Reducing the ph of any developer will reduce its rate of development, and consequently reduce the rate of agitation needed somewhat, but agitation of some sort is definitely needed with roll film in tanks. There is no getting around the need for agitation, period. You cannot dispense with agitation entirely.
Mike, pay attention: One minute intial agitation. After that, play checkers, have snack, or read a good book on photo chemistry, but agitation is
not required with GSD-1. Your insistence to the contrary is meaningless to me, because I've processed too many rolls of film in exactly the way I describe, without defects of any kind. Are you suggesting I'm achieving the impossible, or is it more likely that you're relying for your opinion on sources that deal in generalities?
Jim,
Agitation can affect contrast, both macro and micro, over a range between stand development and continuous agitation. There is a frequency of agitation beyond which increased agitation has no affect on contrast, and that threshold is very low. In other words, there will be no difference in the contrast of a neg developed with very gentle continuous agitation, and one developed with vigorous continuous agitation, unless the developer in use is prone to aerial oxidation, in which case vigorous agitation could reduce contrast. Stand development is an extreme form of reduced agitation, and is not compatible with standard MQ/PQ developers, which are superadditive and produce developer byproducts that lead to bromide streaking, and mottling. GSD-1 is formulated specifically for stand development, and due to the working properties of glycin, doesn't share the same agitation requirements that MQ/PQ developers do. Between stand development and continuous agitation, there is a useful range of agitation that can be exploited for effect.
The greatest benefit of reduced agitation over standard intermittent agitation is the enhancement of local contrast, especially in the midtones, while retaining normal overall contrast for easy printing. If your goal is to acheive a compensating effect, as in water bath development, there are other techniques that might be more useful, and practical, such as two-bath development. Modern emulsions are much thinner than those traditionally used with intermittent water bath development (don't let the advertising hype confuse you; all modern emulsions are thin), and the amount of developer that can be saturated by them is far less, making water bath development impractical. I've tried it with a special metol developer, and couldn't identify any measurable effect, but if you decide to give it a try, and find something useful, I hope you'll let us know.
90% of my film development is done with 510-Pyro, which can be used with agitation ranging from semi-stand in tubes, to continuous rotary in automated processors. I play with developrs like GSD-1 to see if I can make them work, contrary to the opinions of those who haven't tried. I've formulated a developer for films and papers (DeFehr Rapid Universal) that develops most films to normal contrast in around 60 seconds, which many people told me was either impossible, due to the saturation time requirement of the film, and induction period of the developer, or impractical due to uneven development with such short times, and/or the large grain that would inevitably result. Those critics were wrong on all counts, but continue to quote conventional wisdom to support their claims, despite my actual results to the contrary. I've formulated a very simple catechol/ascorbate developer (Hypercat) that some "experts" claim suffers from infectious development, reduced film speed and irratic contrast behavior, none of which is true. You can find the formula here at Digital Truth, and try it for yourself. My point is there is often a disconnect between theory and practice, and when there is, reproducible results trump theory, because the theory is usually given as a generality, with exceptions.
Enjoy your retirement, and never hesitate to indulge your curiosity, even in the face of theoretical criticism.
Jay