the years by the art world and artists like Dali, Matisse, Picasso, Andy Warhol. As well as photographers like Fox Talbot for his early pictures, William Egglestone for his get it right in one frame of mind, David Bailey for his belligerence,  Paul Fusco, Henri Cartier Bresson for watching and waiting, Roger Hicks for his no nonsense approach and the architecture of the Art Deco movement for its bold lines. Which makes for a bit of an eccentric attitude to picture making. 

Digital

Having been introduced to film at a very young age I still take a large number of pictures in black and white. This does not mean I shun digital, I use it a lot, it's another format that allows me to express my view of the world. 


I hope what you find posted here interesting and helpful, I know it talks about out dated methods that a lot of people feel should be dead and buried; but it is the foundation to the digital age, with many aspects in common.

This picture was taken on
Zero pinhole camera.

From a personal point of view, blog posts that run to thousands of words make my heart sink no matter how interesting or well written they maybe. I believe that posts should be snippets of information; with this in mind my posts will be shortish if that is possible. Subjects that need more explanation will be done over a series of posts.

The time of year will influence my post rate. Put another way, if the suns out so will I.